Sidney powell

[AntonToo]

Underlying crime.

You still have no idea wtf you're talking about.

I have just explained to you in most simple terms the underlying crime. How many times will we need to go over it?

It would be a CRIME for Trump campaign to conspire with Russians to commit fraud and Flynn discussing sanctions was of direct interest to that investigation.

Flynn lying to investigators was well proven and a clear cut CRIME in of itself, not hinged on what the larger investigation ultimately concluded.

It's illigal to obstruct official investigations, what part of that simple concept you can't don't want to understand?

 

[sakinago]

You still have no idea wtf you're talking about.

I have just explained to you in most simple terms the underlying crime. How many times will we need to go over it?

It would be a CRIME for Trump campaign to conspire with Russians to commit fraud and Flynn discussing sanctions was of direct interest to that investigation.

Him lying to investigators about his discussions with Russians was a clear cut crime.

What part of that can you not understand?

You still didn’t list the underlying crime. It’s because there was none. If there was an underlying crime than why did the FBI file to close the case prior to the notorious meeting in which Flynn supposedly lied? Why didnt the mueller investigation find any of said “Russian collusion”? You can’t get pass this point. We’re not even on whether or not he lied and how it makes zero ******* sense that he’d lie about what he said in the phone call when he already acknowledged the agents in that meeting had the transcripts to that phone call. Your neighbor can scream and jump and accuse you of murdering your wife all he wants, but if they can’t produce the body of your wife, there is no crime. Habeus Corpus. If they can’t show an underlying crime, then they can’t accuse you of lying about a crime that was never committed....Do you want to go back to the Logan act and that the Obama administration official position was that they wanted Russia to escalate? You might have better luck with that.

 

[AntonToo]

You still didn’t list the underlying crime. It’s because there was none. If there was an underlying crime than why did the FBI file to close the case prior to the notorious meeting in which Flynn supposedly lied? Why didnt the mueller investigation find any of said “Russian collusion”? You can’t get pass this point. We’re not even on whether or not he lied and how it makes zero ******* sense that he’d lie about what he said in the phone call when he already acknowledged the agents in that meeting had the transcripts to that phone call. Your neighbor can scream and jump and accuse you of murdering your wife all he wants, but if they can’t produce the body of your wife, there is no crime. Habeus Corpus. If they can’t show an underlying crime, then they can’t accuse you of lying about a crime that was never committed....Do you want to go back to the Logan act and that the Obama administration official position was that they wanted Russia to escalate? You might have better luck with that.

You are posting pure ignorant horseshit.

Lying to FBI is in fact a crime not hinged on what investigation ultimately finds.

If you lie to investigators looking into a murder about your whereabouts, because you didn't want you wife to find out about your girlfriends, you have committed a crime. And it absolutely does not matter if murder charges are ever brought against anyone.

In many investigations the only resultant charges are for lying to investigators, because prosecutor may consider other charges tougher to prove.

 

[Chillicothe]

"In many investigations the only resultant charges are for lying to investigators, because prosecutor may consider other charges tougher to prove."

Poster 'antontoo', I admire your due diligence and desire to help another understand a legal concept.
However, as we see above, you can lead a horse to water....but you can' make him fish.

But, to support antontoo's definitions that he patiently explained to the other poster, let me add ------ there is good societal reasons for treating lies during a legal investigation a criminal act.

Honesty helps authorities determine the facts that may be relevant to their investigation.
Dishonesty offers the potential to sidetrack, delay, even cancel a proper and fulsome exposition of the details of an incident being investigated.

I know, I know, that sounds like Captain Obvious stuff, but...........but we seem to have at least one poster above who doesn't quite grasp the value of honesty when answering the questions of lawful duly-authorized investigators.

Bluntly, lying to the cops often ain't a smart thing to do.
Ask Michael Flynn.

 

[sakinago]

You are posting pure ignorant horseshit.

Lying to FBI is in fact a crime not hinged on what investigation ultimately finds.

If you lie to investigators looking into a murder about your whereabouts, because you didn't want you wife to find out about your girlfriends, you have committed a crime. And it absolutely does not matter if murder charges are ever brought against anyone.

In many investigations the only resultant charges are for lying to investigators, because prosecutor may consider other charges tougher to prove.

Yeah no, you’re just pulling that out of your ass now. That is 100% not the case. Neither with the FBI nor the cops. You can tell them you were baking cookies, and they could 100% know you were lying and have proof, but if your wife shows up alive and well, there is no crime. Because lying by itself isn’t a crime. The 2 people that lie most in the world are criminals and cops. My neighbor is a cop and tried to lie to me saying his wife got me on cell phone video hitting the mirror of her car. To which I laughed at because A. I most certainly did not hit her mirror becuase I hadn’t left the house that day, B. that would imply she was prepared for me to hit it, was like one of the pool people in minority report and foresaw me hitting the mirror, and had her phone ready to go and video taping it. Needless to say he’s not a very smart person and somehow is a Sargent detective. Anyway after I laughed I dared him to show me the video, he of course said he didn’t have his wife’s phone on him. I told him to go home and get it to show, he declined, so I dared him to go to the police station with me and file a report. I was hoping he would so I could nab him for filing a false report, with my ring doorbell footage as proof. Now that’s one of the few crimes you can get nabbed for for lying. Unfortunately the fat **** didn’t take the bait. And he probably could’ve gotten away with it even if he did with, “my wife must’ve been mistaken” or something to that effect. Even if I would’ve got him on tape with the lie of “my wife caught you on tape”, becuase lying isn’t a crime.

As far as the FBI and Flynn, care to tell me the reason the DOJ dropped the case? Becuase there was no underlying crime, which is necessity for prosecuting.

 

[AntonToo]

Yeah no, you’re just pulling that out of your ass now. That is 100% not the case. Neither with the FBI nor the cops. You can tell them you were baking cookies, and they could 100% know you were lying and have proof, but if your wife shows up alive and well, there is no crime. Because lying by itself isn’t a crime. The 2 people that lie most in the world are criminals and cops. My neighbor is a cop and tried to lie to me saying his wife got me on cell phone video hitting the mirror of her car. To which I laughed at because A. I most certainly did not hit her mirror becuase I hadn’t left the house that day, B. that would imply she was prepared for me to hit it, was like one of the pool people in minority report and foresaw me hitting the mirror, and had her phone ready to go and video taping it. Needless to say he’s not a very smart person and somehow is a Sargent detective. Anyway after I laughed I dared him to show me the video, he of course said he didn’t have his wife’s phone on him. I told him to go home and get it to show, he declined, so I dared him to go to the police station with me and file a report. I was hoping he would so I could nab him for filing a false report, with my ring doorbell footage as proof. Now that’s one of the few crimes you can get nabbed for for lying. Unfortunately the fat **** didn’t take the bait. And he probably could’ve gotten away with it even if he did with, “my wife must’ve been mistaken” or something to that effect. Even if I would’ve got him on tape with the lie of “my wife caught you on tape”, becuase lying isn’t a crime.

As far as the FBI and Flynn, care to tell me the reason the DOJ dropped the case? Becuase there was no underlying crime, which is necessity for prosecuting.

You are clueless and clearly have no understanding of the law. You are not an investigator and no, it's not illegal in many situations for police to lie to you.

Do everyone a favor, stop running your ignorant mouth and go read some case law.

While you are at it read the plainly written Mueller's report - it directly covers lying to investigators and Obstruction of Justice.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

the fact that he bragged about having the biggest voter fraud organization in the history of American politics

What a stupid lie. Good grief.

Your cult leader lost. Bigly. Get the fk over it you baby.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As far as the FBI and Flynn, care to tell me the reason the DOJ dropped the case? Becuase there was no underlying crime, which is necessity for prosecuting.

They only moved to dismiss and were denied that motion. You have had to be corrected on this more than once.

And you just lied right there. That is not why they filed a motion to dismiss. All of your points are built on falsehoods.

 

[sakinago]

They only moved to dismiss and were denied that motion. You have had to be corrected on this more than once.

And you just lied right there. That is not why they filed a motion to dismiss. All of your points are built on falsehoods.

And the judge does not have power to prosecute. Therefore he does not have the power to dismiss if no one is bringing forward a case. You can’t dismiss a case that isn’t there. Judges not having the power to prosecute, aka bring up charges on someone is law 101.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And the judge does not have power to prosecute.

Actually, wrong, he does and did have the power to deny the motion. Which is what the judge did. Listen to yourself... do you think you will make a valid point, if you insist over and over and over that reality is not reality?

The case was already brought. He plead guilty. Twice. There was no more case to be brought. They were just awaiting sentencing so that Flynn could keep snitching.

 

[sakinago]

You are clueless and clearly have no understanding of the law. You are not an investigator and no, it's not illegal in many situations for police to lie to you.

Do everyone a favor, stop running your ignorant mouth and go read some case law.

While you are at it read the plainly written Mueller's report - it directly covers lying to investigators and Obstruction of Justice.

I was in law school up, L2 student, on FULL scholarship with a 166 LSAT, up until 2020 and my wife got pregnant with twins, and she shut that shit down. I was working full time as an RN, and doing night school, so I don’t blame her, nor did I press the issue. Im probably the only one on here whose taken a criminal defense class. So, there’s that.

And obstruction of justice comes with an intent clause. How the **** do you prove intent to obstruct for a crime that the defendant knew he didn’t commit? There were hundreds of very highly paid trump hating lawyers trying their hardest to figure that out and they couldn’t, because you can’t. Would you like to take a crack at it? I’m listening. Y’all really just read the headlines don’t ya? The whole mueller investigation was a joke. I honestly thought they’d find something, probably innocuous in a grey area of law that’s been “violated” by virtually every administration, but at least something they could run with....and they came back with zilch. After turning trumps “clean up” guy in Cohen, they got nothing. And trumps lawyers, including Cohen, were garbage. At least the more public ones. I laughed hysterically when trump won in 2016, mind you I didn’t vote for him, and a laughed hysterically reading the mueller report and discovering there was absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch. I don’t think of trump, or his lawyers, as smart guys. The average American commits like 7 felonies a day without knowing it, and they found nothing. Couldn’t even give y’all a smidgeon of red meat to whet your appetite. Y’all can’t even do banana republics good.

 

[sakinago]

Actually, wrong, he does and did have the power to deny the motion. Which is what the judge did. Listen to yourself... do you think you will make a valid point, if you insist over and over and over that reality is not reality?

The case was already brought. He plead guilty. Twice. There was no more case to be brought. They were just awaiting sentencing so that Flynn could keep snitching.

Yes I did make a valid point. The whole separation of powers thing. Ever hear of it? Ever hear of the phrase judge, jury, and executioner in a non antagonistic way? A judge cannot bring forward charges. Not even to another judge. So if the DOJ isnt bringing forward charges, who is? Whose going to argue the case? It was one of the most bizarre moves ever seen in American judicial history, and it was already a circus before that with denying Flynn Amicus briefs, and then asking a buddy to file one for himself, judge Sullivan, trying to make the case that judges should have the power to prosecute. And even before that the entire case should’ve been thrown out because they pressured him into a plea by going after his son. These types of instances are empires in death throes types of instances with that level of corruption. The Flynn case was all sorts of bad all around. And we’ve seen plenty of doozies from the FBI like cointelpro. This is on that level.

 

[lennypartiv]

You still have no idea wtf you're talking about.
I have just explained to you in most simple terms the underlying crime. How many times will we need to go over it?
It would be a CRIME for Trump campaign to conspire with Russians to commit fraud and Flynn discussing sanctions was of direct interest to that investigation.
Flynn lying to investigators was well proven and a clear cut CRIME in of itself, not hinged on what the larger investigation ultimately concluded.
It's illigal to obstruct official investigations, what part of that simple concept you can't don't want to understand?

Trump was exonerated. Flynn was exonerated.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes I did make a valid point.

No, you did not. Your points were all based on falsehoods. And declaring reality not to be reality is not a valid point. Nor was the motion to dismiss a case after it was already over and the defendant had already pled guilty twice "v valid". So Trump had to pardon him, which meant Flynn admitting he committed the crime AGAIN. You know, the crime you keep saying doesn't exist, haha

A judge cannot bring forward charges. Not even to another judge.

He didn't. You really, really are not following this. The case was already over. It was a motion to dismiss, and yes, the judge can deny that motion. And did. And Flynn had to rely on the mentally ill orange slob's pardon. Which itself was another highly irregular and unethical move by the mentally ill orange slob, as Flynn had not yet been sentenced.

 

[sakinago]

Yes I did make a valid point. The whole separation of powers thing. Ever hear of it? Ever hear of the phrase judge, jury, and executioner in a non antagonistic way? A judge cannot bring forward charges. Not even to another judge. So if the DOJ isnt bringing forward charges, who is? Whose going to argue the case? It was one of the most bizarre moves ever seen in American judicial history, and it was already a circus before that with denying Flynn Amicus briefs, and then asking a buddy to file one for himself, judge Sullivan, trying to make the case that judges should have the power to prosecute. And even before that the entire case should’ve been thrown out because they pressured him into a plea by going after his son. These types of instances are empires in death throes types of instances with that level of corruption. The Flynn case was all sorts of bad all around. And we’ve seen plenty of doozies from the FBI like cointelpro. This is on that level.

******* amateurs.

What Every Defendant Should Know About Coercion and Withdrawing Involuntary Pleas

The majority of criminal cases that currently reach conclusion do so with a guilty plea. Though it seems counterintuitive, a plea bargain may benefit everyone in question. The state benefits from not having to pay for a criminal trial, the prosecutor and judge benefit by not having to try a...

sharpcriminalattorney.com

The plea should not have been accepted in the first place. That’s issue 1. Issue 2. Besides that Flynn had as good of standing to withdrawal his plea than basically anyone else in American history...the prosecution was dropping the case. The defense was obviously agreeing to it. That’s aside from a clear cut case of a coerced plea deal.

Judge Sullivan: A Prosecutor in Robes

In the Flynn case, the prosecution and defense both agree that the case should be dropped. Because there is no longer any controversy between the parties to be resolved, there is no longer any case properly before the judge. His only job is to enter an

www.gatestoneinstitute.org

That’s reality you ******* retards. Stop pretending y’all understand law because you read CNN headlines.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The plea should not have been accepted in the first place.

Wrong again. He plead guilty and pledged to cooperate. Just like millions of felons before him.

 

[Faun]

Yes I did make a valid point. The whole separation of powers thing. Ever hear of it? Ever hear of the phrase judge, jury, and executioner in a non antagonistic way? A judge cannot bring forward charges. Not even to another judge. So if the DOJ isnt bringing forward charges, who is? Whose going to argue the case? It was one of the most bizarre moves ever seen in American judicial history, and it was already a circus before that with denying Flynn Amicus briefs, and then asking a buddy to file one for himself, judge Sullivan, trying to make the case that judges should have the power to prosecute. And even before that the entire case should’ve been thrown out because they pressured him into a plea by going after his son. These types of instances are empires in death throes types of instances with that level of corruption. The Flynn case was all sorts of bad all around. And we’ve seen plenty of doozies from the FBI like cointelpro. This is on that level.

"So if the DOJ isnt bringing forward charges, who is? Whose going to argue the case?"

Seems the part you're not getting is this case was over. Flynn was guilty and just awaiting sentencing. There were no more arguments.

 

[Faun]

Trump was exonerated. Flynn was exonerated.

So Trump was exonerated like Bill Clinton was exonerated. And Flynn wasn't exonerated, he was pardoned. Forgiveness is the opposite of exoneration.

 

[sakinago]

You still have no idea wtf you're talking about.

I have just explained to you in most simple terms the underlying crime. How many times will we need to go over it?

It would be a CRIME for Trump campaign to conspire with Russians to commit fraud and Flynn discussing sanctions was of direct interest to that investigation.

Flynn lying to investigators was well proven and a clear cut CRIME in of itself, not hinged on what the larger investigation ultimately concluded.

It's illigal to obstruct official investigations, what part of that simple concept you can't don't want to understand?

Whoa shifting goal posts, okay let me get reoriented. . The FBI filed to close the case. Prior to the interview in which Flynn allegedly lied. So where’s the underlying crime? Did they find one and forget to mention that to the DOJ? That would’ve been pertinent info, dont’cha think? With obstruction of justice are you talking about Flynn or trump? They did not bring up obstruction of justice charges against Flynn. Becuase there was no case to be made there. There also wasn’t with trump. Again, intent.

And even accepting your unadulterated horseshit filled premises, no one has given me a good answer on why tf Flynn would go into a meeting intending to lie without legal counsel, or why he would try to lie about a phone conversation in which he knew they had the transcripts too during that same ******* meeting. Can you make sense of that for me?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The FBI filed to close the case. Prior to the interview in which Flynn allegedly lied. So where’s the underlying crime?

Lying to the FBI. JFC. He pled guilty twice. Under oath. Was a slam dunk case. He plead guilty and pledged to cooperate.

I think it is pretty clear that you are more than willing to invent your own reality, and we are not going to get you to agree to a baseline of facts. That's basically a defining trait of the cult.