Judge Sullivan Scrambles For A Lifeline To Bail HIMSELF Out Of Dropped Flynn Case

[sakinago]

Sullivan may vacate the 18 USC 1001 charge, and then charge Flynn with perjury.

You can't lie under oath to a federal judge.

1. A Federal Judge can NOT 'charge' anyone with a crime.

According to legal precedence Sullivan has no option but to dropt the case; however, he is bringing in his Trump-hating pal to discuss the ability to 'find' Flynn in COMTEMP of court.


2. Democrats lie under oath all the time. If all of their Democrats who lied under oath were in jail today, Gitmo would be full.

The last President to lie under oath and be found in Contempt was Slick Willy. He was given no jail time, but he did his license to practice law temporarily stripped.

"A Federal Judge can NOT 'charge' anyone with a crime"

Are you ever not a retard?

CLINTON IS FOUND TO BE IN CONTEMPT ON JONES LAWSUIT (Published 1999)

Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright cites Pres Clinton for contempt, ruling he willfully provided false testimony under oath about his relationship with Monica S Lewinsky in January 1998 deposition in sexual misconduct lawsuit filed by Paula Corbin Jones; scathing 32-page decision says Clinton's...

www.nytimes.com

Apparently some people don’t know their constitution very well. The courts have inherent power. They may exercise it with people who are playing games.

Yep.....the Obama DOJ withheld exculpatory evidence (were playing games) and framed Michael Flynn. The Judge took a bribe from somebody in Obama's criminal organization (playing games) to string out the case till Trump is forced to pardon him. If Trump Wins reelection the Democrats (playing games) will try to impeach him for the pardon.

what does it say about Flynn's attorneys if they had him plead guilty, and affirm that guilty plea, when according to Barr there was never anything to go on? the firm representing Flynn wasn't a bottom of the barrel kind of operation.

From what I've read.....Flynn's original attorneys were corrupt and worked with prosecutors from the corrupt DOJ.
He fired them and his new attorney found that the DOJ set him up.

His new attorney is a hack who pleases the right wing rabble. She wasn’t interested in defending him legally (her motions were legally dubious and smacked down repeatedly by the judge, even calling them unprofessional). She was putting on a public show to gin up right wing outrage and pressure.

Flynn wasn’t set up no matter what way you look at it. No one made him lie.

Flynn’s new attorney actually worked for him instead of against him. Finding the withholding of evidence and now all the other garbage that has come out. Flynn WAS set up. He did not lie. Since you can not produce the ORiGINAL 302, neither you nor the liars in the FBI can say Flynn lied.

The original 302 has been presented and shows he lied. So do the notes from the interview. He lied. Get over it.

Flynn’s lawyer didn’t uncover anything. Her repeated motions for material were a joke and the judge dismissed all of her claims because she’s a shitty lawyer.

No she’s not. Lady is a bonafide shark with a record to back it up. That’s an awful argument. You’re picking sides and Sullivan is your hero. And it’s coming off the heels of an appellate court basically telling Sullivan he has 10 days to get his shit together. Are you really trying to argue Sullivan’s actions aren’t wildly abnormal? The prosecution said they were dropping charges...the judges role by law is over. The only thing he can legally do at this point is slam his gavel.

Maybe back in the day she was more competent but like so many, Trump has changed people into something a little more fringe. Sullivan’s rulings on her motions rip her professionalism.

She’s all over the map.

Sidney Powell Argues that Judge Sullivan Can't Appoint an Amicus at Same Time as Applauding the Time He Did Far More - emptywheel

Yesterday, Sidney Powell was publicly applauding Judge Sullivan's authority to appoint outsiders to review a prosecution gone haywire even as she was submitting a filing telling him he couldn't. She deleted that post -- but she can't delete the prior claims she made in Sullivan's docket.

www.emptywheel.net

The judiciary doesn’t just have to roll over and obey the executive. I’d agree that Sullivan’s actions are wildly abnormal, but they’re only a reflection of the wildly abnormal situation the DoJ has put him in by dropping charges after a guilty plea with no claim of prosecutorial misconduct or exculpatory evidence.

No the judiciary CANNOT order the commencement of what it cannot initiate. Maybe in mainland Europe with magistrates, but under common law, as adopted by the US constitution, the “court” cannot just ignore the executive in this matter. It has no jurisdiction. Judges in these settings cannot order the prosecution, or order the commencement of prosecution for anyone. It is the executive branches job in this case to initiate the prosecution, as well as initiate the commencement of prosecution. They are constitutionally co-equal branches with their own rules. Sullivan is over stepping his constitutional authority, just like if Sullivan were to summon congressional members to explain why a certain law was passed. He just does not have the authority to do so. The authority of the executive to decide not to prosecute is a check purposely built into the system.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-67_n6io.pdf

The defendant has already plead guilty and is awaiting sentencing. There is no prosecution left for him to order. why would the rules of the courts require the judge to grant a motion?

The defendant has withdrawn his plea, with possibly the strongest grounds to do so in history with the prosecution dropping the case...and the uncovered clear abuses of power by the FBI...as well as the fact there was no prosecutable crime, which he is legally allowed to do.

this was an alleged drug dealer . And the FBI/Cops abused the power of their warrant, found there was ZERO drug dealing, and decided to still manufacture a bogus charge and were only able to do so by threatening to go after his family....it’d be the most popular Netflix documentary today.

 

[sakinago]

and the FBI said it was an “informal” interview of which he wasn’t the subject, in order for Flynn to “drop his guard” as bragged by comey.

The FBI never said that.

I’m not going to argue meaningless semantics

 

[meaner gene]

Yeah...but who has the right to press charges?
Perjury falls under the purview of prosecutorial-discretion.....and none of the prosecutors want to press charges.
The only asshole wanting to press charges is a corrupt Obama judge.
Obama seems to know alot of these shitheads.

The judge can hold Flynn in criminal contempt for perjury.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They don't have to indicate ANYTHING but to cast doubt on the prosecutor's case. NAMELY, Flynn's intent. Flynn can use those notes to show that it was not his intent to lie. They set him up. That is a defense to the willful aspect.

How do the notes of a discussion that Flynn never knew existed have any bearing on his intent?

It tends to show that Flynn never intended to lie, but that they asked him questions strategically to get him to say something they knew he would not remember SO THEY CAN PROSECUTE HIM as their notes indicate.

No intent to lie.

.

 

[meaner gene]

Explain to me why Obama went to the Iraqi PM and told him not to make any agreements with Bush after Obama won in November of 08'?

You know that Bush signed a SOFA with Iraq at the end of December 2000

 

[sakinago]

Sullivan may vacate the 18 USC 1001 charge, and then charge Flynn with perjury.

You can't lie under oath to a federal judge.

1. A Federal Judge can NOT 'charge' anyone with a crime.

According to legal precedence Sullivan has no option but to dropt the case; however, he is bringing in his Trump-hating pal to discuss the ability to 'find' Flynn in COMTEMP of court.


2. Democrats lie under oath all the time. If all of their Democrats who lied under oath were in jail today, Gitmo would be full.

The last President to lie under oath and be found in Contempt was Slick Willy. He was given no jail time, but he did his license to practice law temporarily stripped.

"A Federal Judge can NOT 'charge' anyone with a crime"

Are you ever not a retard?

CLINTON IS FOUND TO BE IN CONTEMPT ON JONES LAWSUIT (Published 1999)

Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright cites Pres Clinton for contempt, ruling he willfully provided false testimony under oath about his relationship with Monica S Lewinsky in January 1998 deposition in sexual misconduct lawsuit filed by Paula Corbin Jones; scathing 32-page decision says Clinton's...

www.nytimes.com

Apparently some people don’t know their constitution very well. The courts have inherent power. They may exercise it with people who are playing games.

Yep.....the Obama DOJ withheld exculpatory evidence (were playing games) and framed Michael Flynn. The Judge took a bribe from somebody in Obama's criminal organization (playing games) to string out the case till Trump is forced to pardon him. If Trump Wins reelection the Democrats (playing games) will try to impeach him for the pardon.

what does it say about Flynn's attorneys if they had him plead guilty, and affirm that guilty plea, when according to Barr there was never anything to go on? the firm representing Flynn wasn't a bottom of the barrel kind of operation.

From what I've read.....Flynn's original attorneys were corrupt and worked with prosecutors from the corrupt DOJ.
He fired them and his new attorney found that the DOJ set him up.

His new attorney is a hack who pleases the right wing rabble. She wasn’t interested in defending him legally (her motions were legally dubious and smacked down repeatedly by the judge, even calling them unprofessional). She was putting on a public show to gin up right wing outrage and pressure.

Flynn wasn’t set up no matter what way you look at it. No one made him lie.

Flynn’s new attorney actually worked for him instead of against him. Finding the withholding of evidence and now all the other garbage that has come out. Flynn WAS set up. He did not lie. Since you can not produce the ORiGINAL 302, neither you nor the liars in the FBI can say Flynn lied.

The original 302 has been presented and shows he lied. So do the notes from the interview. He lied. Get over it.

Flynn’s lawyer didn’t uncover anything. Her repeated motions for material were a joke and the judge dismissed all of her claims because she’s a shitty lawyer.

No she’s not. Lady is a bonafide shark with a record to back it up. That’s an awful argument. You’re picking sides and Sullivan is your hero. And it’s coming off the heels of an appellate court basically telling Sullivan he has 10 days to get his shit together. Are you really trying to argue Sullivan’s actions aren’t wildly abnormal? The prosecution said they were dropping charges...the judges role by law is over. The only thing he can legally do at this point is slam his gavel.

Maybe back in the day she was more competent but like so many, Trump has changed people into something a little more fringe. Sullivan’s rulings on her motions rip her professionalism.

She’s all over the map.

Sidney Powell Argues that Judge Sullivan Can't Appoint an Amicus at Same Time as Applauding the Time He Did Far More - emptywheel

Yesterday, Sidney Powell was publicly applauding Judge Sullivan's authority to appoint outsiders to review a prosecution gone haywire even as she was submitting a filing telling him he couldn't. She deleted that post -- but she can't delete the prior claims she made in Sullivan's docket.

www.emptywheel.net

The judiciary doesn’t just have to roll over and obey the executive. I’d agree that Sullivan’s actions are wildly abnormal, but they’re only a reflection of the wildly abnormal situation the DoJ has put him in by dropping charges after a guilty plea with no claim of prosecutorial misconduct or exculpatory evidence.

Trump made her bad at her job? And Sullivan did NOT refute Powell’s arguments. He merely said he’s going to go with what Paige said. Again the FBI CANNOT claim any materiality to an investigation since their investigation on Flynn was effectively closed. That’s the biggest piece of evidence. Mind you this is all over a perfectly legal and proper phone call that no one has an objection too. The left is pretending like Flynn is al Capone, and this is their tax evasion. You cannot argue the Logan act, and you can not argue that he was a Russian asset in any sort of way. So the fact that Sullivan is holding this up without explanation over a legal phone call without any shady business is bizarre.

This is all part of a botched attempt to get Flynn to make up improper relations with Russia about trump. The fact that they even attempted the Logan act (if the phone call isn’t enough for you) should set off alarm bells. To justify all of this the FBI was using a dossier that they knew at the time was littered with holes. It’s like if cops used a CI that they knew hated a person, and the CI accused that person of absurd crimes, and the cops knew the CI was lying up and down, and still went after that person. After they investigate that person of the CI’s claims they find nothing the CI said was true, and that the person is innocent, but still try to find a way to charge him of something else. This is America. Our justice system investigates crimes, then goes after the people that commit them. Not the other way around which is find a person, and then find a crime. In Flynn’s case there is no crime. Flynn could tell the FBI he shits rainbows, if the FBI isn’t investigating what comes out of Flynn’s ass, they don’t have a crime.

The Logan Act is a United States federal law that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized American citizens with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States, Like Russia was over Ukrainian invasion, hence the sanctions.

1. Flynn was fired from the Obama administration in 2014 and had no authorization to enact policies with regards to sanctions on Russia.
2. Flynn’s lies mattered because they may have concealed a deal between Trump and Russia over sanctions. Keep in Mind Trump himself was not yet the American President and had no authoirty to make policy on behalf of the American people either
3. The Flynn-Kislyak call was recorded by U.S. intelligence agencies. Why?--Flynn is corrupt and the FBI was watching him because he was engaged in criminality The Mueller report's account of Michael Flynn's lies
4. Flynn admitted to violating lobbying laws by failing to register as a foreign agent on behalf of Turkey for hundreds of thousands of dollars of consulting work,
5. On Election Day in 2016, Flynn wrote an op-ed in The Hill criticizing cleric Fethullah Gulen, an enemy of Turkey's president living in self-imposed exile in Pennsylvania, as a "radical Islamist" and "shady Islamic mullah." The Wall Street Journal later reported that Flynn and his son twice met with Turkish representatives to discuss kidnapping Gulen and forcibly extraditing him to Turkey.
6. Michael Flynn Pleaded Guilty. Twice.--Even Trump has said his former national security adviser lied to the F.B.I. Opinion | Don’t Forget, Michael Flynn Pleaded Guilty. Twice.
7. Flynn admitted that he had lied to the FBI about his conversations with Kislyak, and that he also had lied to agents about his efforts to influence foreign diplomats regarding a December 2016 UN resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction. He also admitted that he had lied to the Justice Department in a Foreign Agents Registration Act filing by claiming he was not aware he was lobbying for Turkey.
8. Congressional Republican report says Flynn went to infamous Russian spymaster’s house for ‘very productive’ 2015 meeting Flynn 'lied to investigators' about Russia trip, says top House Dem
9. Back in 2017, Pence insisted that Flynn had lied to him too Pence weighs in on Flynn firing, says White House is "fully cooperating" with special counsel

There was no reason to have Flynn's name masked to begin with, Because he was no longer part of the U.S Government, Being on the transition team certainly doesn't qualify, Obama also warned Trump that it would be a bad idea to hire Flynn--Flynn had been fired for erratic behavior and misconduct 2014. Flynn’s current release by Barr does not prove that Flynn was innocent of wrongdoing. Being released by Barr does not convert Flynn’s lies into truth, Flynn’s lies mattered because they may have concealed a deal between Trump and Russia over sanctions.--On the day that the Flynn case was dropped, Trump spoke by telephone to Putin

Irrelevant

Flynn was not charged with logan act violations.

Stay on topic, commie.

.

Is there any reason the Logan Act can’t be used as justification for an investigation?

Not at all, if you don't mind being considered a dumbass.

It’s still the law, is it not?

No one cares who you consider a dumbass.

Is that the rule you clowns want to follow now? ALL laws need to be followed? How about we start with deporting every illegal in this country.

You’re not very good at this.

It’s the law of the land. Can it be used to legally justify an investigation?

The answer is yes. You know it and you just don’t want to admit it.

Until John Kerry is prosecuted under that act, keep your idiotic mouth shut. You lose again.

John Kerry, Obama, probably both Bushes, and definitely the Clinton’s. The Logan act is a ridiculous claim.

transition teams don’t engage in foreign policy. You know it. I know it. Flynn knows it. That’s the genesis of his lie. He doesn’t want people to know he’s making policy before they are sworn in.

Saying this was business as usual or “doing his job” is not representative of the facts. It’s not the first time it’s ever happened but it’s not appropriate.

Is It Normal That Trump’s NSA Pick Michael Flynn Called the Russians?

Is This Normal? is a new Slate series that will attempt to determine which controversial Trump World behaviors are outrageously unprecedented, which...

slate.com

Whoa whoa whoa whoa....it’s foreign policy to ask a country not to escalate? Also, define foreign policy? Is it foreign policy for a president elect or a member of their transition team to discuss future plans with a foreign entity? Is it foreign policy to urge them in a certain direction on an issue? If that’s the case, and it’s wrong, then lock up every president and transition team member since 1968. You’re arguments are getting pretty sad now, they use to be decent. Now you’re just saying things

Yes, it is foreign policy to ask a country to do something. They’re making deals. That’s foreign policy. It’s also foreign policy to lobby countries to vote in a certain way in the UN.

Not saying it’s illegal. But it’s wrong.

And no, not every transition team is trying to do that. It’s happened before but saying everyone has done it since 1968 is not supported.

No it’s not wrong. That’s silly. That’s like saying A. President elect and teams aren’t going to talk to foreign diplomats that will be bombarding them, and B. That the president elect should agree with everything the current-soon-to-be-retired president is saying now. Basically the only thing a transition team can do is foreign policy since they don’t have control of the executive branch. You personally don’t like it in the case of trump. Obama was doing this shit when he was still a candidate. Same with Romney.

You’re being obtuse. Show me where Obama was lobbying foreign nations to do specific things as president elect.

Already posted the article, he wasn’t even president elect. Let’s also note that as president elect, he helped destabilize half the Middle East and North Africa into a festering hell hole. And no I’m not being obtuse, saying that a judge can initiate prosecution of a crime is an obtuse thing to say.

 

[bripat9643]

and the FBI said it was an “informal” interview of which he wasn’t the subject, in order for Flynn to “drop his guard” as bragged by comey.

The FBI never said that.

Comey said it, your fucking moron.

 

[sakinago]

Yeah...but who has the right to press charges?
Perjury falls under the purview of prosecutorial-discretion.....and none of the prosecutors want to press charges.
The only asshole wanting to press charges is a corrupt Obama judge.
Obama seems to know alot of these shitheads.

The judge can hold Flynn in criminal contempt for perjury.

Yeah someone explain the rationale behind the perjury claim, it cannot be as bizarre as I think it is

 

[colfax_m]

Sullivan may vacate the 18 USC 1001 charge, and then charge Flynn with perjury.

You can't lie under oath to a federal judge.

1. A Federal Judge can NOT 'charge' anyone with a crime.

According to legal precedence Sullivan has no option but to dropt the case; however, he is bringing in his Trump-hating pal to discuss the ability to 'find' Flynn in COMTEMP of court.


2. Democrats lie under oath all the time. If all of their Democrats who lied under oath were in jail today, Gitmo would be full.

The last President to lie under oath and be found in Contempt was Slick Willy. He was given no jail time, but he did his license to practice law temporarily stripped.

"A Federal Judge can NOT 'charge' anyone with a crime"

Are you ever not a retard?

CLINTON IS FOUND TO BE IN CONTEMPT ON JONES LAWSUIT (Published 1999)

Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright cites Pres Clinton for contempt, ruling he willfully provided false testimony under oath about his relationship with Monica S Lewinsky in January 1998 deposition in sexual misconduct lawsuit filed by Paula Corbin Jones; scathing 32-page decision says Clinton's...

www.nytimes.com

Apparently some people don’t know their constitution very well. The courts have inherent power. They may exercise it with people who are playing games.

Yep.....the Obama DOJ withheld exculpatory evidence (were playing games) and framed Michael Flynn. The Judge took a bribe from somebody in Obama's criminal organization (playing games) to string out the case till Trump is forced to pardon him. If Trump Wins reelection the Democrats (playing games) will try to impeach him for the pardon.

what does it say about Flynn's attorneys if they had him plead guilty, and affirm that guilty plea, when according to Barr there was never anything to go on? the firm representing Flynn wasn't a bottom of the barrel kind of operation.

From what I've read.....Flynn's original attorneys were corrupt and worked with prosecutors from the corrupt DOJ.
He fired them and his new attorney found that the DOJ set him up.

His new attorney is a hack who pleases the right wing rabble. She wasn’t interested in defending him legally (her motions were legally dubious and smacked down repeatedly by the judge, even calling them unprofessional). She was putting on a public show to gin up right wing outrage and pressure.

Flynn wasn’t set up no matter what way you look at it. No one made him lie.

Flynn’s new attorney actually worked for him instead of against him. Finding the withholding of evidence and now all the other garbage that has come out. Flynn WAS set up. He did not lie. Since you can not produce the ORiGINAL 302, neither you nor the liars in the FBI can say Flynn lied.

The original 302 has been presented and shows he lied. So do the notes from the interview. He lied. Get over it.

Flynn’s lawyer didn’t uncover anything. Her repeated motions for material were a joke and the judge dismissed all of her claims because she’s a shitty lawyer.

No she’s not. Lady is a bonafide shark with a record to back it up. That’s an awful argument. You’re picking sides and Sullivan is your hero. And it’s coming off the heels of an appellate court basically telling Sullivan he has 10 days to get his shit together. Are you really trying to argue Sullivan’s actions aren’t wildly abnormal? The prosecution said they were dropping charges...the judges role by law is over. The only thing he can legally do at this point is slam his gavel.

Maybe back in the day she was more competent but like so many, Trump has changed people into something a little more fringe. Sullivan’s rulings on her motions rip her professionalism.

She’s all over the map.

Sidney Powell Argues that Judge Sullivan Can't Appoint an Amicus at Same Time as Applauding the Time He Did Far More - emptywheel

Yesterday, Sidney Powell was publicly applauding Judge Sullivan's authority to appoint outsiders to review a prosecution gone haywire even as she was submitting a filing telling him he couldn't. She deleted that post -- but she can't delete the prior claims she made in Sullivan's docket.

www.emptywheel.net

The judiciary doesn’t just have to roll over and obey the executive. I’d agree that Sullivan’s actions are wildly abnormal, but they’re only a reflection of the wildly abnormal situation the DoJ has put him in by dropping charges after a guilty plea with no claim of prosecutorial misconduct or exculpatory evidence.

No the judiciary CANNOT order the commencement of what it cannot initiate. Maybe in mainland Europe with magistrates, but under common law, as adopted by the US constitution, the “court” cannot just ignore the executive in this matter. It has no jurisdiction. Judges in these settings cannot order the prosecution, or order the commencement of prosecution for anyone. It is the executive branches job in this case to initiate the prosecution, as well as initiate the commencement of prosecution. They are constitutionally co-equal branches with their own rules. Sullivan is over stepping his constitutional authority, just like if Sullivan were to summon congressional members to explain why a certain law was passed. He just does not have the authority to do so. The authority of the executive to decide not to prosecute is a check purposely built into the system.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-67_n6io.pdf

The defendant has already plead guilty and is awaiting sentencing. There is no prosecution left for him to order. why would the rules of the courts require the judge to grant a motion?

The defendant has withdrawn his plea, with possibly the strongest grounds to do so in history with the prosecution dropping the case...and the uncovered clear abuses of power by the FBI...as well as the fact there was no prosecutable crime, which he is legally allowed to do.

this was an alleged drug dealer . And the FBI/Cops abused the power of their warrant, found there was ZERO drug dealing, and decided to still manufacture a bogus charge and were only able to do so by threatening to go after his family....it’d be the most popular Netflix documentary today.

He has petitioned to withdraw his plea, and needs a ruling by the judge to do so. Absent a good reason, he does not have to have his motion granted.

The motion to dismiss charges is laughable. It does not claim abuse of power. It does not claim prosecutorial misconduct. It does not claim exculpatory evidence. All it says is that there wasn’t sufficient reason to investigate. A claim that came from a lawyer who was never part of the investigation which occurred over three years ago.

 

[mudwhistle]

Explain to me why Obama went to the Iraqi PM and told him not to make any agreements with Bush after Obama won in November of 08'?

Source for this claim?

The AP...try looking it up....hopefully they haven't had it totally scrubbed from the internet.
The Iraqi PM himself made the claim.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah...but who has the right to press charges?
Perjury falls under the purview of prosecutorial-discretion.....and none of the prosecutors want to press charges.
The only asshole wanting to press charges is a corrupt Obama judge.
Obama seems to know alot of these shitheads.

The judge can hold Flynn in criminal contempt for perjury.

Yeah someone explain the rationale behind the perjury claim, it cannot be as bizarre as I think it is

Apparently everyone who pleads innocent and then gets convicted has committed perjury.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yeah someone explain the rationale behind the perjury claim, it cannot be as bizarre as I think it is

It certainly is as bizarre as you think it is.

The questions the judge asks include one about why you are pleading guilty.

"and you are pleading guilty because you are guilty and for no other reason."

No one has ever been prosecuted for perjury for withdrawing their plea AFTER answering that question in the affirmative.

These ass clowns are looking for any reason they can find to keep it going. They are partisan hacks.

.

 

[colfax_m]

Already posted the article, he wasn’t even president elect.

And so it has no bearing on this conversation about presidential transition teams.

Thanks.

 

[meaner gene]

It tends to show that Flynn never intended to lie, but that they asked him questions strategically to get him to say something they knew he would not remember SO THEY CAN PROSECUTE HIM as their notes indicate.

No intent to lie.

.

Flynn fully intended to lie.
Flynn lied first to Mike Pence, he lied to Rance Priebus, and then he lied to the FBI.

You don't tell the same lie three different times, if you didn't intend to.

 

[colfax_m]

and the FBI said it was an “informal” interview of which he wasn’t the subject, in order for Flynn to “drop his guard” as bragged by comey.

The FBI never said that.

I’m not going to argue meaningless semantics

These semantics are VERY meaningful otherwise you wouldn’t be making the claim.

The FBI never said anything about an “informal” interview. They never said he wasn’t a subject. These details are important. if they weren’t you wouldn’t have gone through the trouble of making them up.

 

[meaner gene]

The judge can hold Flynn in criminal contempt for perjury.

Yeah someone explain the rationale behind the perjury claim, it cannot be as bizarre as I think it is

The court has the power to enforce it's rules, and to protect the sanctity of their proceedings. If someone tries to run around the courtroom naked, the judge can find them in contempt. If a witness refuses to answer, the judge can find them in contempt. And if someone deliberately perjures himself the judge can find him in contempt.

 

[sakinago]

The judge can hold Flynn in criminal contempt for perjury.

Yeah someone explain the rationale behind the perjury claim, it cannot be as bizarre as I think it is

The court has the power to enforce it's rules, and to protect the sanctity of their proceedings. If someone tries to run around the courtroom naked, the judge can find them in contempt. If a witness refuses to answer, the judge can find them in contempt. And if someone deliberately perjures himself the judge can find him in contempt.

I know what perjury is. What is the specific perjury charge here

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It tends to show that Flynn never intended to lie, but that they asked him questions strategically to get him to say something they knew he would not remember SO THEY CAN PROSECUTE HIM as their notes indicate.

No intent to lie.

.

Flynn fully intended to lie.
Flynn lied first to Mike Pence, he lied to Rance Priebus, and then he lied to the FBI.

You don't tell the same lie three different times, if you didn't intend to.

You don't seem to get it. You're not even close to the proper standard for Brady evidence.

The judge should not give a fuck about what he believes Flynn intended.

A defendant is allowed to review and present all evidence that casts doubt on the prosecution's case.

Ask yourself, does seeing notes that investigators planned to set him up to lie so they could prosecute him tend to cast doubt on the prosecution's case as it relates to Flynn's intent? Not whether you believe it or not. I just want to know objectively, would that tend to cause a jury to have the slightest doubt about whether Flynn had the intent to lie to investigators? Would a jury be more likely to believe that the FBI wanted to set him up after seeing those notes or LESS likely?

I am not asking if they WOULD believe it. I am asking if it adds to the defense's case in even a slight way.

NO REASONABLE MIND COULD CONCLUDE that such evidence does NOT help the defense. NONE!!!

.

 

[colfax_m]

NO REASONABLE MIND COULD CONCLUDE that such evidence does NOT help the defense. NONE!!!

Explain how it helps the defense.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The judge can hold Flynn in criminal contempt for perjury.

Yeah someone explain the rationale behind the perjury claim, it cannot be as bizarre as I think it is

The court has the power to enforce it's rules, and to protect the sanctity of their proceedings. If someone tries to run around the courtroom naked, the judge can find them in contempt. If a witness refuses to answer, the judge can find them in contempt. And if someone deliberately perjures himself the judge can find him in contempt.

I know what perjury is. What is the specific perjury charge here

They would be charging him for answering the question "are you pleading guilty because you are guilty and for no other reason" and then changing his plea.

It is that level of dried bullshit we are hearing.

No one can ever withdraw their plea, according to these corn holes.

.