Why should I care about Michael Flynn?

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

  1. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Wow, a bare assertion about your bare assertions. Must be an easy life being so lazy.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Projection becomes you - verifies the reader's intuition.

    Just replying in kind, when dealing with you - only with easily verified and plainly accurate "assertions", instead of deceptions and easily debunked falsehoods. ("No evidence of collusion" - as you refuse to read the huge pile of evidence of collusion, or acknowledge a sequence of events that requires only a working memory in the US). It is easier than making shit up, inventing elaborate nonsense and deceptions, etc - I'll grant you that.

    You have on frequent occasions read many references, found many links, and so forth, supporting my assertions, in my posts. There have never been any in yours.

    True, though: It's not difficult to post simple and obvious facts in correction of your bizarre and reality-free assertions. It is a lazy life, following your wingnut idiocies around in their circles - you make no demands on research capability, argument, consideration of viewpoint, etc. Your garbage is flagrant and simple and familiar from Republican television.

    Latest example: You post that guilty pleas are not made under oath. That's obviously stupid, and I post the obvious correction, and link to an obvious source on the first page of a keyword search (plea, oath, guilty). You learn nothing - but tripling my effort would not change that.
    Last edited: May 31, 2020
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Wow, projecting about projection even. That has to take some work. At least some mental gymnastics.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    #trumpswindle | #WhatTheyVotedFor

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Via NBC News↱:

    The retired judge appointed to act as a friend of the court in the Michael Flynn case strongly urged the court Wednesday not to let the Justice Department abandon the prosecution.

    In a scorching 83-page submission, John Gleeson said the government's move to drop the case was "riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact," which were contradicted by the positions it has taken in other false statement cases and by its own previous court filings about Flynn's conduct as well as his decisions to plead guilty twice.

    "Even recognizing that the Government is entitled to deference in assessing the strength of its case, these claims are not credible," the retired judge wrote. "Indeed, they are preposterous. For starters—and most unusually—they are directly and decisively disproven by the Government's own briefs filed just months ago in this very proceeding."

    Gleeson said judges must ordinarily defer to the wishes of the Justice Department about whether to pursue a prosecution, but not when the motives of the government are suspect. In Flynn's case, the government's move to dismiss the case "is based solely on the fact that Flynn is an ally of President Trump."

    The report from Pete Williams also notes, "Gleeson recommended against finding Flynn in contempt of court for perjury", instead recommending the court "take that into account when sentencing Flynn for lying to the FBI which would be more consistent with the way other defendants are treated".

    NBC News correspondent Tom Winter↱ added:

    Gleeson writes, "the Court asked him numerous questions under oath 'to ensure that [Flynn] entered his guilty plea knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently, and with fulsome and satisfactory advice of counsel.' Flynn... assured the Court at length that all of that was true."

    Thus it comes around that the reason why Michael Flynn has been in the news, lately, has turned out to be a catastrophe for the disgraced former National Security Adivsor.

    Which, in turn, sounds about right. When we consider what is required to support the Trump administration and its multitude of extraordinary sins, it really ought to be unbelievable.

    No, really. Compared to the history of Republicans bawling for decades about dysfunctional, corrupt, tyrannical government, of course they were bringing this flaming, excremental menagerie. Compared to what it takes to support the Trump administration and its absurd pretenses, of course the outcome is this spectacularly stupid.


    @Tom_Winter. "MORE: Gleeson writes, ‘the Court asked him numerous questions under oath 'to ensure that [Flynn] entered his guilty plea knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently, and with fulsome and satisfactory advice of counsel.' Flynn... assured the Court at length that all of that was true.’". Twitter. 10 June 2020. Twitter.com. 10 June 2020. https://bit.ly/3ha8rWe

    Williams, Pete. "'Preposterous': Court-appointed lawyer in Michael Flynn case slams DOJ attempt to drop it". NBC News. 10 June 2020. NBCNews.com. 10 June 2020. https://nbcnews.to/3dSLPrm
    joepistole likes this.
  8. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    How, exactly, do you force an unwilling party to prosecute a case in court? At best, wouldn't they just flub it?
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Fortunately they don't need to. The case has been prosecuted; the verdict was "guilty."

    It's not looking good for Flynn. The independent judge appointed by the court had this to say about the DOJ's attempt to let a confessed, convicted criminal escape justice:

    “The government has engaged in highly irregular conduct to benefit a political ally of the president. The facts of this case overcome the presumption of regularity. The court should therefore deny the government’s motion to dismiss, adjudicate any remaining motions, and then sentence the defendant.” Justice 1, Flynn 0.

    Further, he may end up with a longer sentence than originally considered. Judge Gleeson said the court should take “Flynn’s perjury into account in sentencing him on the offense to which he has already admitted guilt.” Justice 2, Flynn 0.

    Attempts to appeal to a higher court failed, as well:

    "WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court panel appeared inclined on Friday to permit a trial judge to complete his review of the Justice Department’s attempt to drop a criminal case against President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, as all three judges asked skeptical questions about a request that they intervene and order the case dismissed." Justice 3, Flynn 0.

    The Rule of Law is really inconveniencing Flynn and Trump. Ah well. They'll just have to find another avenue to attack it.
  10. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    "not to let the Justice Department abandon the prosecution", because the prosecution is still involved in sentencing. The highly irregular bit was appointing an independent judge to give his opinion, which is all this is.

    The rule of law also include Presidential pardon. So it's still a long shot that Flynn serves any sentence at all. But desperate hopes need something to hang on.
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    It's regularly called a "verdict", or a "ruling" - not an "opinion". If you are a fan of regularity.
    And Presidential impeachment. And Presidential resignation. That's when - like now - the President gets caught committing crimes and violating their oath of office.
    None whatsoever.
    Some dumbass posted that guilty pleas were not made under oath, and there was no evidence of collusion by Trump. I corrected them. Simple.
  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Why should people care about Flynn? Why should people care about public corruption?
  13. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    But, nothing ever seems to change.
  14. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    As usual, you immediately show your ignorance. That judge was appointed "friend of the court".
    An amicus curiae (literally, "friend of the court"; plural, amici curiae) is someone who is not a party to a case who assists a court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case.
    "Information, expertise, or insight" are literally opinion. Get your head out of your ass.

    And how did the last impeachment attempt go for you? LOL!

    Thanks for proving me right about you not letting me forget about guilty pleas. Sadly, that's the only thing you've managed to be right about. There has been no evidence of collusion released to date. That's the reality you obviously can't bear to face.

    Leftists only care about corruption when they can accuse the right of it. Otherwise, it's business as usual. Note all the corruption involved in the collusion investigation itself.
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    The examples keep piling up; as I noted yesterday↗, your entire argument banks on system failure. And it's also the unreliability about your assessments↗, as well as the predictable politicking from a posture of ignorance.
    joepistole likes this.
  16. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    As usual, Tiassa makes a slew of invective comments without ever backing them up with anything of substance. Just his own misguided bias on display.
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    They are, in this case, correct. Flynn - and Trump - are as rotten and corrupt as they come. Their motives for being correct and making accurate claims and so forth do not change the facts of the matter.
    The Mueller Report, even in its redacted form as released, formally documents ten separate instances of collusion. You haven't read it, but that does not make it go away.
    So by your own admission you are denying information, expertise, and insight, in your repeated attempts to claim that Trump and Flynn did not do what anyone who checks the facts (and everyone who has checked the facts) can see they did.

    Everything is an opinion, in some useless sense beloved by the kind of ignoramus who thinks the evidence they refuse to read or acknowledge therefore does not exist. (The clear noon sky is blue? Just an opinion, and if you never look up you think you can claim there is no evidence for it. The people who do look up will not share your opinion, of course).

    The formal opinions of certified experts, backed by agreed argument and documented evidence and replicable investigation, have other names: ruling, finding, verdict, etc.

    That Flynn is guilty is a verdict, that Trump is guilty (of collusion, bribery, treason, obstruction of justice, etc.) is a documented finding of professional investigators (Republican ones, if you care), and so forth. Those are the the "opinions" of thoroughly informed people who have published their reasoning and evidence, and met certain formal requirements for that reasoning and evidence.

    Other people are not like you, see. Your opinions are garbage based on willful ignorance and gullibility, but that is not true of everybody else.
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2020
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Yes. The verdict it in, and it was "guilty." Now only sentencing remains. Looks like Flynn may have just bought himself more jail time.
    No, the highly irregular part was the Justice Department trying to interfere and prevent sentencing of a confessed, convicted criminal just because he's a personal friend of the president's. Everything after that is just an attempt by the court to make sense of such a corrupt attempt by the DOJ.
    Which is the strangest part of all. Everyone knows Trump pardons his criminal friends. So why the attempt to subvert the judicial process? Most logical reason is that Trump is going to need some - er - "extra-legal" options in the very near future to protect more of his criminal friends.
  19. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    How? Flynn has no say over the DOJ dropping the charges. That sounds like you just want him to pay, as a proxy for all the people you'd really like to see pay. That's vindictive.

    The DOJ didn't try to interfere with sentencing, it was just that late discovering actionable evidence of misconduct, in both the investigation and the FISA warrants used to illegally acquire evidence (fruit of the poisonous tree). If he's such a personal friend of Trump's, why not simply wait for the pardon? Why would Barr not simply wait for Flynn to be pardoned? Because Flynn had no say in the DOJ actions, and Barr had good legal reason to drop the prosecution. Everything after that is the court completely failing to take into account the new evidence of misconduct and corruption in the FBI and Obama administration.

    It's not like Trump has a limited number of pardons. So you seem to be aware of how ridiculous it would be to go to these lengths, when pardons would suffice. So we can only surmise that you believe the DOJ is dumber than a couple of armchair quarterbacks. The more sensible answer is that Barr acted on good faith, with clear evidence of wrongdoing in the FBI investigation. But, no doubt, that won't sway you from your conspiracies.
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    He can't pardon himself.
    He is going to need votes pretty soon, which limits the flagrancy of his abuse of power.
    And he's not going to be President forever.
    That's not sensible. That's childish naivety. Don't you know anything about Barr?
  21. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Court orders Flynn judge to dismiss charges
    A federal appeals court handed a major victory to Michael Flynn on Wednesday, ordering a lower court judge to dismiss the felony false-statement charge Flynn pleaded guilty to during special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
    “Each of our three coequal branches should be encouraged to self-correct when it errs. If evidence comes to light calling into question the integrity or purpose of an underlying criminal investigation, the Executive Branch must have the authority to decide that further prosecution is not in the interest of justice,” Rao wrote.
    In theory, Sullivan himself could even ask the full bench of the appeals court to reconsider the issue or he could take the ruling to the Supreme Court, but it would be extraordinary for a district court judge to do either.
    Rao’s opinion says Sullivan caused “irreparable” harm by tapping Gleeson to make arguments that neither side was willing to make.

    “The court has appointed one private citizen to argue that another citizen should be deprived of his liberty regardless of whether the Executive Branch is willing to pursue the charges,” wrote Rao.​
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The packing of the Federal court system with Republican wingnuts has paid off in many ways, and will continue to do so.
    And there's always a Presidential pardon to backstop any failures of Partisan ideology or corruption.
    Notice that Rao did not say that Gleeson's arguments were flawed, or wrong, or harmful in themselves. Instead, Rao based her decision on the fact that Sullivan proceeded despite the unwillingness of the Executive Branch to prosecute Flynn.

    To summarize: Rao and the other Republican appointee to the panel just ruled that because Trump did not want Flynn prosecuted he should not have been prosecuted - that overruling Trump's preferences in the matter was misconduct by the FBI.

    One wonders how criminal or treasonous behavior by anyone Trump appoints can ever be prosecuted, if such prosecution requires Trump's approval.
    The situation is already extraordinary - at least that decision would have sound reasoning and some precedent behind it.
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2020

Share This Page