Why should I care about Michael Flynn?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by wegs, May 14, 2020.

  1. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    I had forgotten about the withheld evidence. Thanks for that. Lying to the FISA court was bad enough, but they literally denied him due process by neglecting their duty to provide exculpatory disclosure.


    Hey, whaddaya know, you're right! Thanks for the correction. I'm sure you'll never let me forget it.
    The whole investigation of Flynn was improper from day one. No investigative basis, lying to the FISA courts, altering official FBI forms. Anyone who be scared of what else they could do and plead out. Due process protects against pleading under duress, which is what happened to Flynn. Considering the judge is taking the unprecedented move of denying the DOJ dropping the charges, there's little reason to believe he would have scrutinized the "facts" supporting a guilty plea.
    By all accounts, it wasn't conducted like an official interview, even going so far as to altering the official FBI interview form.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    If memory serves, the guy in the red dress played fast and loose with the law also.
    so
    what else is new?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Of course. Here is the official transcript of his first sentencing hearing: https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/121818am-USA-v-Michael-Flynn-Sentencing.pdf

    Here are direct quotes from that transcript:
    ========================
    THE COURT: As such, the Court concludes that it must now first ask Mr. Flynn certain questions to ensure that he entered his guilty plea knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently, and with fulsome and satisfactory advice of counsel. I cannot recall any incident in which the Court has ever accepted a plea of guilty from someone who maintained that he was not guilty, and I don't intend to start today. So I'm going to invite Mr. Flynn and his attorney or attorneys to come to the podium, and I'm going to ask the courtroom deputy to administer the oath to Mr. Flynn.

    (MICHAEL FLYNN, DEFENDANT IN THE CASE, SWORN)

    THE COURT: All right. And I will inform you, sir, that any false answers will get you in more trouble. Do you understand that?

    THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

    THE COURT: You have to keep your voice up. If you don't understand my question, please tell me and I'll rephrase it. Most importantly, you may consult with your attorney privately before answering my questions or at any point in time. Should you want the opportunity to attempt to withdraw your plea, I will afford you that opportunity. Do you understand that?

    THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

    THE COURT: Do you wish to challenge the circumstances on which you were interviewed by the FBI?

    THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

    THE COURT: Do you understand that by maintaining your guilty plea and continuing with sentencing, you will give up your right forever to challenge the circumstances under which you were interviewed?

    THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

    THE COURT: Do you have any concerns that you entered your guilty plea before you or your attorneys were able to review information that could have been helpful to your defense?

    THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

    THE COURT: At the time of your January 24th, 2017 interview with the FBI, were you not aware that lying to FBI investigators was a federal crime?

    THE DEFENDANT: I was not -- I was aware.

    THE COURT: You were aware?

    THE DEFENDANT: Yeah.
    =============================


    OK.
    Doesn't matter. He was legally accused of the crime. He was indicted for the crime. He confessed, under oath, twice to the crime. He is guilty by his own admission. End of story. You can claim they were really mean to him to make him confess. You can claim they wanted to "ruin his life." You can claim that you don't really understand the legal system so you can't comprehend why he is guilty. None of that matters. What DOES matter is that he pled guilty to the crime he was indicted for.
    Correct; he was merely repeating the legal decision.
    Given that you didn't even know he pled guilty under oath, I have to laugh at your attempt to paint me as ignorant.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Who denied that he knew lying to the FBI was a crime? Or that anyone denied that under oath? He was not under oath in the FBI interview, and you haven't even shown that he admitted guilt under oath in court. But we've recently learned your trouble with the English language.

    Sorry, since you failed to show he confessed under oath even once, you'll have to do a lot better than your bare assertion. Swearing to knowing something is a crime is not swearing you committed said crime. Plenty of innocent people plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit out of fear of worse punishment. If you think coerced confessions are fine, that's on your dubious morality.

    So Trump didn't say Flynn was guilty? Only that he pled guilty?
    You understand the difference there?

    Given that you REALLY seem to think what you quoted included a plea under oath...<Snicker>.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    He was under oath in the part that I just quoted to you not ten posts above. If, as you claim, he was not guilty of a crime, he lied under oath when he said he was. If you wish to go after him for perjury, by all means, do so.

    But if you are going to claim he lied when he said he was guilty, and then say "well, it's perjury but that's just fine" then you will be . . . as two faced as any other Trump supporter.

    Again, the facts are quite simple here. Even you should be able to understand them.
    Correct. Swearing you committed the crime is swearing you committed the crime. Refusing, under oath, an option to change your guilty plea is swearing you committed the crime. Signing a legal document saying you committed the crime is swearing you committed the crime.

    Since I am sure whatever right wing "news source" you use will never, ever show you this, here is his confession signed in his own hand:

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/1/16724742/michael-flynn-plead-guilty-lied-fbi

    I eagerly await your next attempt to twist a signed confession into "well, he didn't really confess because he signed it in blue ink" or something.
     
  9. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    "Should you want the opportunity to attempt to withdraw your plea, I will afford you that opportunity. Do you understand that?"​
    Yes, he understood he had the opportunity. No, he didn't affirm his guilt.
    "Do you wish to challenge the circumstances on which you were interviewed by the FBI?"​
    No, and accepting those circumstances did not affirm his guilt.
    "Do you understand that by maintaining your guilty plea and continuing with sentencing, you will give up your right forever to challenge the circumstances under which you were interviewed?"​
    Yes, he understood the consequences of not changing his plea. No, he didn't affirm his guilt.
    "Do you have any concerns that you entered your guilty plea before you or your attorneys were able to review information that could have been helpful to your defense?"​
    No, he was able to consult with his attorneys prior to his plea. Again, not affirming his guilt.

    So I will reiterate, learn to read.

    You're obviously reading things that are not actually there. Too bad no one is likely to make you realize that.
    Where, exactly, did he refuse to change his plea? When he said he understood he had the opportunity? That's not a refusal, that's acknowledging understanding.
    Wait, so now you want Flynn punished for perjury, not for lying to the FBI, but for lying about being guilty? Again, innocent people take plea deals all the time. Why don't we prosecute all them for perjury? Because perjury is typically only used as leverage in pursuing greater crimes. Hence the plea deal. After the Mueller report, there are no such greater crimes being investigated. Hence the DOJ dropping the charges (aside from all the FBI misconduct).

    I haven't denied that Flynn, likely unintentionally, omitted info to the FBI. That's what happens when you don't know you're being investigated and think you're having a casual, unofficial discussion. And FBI notes show that that was their intent. And I doubt the federal court or prosecutor offered Flynn an Alford plea deal. So an admission guilt on the plea was the only option. But the whole prosecution is fruit of the poisonous tree, as the FISA warrants were improper from the beginning.

    And while I've not cited one right wing source, you sure don't mind citing leftist rags.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    You seem to be having a lot of trouble with basic facts here. Not surprising for a Trump supporter.

    Let's start with a very basic question, and go from there. Do you think that Flynn committed the crime he confessed to?
     
  11. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Wow, so you're just going to cop out on all the line by line replies and questions I just asked, huh? Figures.

    As intent is a requirement of perjury, no, I don't think Flynn committed the crime. As such, that only leaves you with whining about him lying in his plea? Has anyone every be prosecuted for their plea? Ever?
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Very good. So according to you he lied under oath when he was asked if his guilty plea was valid, and he replied affirmatively. Thank you for admitting that.
     
  13. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    And? Again, has anyone ever been prosecuted for their plea? Ever?
    You're really reaching to find wrongdoing here. Desperation can do that to a person.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    I have no idea. Just proving that Flynn lied under oath, per your own claim.
    ?? No reason to "reach" for anything. He committed the wrongdoing. He admitted to his crime. Based on his guilty plea, the court found him guilty of the crime. He agreed. His lawyers agreed. The court agreed. Even Trump agreed. And you can post thousands of words about how justice is evil, and you don't like the law, and the FBI was really mean to poor little Flynn - he is still a confessed, convicted criminal, and always will be.
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  15. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    You're contradicting yourself:
    That sure sounded as if you knew such lying led to prosecution. Or maybe it just had the effect you intended, to equivocate over what he lied about, the prosecutable or the inconsequential. I don't care if ANYONE lies about the inconsequential.

    All fruit of the poisonous tree, with the FBI lying on FISA warrants, having no investigatory basis, and entrapping him for leverage against no greater crime. All very legally improper. But I'm sure you have a hole picked out to store your head in.
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Not at all. You just admitted that you think he lied under oath. Thanks for the confirmation.
    Again, no. This scenario plays out a thousand times a year:

    Joey: "I'm innocent, I tell ya! I never touched her!"
    Cop: "Look Joey we know you killed her. We have eyewitnesses. We know about the murder weapon. You're going down. Confess now and I will see if I can get the DA to take life in prison off the table."
    Joey: "Geez, OK. I did it. How did you know?"
    Cop: "Oh, I didn't. But thank you for confessing."

    You may call that "fruit of the poisonous (not poison) tree" or "evil mean pigs" or some other way of explaining that such confessions don't mean anything. Most of the US calls that "good police work." A criminal is brought to justice without a long trial. The only people who don't like that are . . . criminals.
    Angry Ape is VERY VERY ANGRY when people point out facts! GRRR!
     
  17. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    To stop me from getting a Trumpist overdose, Vociferous has been added to my list of liars that aren't fun.

    Welcome to ignore, Vociferous, you're staying there.
     
  18. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    How is it that two people can believe entirely conflicting stories on the same topic? If different news networks are providing competing narratives, who to believe?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    You have yet to show that anyone has ever been prosecuted for lying in their plea. Equivocating what was lied about under oath doesn't help your argument at all.
    Thanks for letting everyone know you have no clue what fruit of the poisonous tree means.

    LOL! I meant like an ostrich. Hilarious the way you chose to take it.


    Considering I don't remember EVER reading a post of yours, I really don't care.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    I don't need to, nor am I saying people have. I am merely claiming that, per you, he lied under oath. You seem to have a lot of trouble accepting that.

    I am sure he will not have to serve the time for his crime, and that he will never see the inside of a jail, even though he is a convicted, confessed criminal. In the era of Trump, justice is a matter of who you know - not what crimes you committed.
    I have this image of you pounding violently on your keyboard, spittle covering the screen, yelling "I AM NOT ANGRY! I FIND IT . . . FUNNY! YEAH THAT'S IT!"
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Getting people to plead guilty to well-documented and easily proved lesser charges by letting them off easy on the bad ones that would force a trial is not entrapment - it's coddling.

    The FBI coddled Flynn, ostensibly to get information from him. He was and is guilty of crimes for which the normal penalty is execution.
    That's a lie.
     
  22. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Well, it sure seems to mean a lot to you, even though it means nothing criminal. You're just so desperate at this point, that you don't even care if it's criminal or not.
    Again, what crime? Unless you can show prosecutions over pleas, there is no crime. Again, you're just desperate.
    In the era of Trump, crooked federal agents, as the facts has shown, don't get to weaponize the government against their political opponents.
    Does all this projection exercise these demons of yours?

    As usual, lots of bare assertions, no substantial justifications.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It's criminal to lie under oath, and criminal to lie to the FBI as Flynn did. It doesn't matter whether anyone cares about that - obviously you don't, any more than you care about the dozens of crimes committed and being committed by Trump and every member of his family for years now.
    It was conducted as many are, and as Flynn would have been familiar with.
    In the real world there are unprosecuted crimes, and crimes that the perps have pled guilty to, and so forth. In the real world, that is: whether anything except interchangeable propaganda claims exists in wingnut world is not known.
    Unlike yours, they are factual and correct.
     

Share This Page