BARR told Trump to his face, "you're going to lose, you're humiliating yourself: pettiness, acrimony, punching down, chaos--we're tired of this shit"

[postman]

You said Flynn should have never gone to court. That's not a fact, that's an idiotic opinion coming from a total ignoramus.

Actually if Flynn never lied to the FBI, he never would have gone to court.

See how that works. Commit a crime, you go to court.
You don't commit a crime, you don't go to court.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course it matters, ******* moron. For one, your analogy absurdum fails you because a woman facing rape or death faces that as the victim of a crime and of no fault of her own; whereas Flynn faced his consequences because he chose to break the law. Even worse for you, prison or broke were not his only choices, which is how you falsely framed it. He could have solicited for financial aid with a gofundme page. He could have opted for a public defender. So no, he didn't have to pick betweeen prison or going broke. And he picked the worst situation, which was go to prison.

Are you ever not a ******* moron?

Ever???

It certainly does not matter. Bad choices are bad choices, and if they are imposed on you, then you don't have a free choice. It doesn't matter how that decision was forced on you. It's still a bad choice.

Your argument depends on Flynn being guilty, and that was never established. Even if he was guilty, it's still no a free choice. Do you claim that a prisoner on death row makes a "free choice" to get executed?

You really are a ******* moron.

Again, ******* moron, prison or bankrupt weren't his only choices. You're flopping around now like a dying fish over your own creation of false choices.

He didn't have the choice of walking away scot free. If he doesn't have that choice, then his choice is not free.

You're the one who is flopping around because you claim it was voluntary so long as he had a choice. Then when it became obvious that your argument was pure idiocy, you switched that to "viable option." Now you don't even want to defend that position.

You're using the logic of the police state because you're a NAZI thug

 

[postman]

What NEVER happened was Flynn pleading guilty more than once, or to more than one count of the 1001 violation. The only way that would happen is if additional charges were added later, or if the case was dropped and a new indictment was brought with different charges.

So far so good

There is also the very questionable legal principle of charging perjury in an investigation where there was no underlying crime. Perjury has elements like every other crime, and one of the elements is that the false statement is intended to affect the outcome of a case. When there is no crime, there is no outcome to manipulate with a false statement. They were questioning Flynn about a phone call that was not improper in any way, and then charged him with lying about it.

This is where you lost it. As you said, Flynn was charged with 18 USC 1001, not perjury.

The federal perjury statute is 18 USC 1621.

 

[postman]

Your argument depends on Flynn being guilty, and that was never established. Even if he was guilty, it's still no a free choice. Do you claim that a prisoner on death row makes a "free choice" to get executed?

Flynn made a free choice to lie to Mike Pence Then Flynn made another free choice to lie to the FBI

Exercise of such free choices still carry consequences.

 

[para bellum]

...This is where you lost it. As you said, Flynn was charged with 18 USC 1001, not perjury.

The federal perjury statute is 18 USC 1621.

Yes, I know they are different statutes and probably have differences in the way they are defined.

The principle is the same though. Making a false statement and incurring a criminal penalty for it, there has to be an intent to alter the investigation in some way that is favorable to the person making the false statement.

If you want me to hunt through the definitions I can, I am sure it will be there in 18USC somewhere.

I will try not to use 'common use' terms like perjury instead of "making a false statement", but I did clarify the statute some time ago.

The point isn't my misuse of the term "perjury", but that in basic common law legal principle, there has to be a reasonable belief that there is an underlying crime. The FBI in this case knew there was no crime, the interview with Flynn was a "perjury trap", as the FBI memos reveal. They used the term themselves, when discussing why they were having the January 24 meeting with Flynn, and what they were hoping to get out of it.

 

[Faun]

Well now you are just making shit up as you go. First you said it was in 2 separate courts.


There was only ever one court- the US Federal District Court for D.C. Now you are claiming he entered more than one plea. If you think he did that, then post the second one.

He pled guilty in his first appearance, he doesn't have to do it again just because the judge changes- it's still the same case, with the same court record.

Sullivan's discovery order was appropriate because he was holding the case open. Judges don't formally accept the plea agreement until they sentence the defendant. That's when the defendant finds out if the court will go along with the deal.

A defendant can withdraw a guilty plea right up to the point where the sentence is passed. The judge will ask them one final time if they want to change their mind, he will caution the defendant that he is not bound by the agreement, the case cannot be appealed, and violation of the terms of the plea deal are grounds for an administrative conviction on the original charge.

Almost always, the court will go along with the plea agreement. But they are not required to.

What NEVER happened was Flynn pleading guilty more than once, or to more than one count of the 1001 violation. The only way that would happen is if additional charges were added later, or if the case was dropped and a new indictment was brought with different charges.

There is also the very questionable legal principle of charging perjury in an investigation where there was no underlying crime. Perjury has elements like every other crime, and one of the elements is that the false statement is intended to affect the outcome of a case. When there is no crime, there is no outcome to manipulate with a false statement. They were questioning Flynn about a phone call that was not improper in any way, and then charged him with lying about it.

The FBI's own documents show that it was a pretextual investigation, intentionally disguised as a defensive briefing. They admit that. Charging someone for obstructing an investigation that shouldn't even be happening is not a legitimate application of the statute, which is why they DISMISSED the charges. With prejudice, I might add...

Again, two separate courts as in Contreras' court and then in Sullivan's court. And by pleading guilty to both judges, what I mean is despite Flynn agreeing to waive any further discovery or disclosures, Judge Sullivan still ordered prosecutors to provide exculpatory evidence; and asked Flynn if he wanted to challenge his FBI interview. Flynn rejected that challenge and instead, maintained his guilty plea.

 

[Faun]

It certainly does not matter. Bad choices are bad choices, and if they are imposed on you, then you don't have a free choice. It doesn't matter how that decision was forced on you. It's still a bad choice.

Your argument depends on Flynn being guilty, and that was never established. Even if he was guilty, it's still no a free choice. Do you claim that a prisoner on death row makes a "free choice" to get executed?

You really are a ******* moron.

He didn't have the choice of walking away scot free. If he doesn't have that choice, then his choice is not free.

You're the one who is flopping around because you claim it was voluntary so long as he had a choice. Then when it became obvious that your argument was pure idiocy, you switched that to "viable option." Now you don't even want to defend that position.

You're using the logic of the police state because you're a NAZI thug

LOL

You're such a ******* moron.

Again, ******* moron, you're comparing a woman being forced at no fault of her own to life or death; with Flynn not choosing life or death over consequences he brought upon himself.

 

[postman]

The principle is the same though. Making a false statement and incurring a criminal penalty for it, there has to be an intent to alter the investigation in some way that is favorable to the person making the false statement.

That's an incorrect interpretation. The benefit can be to any third party as well. Example: A witness who lies to help a family member, even though receiving no direct benefit himself.

The lie that Flynn told only has to deal with something material to "ANY INVESTIGATION" the FBI is undertaking.

 

[Faun]

Yes, I know they are different statutes and probably have differences in the way they are defined.

The principle is the same though. Making a false statement and incurring a criminal penalty for it, there has to be an intent to alter the investigation in some way that is favorable to the person making the false statement.

If you want me to hunt through the definitions I can, I am sure it will be there in 18USC somewhere.

I will try not to use 'common use' terms like perjury instead of "making a false statement", but I did clarify the statute some time ago.

The point isn't my misuse of the term "perjury", but that in basic common law legal principle, there has to be a reasonable belief that there is an underlying crime. The FBI in this case knew there was no crime, the interview with Flynn was a "perjury trap", as the FBI memos reveal. They used the term themselves, when discussing why they were having the January 24 meeting with Flynn, and what they were hoping to get out of it.

Nonsense. Flynn was interviewed by the FBI during an investigation into Russian collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. It was a legit interview and Flynn broke the law when he lied to them.

 

[postman]

Again, two separate courts as in Contreras' court and then in Sullivan's court. And by pleading guilty to both judges, what I mean is despite Flynn agreeing to waive any further discovery or disclosures, Judge Sullivan still ordered prosecutors to provide exculpatory evidence; and asked Flynn if he wanted to challenge his FBI interview. Flynn rejected that challenge and instead, maintained his guilty plea.

Technically it's the same "court", but each federal judge is independent when a case is transferred to him. He can take a "de novo" approach.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL

You're such a ******* moron.

Again, ******* moron, you're comparing a woman being forced at no fault of her own to life or death; with Flynn not choosing life or death over consequences he brought upon himself.

Know what I compared I'm comparing two similar situations. All you're saying is the usual Dim weasel of claiming they aren't identical examples. If they were identical, they would be the same example.

You're obviously trying to distract from your theory that the choice has to be "viable." That's because you know I can shoot it full of holes in a microsecond.

So which is it? Does being given any choice make it voluntary, or is a "viable choice" required? If the later, please define what you mean by viable.

So what if one of the woman's choices is "life or death." Is that the criteria for "viable?" You keep avoiding discussion of this part of your claim.

Try answering a question about your theory of "voluntary."

 

[bripat9643]

Nonsense. Flynn was interviewed by the FBI during an investigation into Russian collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. It was a legit interview and Flynn broke the law when he lied to them.

How was it legit when they lied about the reason for the interview? They lied when they told them he didn't need a lawyer.

Lie, lie, lie.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually if Flynn never lied to the FBI, he never would have gone to court.

See how that works. Commit a crime, you go to court.
You don't commit a crime, you don't go to court.

That's the police state view of the matter.

 

[bripat9643]

That's an incorrect interpretation. The benefit can be to any third party as well. Example: A witness who lies to help a family member, even though receiving no direct benefit himself.

The lie that Flynn told only has to deal with something material to "ANY INVESTIGATION" the FBI is undertaking.

What investigation was it material to?

 

[Faun]

Know what I compared I'm comparing two similar situations. All you're saying is the usual Dim weasel of claiming they aren't identical examples. If they were identical, they would be the same example.

You're obviously trying to distract from your theory that the choice has to be "viable." That's because you know I can shoot it full of holes in a microsecond.

So which is it? Does being given any choice make it voluntary, or is a "viable choice" required? If the later, please define what you mean by viable.

So what if one of the woman's choices is "life or death." Is that the criteria for "viable?" You keep avoiding discussion of this part of your claim.

Try answering a question about your theory of "voluntary."

A woman, at no fault of her own, being forced to choose between raped or murdered -- is nowhere near comparable to Flynn, who put himself into a situation where he had to choose between pleading guilty, not guilty or nolo contendere.

That you think they are comparable merely highlights just how fucked in the head you really are, ******* moron.

 

[Faun]

How was it legit when they lied about the reason for the interview? They lied when they told them he didn't need a lawyer.

Lie, lie, lie.

It's true, he didn't need a lawyer. That's not legalese for, ok Flynn, you can lie to us now.

 

[Faun]

That's the police state view of the matter.

Who knows why you make that sound like a bad thing?

 

[surada]

In other words, you admit there are no credible sources for your claim.

So Trump only hired people who have no credibility m

 

[postman]

How was it legit when they lied about the reason for the interview? They lied when they told them he didn't need a lawyer.

Lie, lie, lie.

Actually it was the truth. If Flynn told them the truth, he never would have needed a lawyer.

But since Flynn already lied to Mike Pence, and got fired for it. He was in a corner, whether to lie to the FBI, or admit to the FBI that he lied to Mike Pence.

Since only lying to the FBI is a crime, Flynn chose to break t he law.

 

[para bellum]

This is unbelievably obtuse. We know most of the facts surrounding all this.

The criminality was on the part of the FBI, not anyone surrounding Trump. Their own documents show it, the IG Report showed it.

The prosecutions of the people surrounding Trump were purely political prosecutions. They were trying to get someone to flip and give the FBI something real to justify their investigation. Internally, the FBI was freaking out- buying professional liability insurance policies and lawyering up.

The whole thing was a sham, start to finish. The only question is whether or not Durham does anything about it.