Death of the Republic, the Michael Flynn chapter.

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
4,997
Reaction score
1,288
Points
255
I have written my opinion before. It is simple. The Federal Agents, and DOJ were caught violating the Brady Rule, and misleading the Court on the evidence. These violations are very common. I mentioned at the time that it was routine even. However, that routine violation, does not make it right.

The DOJ was caught literally red handed. It tainted the case, and made prosecution risky, especially with the probability that Flynn would be found Not Guilty. There are a number of precedents to this type of action. The Judge may order the Defendant released dismissing all charges. The judge may suppress the evidence, favorable to the Prosecution.

An example. Let’s say there was a Bank Robbery. The Bank Cameras did not catch the face of the robber, nor the license of the car driven away. However a woman’s street camera did. The woman is out of town, and instead of getting the video of the street camera via a Subpoena, the Police hacked the camera and got the information. This would be illegal. The Police use it to find the Robber. During the preliminary hearings this information is gotten out.

Now, there is no direct evidence obtained legally to tie the suspect to the crime. The Judge suppresses that evidence, and all the Police have left is that the guy had money when they searched, but the search was a result of the illegally obtained information. So that evidence is suppressed. The Prosecutor moves to dismiss the charges. He has no choice. He has no evidence to take to the Jury.

That is not exactly what happened in the Flynn Case. The warrants were gotten illegally, and the Defense was denied exculpatory information. That is a violation of what is known as the Brady Rule. The Supreme Court ruled that the Defense is entitled to all information pertaining to the case. Even if the Prosecutor does not intend to use it. If requested, the Prosecutor must also hand over the history of the agents involved, have they ever been caught providing false or misleading testimony.

So the way it normally plays out is that the Prosecutor when caught, just folds his cards, and walks away from the table. Normally these violations are routine, and they are handled routinely.

However, this time, it is different. Now, the routine violations are treated as though they don’t really matter. They happen all the time. So why should Flynn get a pass because of a routine matter, no different than speed limits that nobody obeys.

To me, the Outrage is the fact that such violations are routine.

Judge Sullivan asked a retired Judge to examine this, sort of a Judicial review of a Judicial act. All informal, and with no history of being done before. But here is the rub. A extraordinary act to decide if the routine violation of the Brady Law and misleading statements of the FBI were sufficient to drop the charges. This review determined that the violations were no big deal, the Judge should reject the motion to dismiss, and hold Flynn accountable for his earlier plea bargain deal. He lied during his plea bargain deal, so Perjury for him.


I have argued for a very long time that Civil Rights matter. The rights in the Constitution should be sacrosanct. They should be viewed one and all as sacred. They are written in plain English, thou shall not. Thou shall not do this, or that.

Now, it is Thou Shall Not, unless you don’t like this guy, or he is a political annoyance.

It is the Brady Rule that got Cliven Bundy off. You see, the Government is expected to follow the rules, and tell the truth. When they do not do that, the case against the accused goes away.

Arguing that allowing agents to provide false and misleading information and testimony to the Court is so routine that it is fine and dandy means we do not have a Justice System. We have essentially Mafia control of our Country. The laws don’t matter. The rules are irrelevant for those on the inside. The Made Men of the country.

The Republic is dying. It isn’t BLM or ANTIFA killing it. It isn’t the Deplorable's. It isn’t the Right Wing, or the Left. It is our own apathy, and determination to get them no matter what rules are broken. They are the enemy.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
124,069
Reaction score
11,999
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
An example. Let’s say there was a Bank Robbery. The Bank Cameras did not catch the face of the robber, nor the license of the car driven away. However a woman’s street camera did. The woman is out of town, and instead of getting the video of the street camera via a Subpoena, the Police hacked the camera and got the information. This would be illegal. The Police use it to find the Robber. During the preliminary hearings this information is gotten out.

Now, there is no direct evidence obtained legally to tie the suspect to the crime. The Judge suppresses that evidence, and all the Police have left is that the guy had money when they searched, but the search was a result of the illegally obtained information. So that evidence is suppressed. The Prosecutor moves to dismiss the charges. He has no choice. He has no evidence to take to the Jury.
The problem here is that the robber did rob the bank, and there was evidence that he robbed the bank.

Flynn did break the law. Actually, Flynn broke a LOT of laws, in regards to his illegal lobbying, taking gratuities from foreign governments, and lying to public officials. He was allowed a pass on most of them and just plead guilty to this one thing in exchange for cooperating.

That he's now trying to plead technicalities like some perp with an ACLU lawyer is kind of amusing. Tell us again how you guys are the Law and Order Party, that shit never gets old.

Now, I'd have no problem if Trump Pardoned him. In fact, I think Trump should pardon him, right now. But don't try to pretend he didn't do anything illegal.
 
OP
SavannahMann

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
4,997
Reaction score
1,288
Points
255
An example. Let’s say there was a Bank Robbery. The Bank Cameras did not catch the face of the robber, nor the license of the car driven away. However a woman’s street camera did. The woman is out of town, and instead of getting the video of the street camera via a Subpoena, the Police hacked the camera and got the information. This would be illegal. The Police use it to find the Robber. During the preliminary hearings this information is gotten out.

Now, there is no direct evidence obtained legally to tie the suspect to the crime. The Judge suppresses that evidence, and all the Police have left is that the guy had money when they searched, but the search was a result of the illegally obtained information. So that evidence is suppressed. The Prosecutor moves to dismiss the charges. He has no choice. He has no evidence to take to the Jury.
The problem here is that the robber did rob the bank, and there was evidence that he robbed the bank.

Flynn did break the law. Actually, Flynn broke a LOT of laws, in regards to his illegal lobbying, taking gratuities from foreign governments, and lying to public officials. He was allowed a pass on most of them and just plead guilty to this one thing in exchange for cooperating.

That he's now trying to plead technicalities like some perp with an ACLU lawyer is kind of amusing. Tell us again how you guys are the Law and Order Party, that shit never gets old.

Now, I'd have no problem if Trump Pardoned him. In fact, I think Trump should pardon him, right now. But don't try to pretend he didn't do anything illegal.
I love being one of you guys. I am a bleeding hear liberal when I say AA was murdered. I am a right wing gun but when I say that the Second Amendment is individual. Now I am a law and order party member.

In a way. I am. I am a member of the ACLU. And I believe that all the rights matter. I believe the founders intended the conviction of the accused to be hard. The Reasonable Doubt standard is fine. Because I believe in law and order I believe the Prosecutors should follow the rules. I believe the cops should follow the rules.

When they do not I believe the prosecution is tainted. I believe we should not reward criminals we pay. When the Prosecutors or the cops lie, cheat, or withhold evidence they are committing a crime. They are the criminals. I don’t care who the defendant is.


Prosecutorial Misconduct and violations of Brady regularly result in dismissal of charges and declared mistrials. Sometimes even investigations by either the BAR or DOJ for Prosecutorial Misconduct.

The remedy in Flynn is not unusual. It is common. As a member of the ACLU I want every defendant to get all the rights outlined in the Constitution.

I still think Cliven Bundy is an unequaled Jackass. But the only way our nation works is if every single one of our rights is vigorously defended at every single instance of a violation. Otherwise the next violation will be someone you do like.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
124,069
Reaction score
11,999
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
In a way. I am. I am a member of the ACLU. And I believe that all the rights matter. I believe the founders intended the conviction of the accused to be hard. The Reasonable Doubt standard is fine. Because I believe in law and order I believe the Prosecutors should follow the rules. I believe the cops should follow the rules.

When they do not I believe the prosecution is tainted. I believe we should not reward criminals we pay. When the Prosecutors or the cops lie, cheat, or withhold evidence they are committing a crime. They are the criminals. I don’t care who the defendant is.
Okay, buddy, here's the thing. Flynn isn't some ghetto kid who got sent to prison for life because the Chicago Cops beat a confession out of one of his friends. (I actually met a young man that happened to.) He wasn't railroaded because he had overwhelmed public defender who didn't know what he was doing. He had top flight lawyers, who negotiated a good deal for him based on the evidence, and a lot of other charges that came up in the investigation were part of the plea bargain.

There was an absolutely good reason why they should have investigated Flynn. He lied. The Russians knew he lied. He was in one of the most sensitive positions in government. There was also the question of the money he took from Russia or his Russian mistress that were part of the things that were plead down. His top flight lawyers looked at the evidence and said, 'Um, yeah, they got you!"

The ONLY reason why he's getting "consideration" is not because the judges found the government was out of line, but because Trump and Barr decided to participate in the cover up.

Now, Trump has every right to PARDON Flynn. What he doesn't have the right to do is try to undermine a conviction that was rightfully adjudicated.

Prosecutorial Misconduct and violations of Brady regularly result in dismissal of charges and declared mistrials. Sometimes even investigations by either the BAR or DOJ for Prosecutorial Misconduct.

The remedy in Flynn is not unusual. It is common. As a member of the ACLU I want every defendant to get all the rights outlined in the Constitution.

I still think Cliven Bundy is an unequaled Jackass. But the only way our nation works is if every single one of our rights is vigorously defended at every single instance of a violation. Otherwise the next violation will be someone you do like.
Flynn has a remedy, it's called a Pardon.

And, no, I'm not one of these people who thinks that you should let a fucking ax murderer go because someone didn't fill out a warrant correctly. That's just stupid.
 
OP
SavannahMann

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
4,997
Reaction score
1,288
Points
255
In a way. I am. I am a member of the ACLU. And I believe that all the rights matter. I believe the founders intended the conviction of the accused to be hard. The Reasonable Doubt standard is fine. Because I believe in law and order I believe the Prosecutors should follow the rules. I believe the cops should follow the rules.

When they do not I believe the prosecution is tainted. I believe we should not reward criminals we pay. When the Prosecutors or the cops lie, cheat, or withhold evidence they are committing a crime. They are the criminals. I don’t care who the defendant is.
Okay, buddy, here's the thing. Flynn isn't some ghetto kid who got sent to prison for life because the Chicago Cops beat a confession out of one of his friends. (I actually met a young man that happened to.) He wasn't railroaded because he had overwhelmed public defender who didn't know what he was doing. He had top flight lawyers, who negotiated a good deal for him based on the evidence, and a lot of other charges that came up in the investigation were part of the plea bargain.

There was an absolutely good reason why they should have investigated Flynn. He lied. The Russians knew he lied. He was in one of the most sensitive positions in government. There was also the question of the money he took from Russia or his Russian mistress that were part of the things that were plead down. His top flight lawyers looked at the evidence and said, 'Um, yeah, they got you!"

The ONLY reason why he's getting "consideration" is not because the judges found the government was out of line, but because Trump and Barr decided to participate in the cover up.

Now, Trump has every right to PARDON Flynn. What he doesn't have the right to do is try to undermine a conviction that was rightfully adjudicated.

Prosecutorial Misconduct and violations of Brady regularly result in dismissal of charges and declared mistrials. Sometimes even investigations by either the BAR or DOJ for Prosecutorial Misconduct.

The remedy in Flynn is not unusual. It is common. As a member of the ACLU I want every defendant to get all the rights outlined in the Constitution.

I still think Cliven Bundy is an unequaled Jackass. But the only way our nation works is if every single one of our rights is vigorously defended at every single instance of a violation. Otherwise the next violation will be someone you do like.
Flynn has a remedy, it's called a Pardon.

And, no, I'm not one of these people who thinks that you should let a fucking ax murderer go because someone didn't fill out a warrant correctly. That's just stupid.
Starting with your Ax Murderer. If the core of the case is a result of an illegal search, we must, must. MUST. Suppress the evidence if it was gotten as a result of an illegal search, or a poorly filled out warrant. Let me point you to the Search Warrant issues of the Founders.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now, you may not have to let him go, but the evidence collected can not be used. It was gotten in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. We may not like it, but here is the thing, we should like it.

We should like it because each right you have must be protected by each and every one of us. We must scream and howl and rage when an right is eroded. And plenty of Judges, and even Justices of Appeals and Supreme Courts have agreed with you to our harm. They decided that the Founders never would have intended this guy to go free because the cops made a mistake. So it becomes an exception, and another exception happens right on it’s heels, and sure enough, that one is allowed too.

The problem is that each exception means our rights, all of our rights, are weakened. Ben Franklin said that we had a Republic, if we could keep it. He knew that undeniable truth, people will abuse power. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to limit power. Even President Obama knew that. He said that the Constitution says what the Government Can’t do, but does not say what it should do, or must do for the citizens. This was during the ACA debate if you remember.

The Government must protect those rights. If the cop screwed up the Warrant Request, then whatever evidence we got, must not be allowed in court.

The entire premise of the Criminal Trial is to make it hard to convict someone. The Government had to work at it. It had to really work at it. A mere preponderance of the evidence was not enough. You had to prove that the accused committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

But ask yourself this. If we are not going to allow a mistake on a warrant to get a case thrown out, or suppress the evidence. Where do we draw the line in misconduct? Let’s say the cop Threatens the guy into confessing. If you don’t confess, I’m going to beat you to a pulp? Is that allowed? Or perhaps a threat to the family?

If we stay with Warrants. Let’s say the cop knows that there is evidence in the house, but can’t prove it to a warrant. Do we support the cop who went in?

Where do we draw the line? Where do we decide that is too far? Because that line has been moving for a long time already. The exceptions to the Search Warrant have become so numerous as to be ridiculous. At first, the cop could search the individual for weapons, arguably for the safety of the officer and suspect. Then weapons were allowed to be entered into evidence. But what if the guy didn’t have any weapons, but did have drugs? Well he wasn’t searching for drugs. But we can’t let a drug dealer go, so the drugs being found during a weapons search was also good. Then the car. If it was in plain sight, it was not an illegal search. But what if it was in the trunk? How could the cop see it if the driver did not open the trunk? Well we had to have suspicious behavior exceptions, and exceptions for every excuse under the sun.

Then we have the drug dog who supposedly keys on the vehicle.

Each exception rewarded something that was misconduct Before the case was litigated. Each exception eroded our rights a little at a time.

Now, you are secure in your person and papers, only if the cop decides you are. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Border Patrol or ICE agents do not need a warrant if they are within one hundred miles of a port of entry. Look at a map. You are almost never more than a hundred miles from an international airport, or other “port of entry”. So they can search your car at will. No probable cause needed.

We find exceptions everywhere. We find they all over, and we like you think we have a good reason for them. We can’t let the Ax Murderer get away with it just because the cop wrote the wrong address. Even though the Fourth Amendment says that Warrant is invalid. Since it did not particularly describe the location to be searched.

I would argue that the cops need to do a better job. They need to double check their warrant applications, and we would not have to let the Ax murderer go.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
124,069
Reaction score
11,999
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Starting with your Ax Murderer. If the core of the case is a result of an illegal search, we must, must. MUST. Suppress the evidence if it was gotten as a result of an illegal search, or a poorly filled out warrant. Let me point you to the Search Warrant issues of the Founders.
Um, no. Actually, we MUST, MUST, MUST get that ax murderer off the street before he kills anyone else.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

The entire premise of the Criminal Trial is to make it hard to convict someone. The Government had to work at it. It had to really work at it. A mere preponderance of the evidence was not enough. You had to prove that the accused committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Okay. The thing was, the evidence against Flynn was so iron-clad that he didn't even want to go to trial. He entered a guilty plea to make sure he didn't get charged with a bunch of other stuff he did and stuff his son did.
So let's review, shall we. The argument is that the FBI shouldn't have been listening in on Flynn's conversations with Vislak because the warrants were partially based on the Steele Dossier, which might have had some questionable information in it. It ignores that other information in that Dossier was spot on, and there was plenty of other evidence that the Russians were in fact helping the Trump campaign.

The fact is, Flynn DID lie about discussing sanctions with the Russians. Period. Full stop. He totally did what he was accused of.

Now, if Trump really thinks he got a bad deal, he has the option to pardon him. But trying to do an end-run by pretending that he hadn't already been caught and had already plead guilty twice is kind of silly.
 
OP
SavannahMann

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
4,997
Reaction score
1,288
Points
255
Starting with your Ax Murderer. If the core of the case is a result of an illegal search, we must, must. MUST. Suppress the evidence if it was gotten as a result of an illegal search, or a poorly filled out warrant. Let me point you to the Search Warrant issues of the Founders.
Um, no. Actually, we MUST, MUST, MUST get that ax murderer off the street before he kills anyone else.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

The entire premise of the Criminal Trial is to make it hard to convict someone. The Government had to work at it. It had to really work at it. A mere preponderance of the evidence was not enough. You had to prove that the accused committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Okay. The thing was, the evidence against Flynn was so iron-clad that he didn't even want to go to trial. He entered a guilty plea to make sure he didn't get charged with a bunch of other stuff he did and stuff his son did.
So let's review, shall we. The argument is that the FBI shouldn't have been listening in on Flynn's conversations with Vislak because the warrants were partially based on the Steele Dossier, which might have had some questionable information in it. It ignores that other information in that Dossier was spot on, and there was plenty of other evidence that the Russians were in fact helping the Trump campaign.

The fact is, Flynn DID lie about discussing sanctions with the Russians. Period. Full stop. He totally did what he was accused of.

Now, if Trump really thinks he got a bad deal, he has the option to pardon him. But trying to do an end-run by pretending that he hadn't already been caught and had already plead guilty twice is kind of silly.
Flynn’s case was based upon information that the Feds knew was false. That is how they got the warrant. They presented information they knew to be untrue to the Judge to get the warrant. That is misconduct. Absolute and undeniable. The only remedy from that would be to suppress the evidence.

Now, the evidence of the Wire Taps is out. So what is left? Flynn’s Guilty Plea. But people will take a guilty verdict of something they didn’t do, to get out of a worse crime. In this case, there is no worse crime that can be tried because the evidence is inadmissible. The Government Witnesses? Seriously? You want to put the FBI agent on the Stand and have him tell what he learned? Then when he finishes with the Prosecution, all he can say is that he refuses to answer questions because of the Fifth Amendment, because he will have to admit, under oath, that he knowingly used false information to get a warrant. He will not admit he committed Perjury. He probably won’t even testify in the case at all.

So what do you have left? Nothing much. Now it goes to a Jury Trial. The Prosecutor says this guy is evil. Send him to prison. No I can’t prove it. But without the Constitution I have sworn to Protect and Defend, yes I could.

How long is the Jury out before they come back with a Not Guilty Verdict? I’m betting they hang out for lunch and then come back and send everyone home.

The Ax Murderer is not the worst thing that happens. The denuding of our rights is the worst thing that happens. It has been happening for decades, and look where we are. No rules, no restrictions, and the cops can arrest you for breaking non existent laws, and it’s fine. The Supreme Court said so. So long as the cop thinks he is enforcing the law, that’s all that matters.

Ignorance is no excuse. Unless you are a cop. So the Supreme Court has told the Departments that untrained idiots make the best cops. Because if the cop knows he is not enforcing the law, and has been trained about it, then he can’t get away with it.

When I was a teenager, barely a man. I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. That meant every single right of every single person. It meant defending the right to free speech for Penthouse and Playboy. It meant defending the right to assemble for really offensive people like those idiots in Kansas who used to protest funerals. It meant standing up and saying no it was wrong when the police execute an illegal search warrant. All the rights matter. You can’t denude one to get one guy without getting us all.

Blackstone said it was better for a thousand guilty men to go free, than one innocent man go to prison. It is better in my opinion that a thousand guilty men go free than one man get his rights Denied.

That is the point of the Constitution. It is to protect us from the Abuses of Government. And what you support is an abuse.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
124,069
Reaction score
11,999
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Flynn’s case was based upon information that the Feds knew was false. That is how they got the warrant. They presented information they knew to be untrue to the Judge to get the warrant. That is misconduct. Absolute and undeniable. The only remedy from that would be to suppress the evidence.
Well, no, the remedy would be to reprimand the agents, but if he was caught doing something illegal, STILL hold him to account.

That is the point of the Constitution. It is to protect us from the Abuses of Government. And what you support is an abuse.
NO, what I support is holding a man who betrayed his oath to the country accountable, which is what General Flynn did. This isn't someone who had a bag of weed someone found in an illegal search. This was someone who was doing the bidding of foreign governments, lying about it, and being in the highest positions of national security.
 
OP
SavannahMann

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
4,997
Reaction score
1,288
Points
255
Flynn’s case was based upon information that the Feds knew was false. That is how they got the warrant. They presented information they knew to be untrue to the Judge to get the warrant. That is misconduct. Absolute and undeniable. The only remedy from that would be to suppress the evidence.
Well, no, the remedy would be to reprimand the agents, but if he was caught doing something illegal, STILL hold him to account.

That is the point of the Constitution. It is to protect us from the Abuses of Government. And what you support is an abuse.
NO, what I support is holding a man who betrayed his oath to the country accountable, which is what General Flynn did. This isn't someone who had a bag of weed someone found in an illegal search. This was someone who was doing the bidding of foreign governments, lying about it, and being in the highest positions of national security.
And if we have to break the rules to get him, it’s worth it right? Fine. But where do we reestablish that line? Or do we? If it is acceptable for Cops to lie to get a warrant for this, is it OK for them to do it for Murder? If not why not? How long before a Warrant is that thing the cop calls up and says I want to look in this house. I have a hunch, and the Judge says fine?

We had that system on this continent once. It was run by the British. The British could enter any house they wanted, and search for anything they wanted. We passed the Bill of Rights because of the abuses of the British doing just what you advocate. If we are going to accept it now, do we reapply to become a Commonwealth nation? Change our Constitution to show that the Head of the House of Windsor is the ruling Monarch?

I say no. Because if you allow an exception every time the cause is good, and the guy is really bad, you end up watching that exception become the new rule and it’s used for everyone.
 
OP
SavannahMann

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
4,997
Reaction score
1,288
Points
255

DrLove

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Messages
18,668
Reaction score
4,353
Points
290
Location
Central Oregon Coast
You should read his new op-ed .. He is definitely insane.
He may be. He could well be nuttier than a Fruit Cake in May. But he is still entitled to all the rights as anyone else.
Mike the Traitor isn't entitled to a damn thing other than a pair of matching bracelets and a cellie named Bubba.

 
OP
SavannahMann

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
4,997
Reaction score
1,288
Points
255
You should read his new op-ed .. He is definitely insane.
He may be. He could well be nuttier than a Fruit Cake in May. But he is still entitled to all the rights as anyone else.
Mike the Traitor isn't entitled to a damn thing other than a pair of matching bracelets and a cellie named Bubba.

Ok. And answer me this. What do we do when these same abuses are done to a Murderer? Decide it is worth it because he is a Murderer and deserves nothing? How long before we just get rid of the Bill of Rights?
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
124,069
Reaction score
11,999
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
And if we have to break the rules to get him, it’s worth it right? Fine. But where do we reestablish that line? Or do we? If it is acceptable for Cops to lie to get a warrant for this, is it OK for them to do it for Murder? If not why not? How long before a Warrant is that thing the cop calls up and says I want to look in this house. I have a hunch, and the Judge says fine?
Noboby looked in Flynn's house. Flynn should have had a reasonable expectation that someone might be listening in on a phone call with a foreign official, if not our agencies, theirs. More to the point, he should have realized that if people were asking him what was discussed, he shouldn't LIE about it.

Remember, he wasn't in trouble for talking to the Russian Ambassador or even talking about Sanctions (although that was a violation of the Logan Act.) He was in trouble for LYING about it.

We had that system on this continent once. It was run by the British. The British could enter any house they wanted, and search for anything they wanted. We passed the Bill of Rights because of the abuses of the British doing just what you advocate. If we are going to accept it now, do we reapply to become a Commonwealth nation? Change our Constitution to show that the Head of the House of Windsor is the ruling Monarch?

I say no. Because if you allow an exception every time the cause is good, and the guy is really bad, you end up watching that exception become the new rule and it’s used for everyone.
Or you apply a little bit of common sense and realize that a small technical error doesn't excuse the greater crime.
 
OP
SavannahMann

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
4,997
Reaction score
1,288
Points
255
And if we have to break the rules to get him, it’s worth it right? Fine. But where do we reestablish that line? Or do we? If it is acceptable for Cops to lie to get a warrant for this, is it OK for them to do it for Murder? If not why not? How long before a Warrant is that thing the cop calls up and says I want to look in this house. I have a hunch, and the Judge says fine?
Noboby looked in Flynn's house. Flynn should have had a reasonable expectation that someone might be listening in on a phone call with a foreign official, if not our agencies, theirs. More to the point, he should have realized that if people were asking him what was discussed, he shouldn't LIE about it.

Remember, he wasn't in trouble for talking to the Russian Ambassador or even talking about Sanctions (although that was a violation of the Logan Act.) He was in trouble for LYING about it.

We had that system on this continent once. It was run by the British. The British could enter any house they wanted, and search for anything they wanted. We passed the Bill of Rights because of the abuses of the British doing just what you advocate. If we are going to accept it now, do we reapply to become a Commonwealth nation? Change our Constitution to show that the Head of the House of Windsor is the ruling Monarch?

I say no. Because if you allow an exception every time the cause is good, and the guy is really bad, you end up watching that exception become the new rule and it’s used for everyone.
Or you apply a little bit of common sense and realize that a small technical error doesn't excuse the greater crime.
So let’s be honest about it. Rewrite the fourth. We will do anything we want and screw you crims.
 
OP
SavannahMann

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
4,997
Reaction score
1,288
Points
255
It is amazing to consider all the outrage over the unprecedented actions of various levels of the courts.

Fairly Routine, if an abomination. The violations of Brady by the Prosecution. I say fairly routine because it is, and it is an abomination. The Prosecutors and Cops are supposedly entrusted with the authorities they are and paid for their service because they are supposed to be honest to the point of painful, above reproach. All that honor thing. And they are not, it is routine for them to hide and withhold information that would help the defense. So unlimited budgets and nearly unlimited authority is not enough, they have to cheat.

What is also routine is when these Brady violations are found out, to have the charges dismissed. It was done by the Judge against Bundy in Nevada. A routine outcome when the Prosecution is caught in a lie. Notice I said lie. Not mistake. A mistake is often forgiven. A mistake is not intentionally losing all the documents that pertain to a particular piece of information.

Now comes the first of the unprecedented actions. Judge Sullivan who has probably seen a hundred cases dismissed because of Brady Violations, suddenly objects to a case being dismissed over a Brady Violation. Yet if he was on the Council for the Defense, he would have been hopping up and down demanding just that, because it is routine.

Yet, in this case, the Judge takes an unprecedented action of appointing another Judge, this one retired to review the case. The Judge, reads the news, and Twitter, and examines facts not in evidence, and determines that the move to Dismiss is incorrect. Now, when a Jury is hearing a case, they are instructed not to read the news, or watch the news, or talk to anyone about the case. Why? Because we don’t want the people deciding things based upon unsubstantiated claims in the media. We want them making the decision based upon the evidence presented in court. Anything else is not in evidence. It is why some juries are Sequestered, in other words, locked down, to make sure they do not get exposed to information not in evidence.

So this unprecedented review of the Motion by a Retired Judge is predictable, and the Judge says no, the Prosecution should go forward and not move to dismiss. The Prosecutor moves to the Court of Appeals and asks for the nearly unprecedented Writ of Mandamas. An extremely rare action, taken as a result of an even more rare action by Judge Sullivan.

But let’s pretend that the trial was going to go forward. A defendant withdrawing a guilty plea, even a plea deal is not that unusual. It happens several times a year. So that is common. The normal action is to have a trial.

Only in this trial, the Prosecutor is going to spend most of his case arguing that the Prosecution has lied, withheld evidence, and does not have sufficient evidence against Flynn to prosecute. The reason I know that is because the witnesses, can’t testify.

The FBI agents who interviewed Flynn are called and immediately start answering all questions with the Fifth Amendment. Because if they answer the questions, then they have to explain why they withheld the information from the Defense. Why they lied in court filings, and why they are totally not lying today, or something.

The Technical experts testimony will be similar. The Defense will argue that their information was the result of a Search Warrant that was fatally flawed since the FBI agents lied on the Wire Tap warrant. The Judge will have to agree, and the information will be suppressed.

After a couple days of arguments, and witnesses refusing to answer questions, the Prosecution will rest. The Defense Attorney stands up and says that the Prosecution has made no case against the Defendant, and asks for a summary decision from the Judge for Not Guilty. The Judge, can so no, we’re going forward. Then the Jury under this imaginary scenario, has to convict Flynn based upon no testimony, and no witnesses, and no evidence, because he’s just a bad guy and we can’t tell you about it, but you can totally learn about it from the press.

The Republic is dead. And it has been for some time if we are even arguing about this.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
124,069
Reaction score
11,999
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
After a couple days of arguments, and witnesses refusing to answer questions, the Prosecution will rest. The Defense Attorney stands up and says that the Prosecution has made no case against the Defendant, and asks for a summary decision from the Judge for Not Guilty. The Judge, can so no, we’re going forward. Then the Jury under this imaginary scenario, has to convict Flynn based upon no testimony, and no witnesses, and no evidence, because he’s just a bad guy and we can’t tell you about it, but you can totally learn about it from the press.

The Republic is dead. And it has been for some time if we are even arguing about this.
Okay, here's the thing.

Flynn did what he was accused of. He also did a lot of other things that were illegal, but he agreed to plea to the one thing he plead guilty to if those other things he and his son did were dismissed. He also agreed to testify against Trump and other bad actors.

Then Trump decided that he wasn't going to follow the rule of law that every president since Nixon had to allow these independent councils to play out. Now, I'm actually pretty critical of some past IC's and SC".

Scooter Libby should not have been convicted for not remembering a conversation the way Tim Russert did, because a bunch of anti-war officials and journalists were having a circle jerk.

Ken Starr shouldn't have turned an investigation into a land deal into an panty-sniffing raid.

Lawrence Walsh should have closed up shop after North and Poindexter were acquitted because he used immunized testimony in their trials. He should not have been going after Cap Weinberger, who actually opposed selling weapons to Iran.

The fact is, there was a process, Trump has decided to abuse the process in a way his predecessors had by appointing a political AG who abuses the rule of law. THAT'S why the Republic is dead, not because "Oh, gosh, prosecutors cut some corners in finding people guilty."

Trump ALWAYS had the option of pardoning Flynn. (And he probably still will, after he is voted out in November and has to pardon everyone involved in his criminal presidency.)
 
OP
SavannahMann

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
4,997
Reaction score
1,288
Points
255
After a couple days of arguments, and witnesses refusing to answer questions, the Prosecution will rest. The Defense Attorney stands up and says that the Prosecution has made no case against the Defendant, and asks for a summary decision from the Judge for Not Guilty. The Judge, can so no, we’re going forward. Then the Jury under this imaginary scenario, has to convict Flynn based upon no testimony, and no witnesses, and no evidence, because he’s just a bad guy and we can’t tell you about it, but you can totally learn about it from the press.

The Republic is dead. And it has been for some time if we are even arguing about this.
Okay, here's the thing.

Flynn did what he was accused of. He also did a lot of other things that were illegal, but he agreed to plea to the one thing he plead guilty to if those other things he and his son did were dismissed. He also agreed to testify against Trump and other bad actors.

Then Trump decided that he wasn't going to follow the rule of law that every president since Nixon had to allow these independent councils to play out. Now, I'm actually pretty critical of some past IC's and SC".

Scooter Libby should not have been convicted for not remembering a conversation the way Tim Russert did, because a bunch of anti-war officials and journalists were having a circle jerk.

Ken Starr shouldn't have turned an investigation into a land deal into an panty-sniffing raid.

Lawrence Walsh should have closed up shop after North and Poindexter were acquitted because he used immunized testimony in their trials. He should not have been going after Cap Weinberger, who actually opposed selling weapons to Iran.

The fact is, there was a process, Trump has decided to abuse the process in a way his predecessors had by appointing a political AG who abuses the rule of law. THAT'S why the Republic is dead, not because "Oh, gosh, prosecutors cut some corners in finding people guilty."

Trump ALWAYS had the option of pardoning Flynn. (And he probably still will, after he is voted out in November and has to pardon everyone involved in his criminal presidency.)
No, as part of Flynn’s plea deal, he had to cooperate with the investigation. He did provide information, but not what the Agents were convinced happened, and the Prosecutor went to the Judge and said that Flynn was no cooperating and should go to prison for his crimes. Flynn changed his plea to Not Guilty.

Now, this is routine. People changing their plea. They get different advice, and they change their minds. Ok, now it requires a trial. All routine so far. Information starts to come out in drips, and it shows that the Federal Agents lied on the Warrant requests. That is also routine, as we have learned over the last several years.

Now, the routine way to handle this is to take it to the Judge, who acts surprised and shocked, and orders the information suppressed. In other words, information gotten can not be used in the trial.

Only in Flynn’s case, that is the entire case. So the Prosecutor has nothing to go to trial with.

We have seen this before. Violations of Brady are routine. Instead of being mad about that, you’re furious that Flynn is going to go free because of it.

When I was debating the jackasses in Georgia, the McMichael’s, I said that unless the Prosecution violated Brady, or there was some Police Misconduct, they were going to prison for a very long time. Knowing Glynn County, there is probably some misconduct somewhere. But the normal remedy for Brady Violations is at a minimum to suppress the evidence. Depending on the amount of evidence, it could be the entire case as it was with Bundy’s in Nevada.

This is routine. The Prosecutors cheat. They aren’t supposed to. Only in the Flynn case, the cheating and routine nature of the remedy is suddenly outrageous.

Bundy was prosecuted during the Obama Administration, and the charges were dropped, because the Prosecutors and Agents lied. Not because Bundy was innocent. But because the Agents went with routine lies, and were discovered.

This is not a new thing. This is not a new rule that has never been used before. What is new is the Judge bringing in a former Judge to examine the case and decide if the Prosecution can go forward. That is unprecedented. No Judge has ever sough Amicus briefs or testimony before.

Remember Prop 8. The State Attorney General refused to fight the decision of voters in the courts. The group that paid for the ballot initiative went to the courts to defend the will of the Voters. It went all the way to the Supreme Court. And in the end, the Supreme Court ruled that the group did not have standing to bring the suit. The people who are allowed to speak for California, is the Attorney General. The Attorney General has no duty to fight a case he believes is unconstitutional. The case was thrown out, and the summary judgement ruling Prop 8 invalid and unconstitutional went into effect.

Why did the court not consider the Amicus position of the Prop 8 supporters as valid? Because it isn’t. Only one party has the standing to represent their position. In the case of the Government, it is the Department of Justice. For the State of California, it was the State Attorney General.

For private persons to go to court, they had to be able to show injury, and they could not. Not representing the State as they were.

In the end, either the rules matter, the constitution matters, or it does not. If it doesn’t, then we should stop pretending we are a Republic, we would not be. We would not be a democracy either. We would be either a Fascist or Socialist dictatorship.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
124,069
Reaction score
11,999
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
No, as part of Flynn’s plea deal, he had to cooperate with the investigation. He did provide information, but not what the Agents were convinced happened, and the Prosecutor went to the Judge and said that Flynn was no cooperating and should go to prison for his crimes. Flynn changed his plea to Not Guilty.
Okay, without getting into the whole issue, the point was, HE DID EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS ACCUSED OF.

This isn't like a black kid who got a bag of coke planted in his trunk, Flynn did what he was accused of doing. He lied about his discussions with the Russians. He lied about his contacts and lobbying for the Turkish government, including attempts to extradite a Turkish dissident who would have faced execution. This is NOT a nice man.

In the end, either the rules matter, the constitution matters, or it does not. If it doesn’t, then we should stop pretending we are a Republic, we would not be. We would not be a democracy either. We would be either a Fascist or Socialist dictatorship.
The constitution has a remedy, it's called a "Pardon", if Trump truly feels that Flynn's service to the country outweighed his crimes. Flynn doing "backsies" after he was caught because Barr is ignoring his duty is not a remedy.

I worry a lot more about an administration committing crimes because they know their own people won't prosecute them for it, rather than, "you didn't dot all the i's on your paperwork." That's when we drift towards dictatorship.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top