SectionC3

Hoax. First, you overlook the idea that the obstruction may inhibit the ability of the prosecution to establish the underlying crime. Makes. Perfect. Sense. To reward obstruction. Second, take it up with the DOJ that it didn’t exonerate Trumpy. Tough break for you, but the fact remains that he has not been exonerated with respect to obstruction. It’s on the last page of Volume II of the Mueller Report. Of course, it should come as no surprise that a guy who supports a fake winner and fake conspiracy theories (“Obamagate,” for example) also would promote a fake exoneration. The only one who keeps mentioning your genitalia is you. Frankly I think the subject is disturbing and I wish you’d stop with your penis envy or small man syndrome or whatever problem it is that you have. But the more you bring it up the more lots of people are going to say that there’s an issue there.

I don’t see anything about Brady v Maryland and the rules that flow therefrom in those posts. Let me know when you’re ready to share your “expertise” on the matter.

I’m not struggling with anything. D pleaded guilty. Guess what? He’s guilty! That’s been resolved, and it remains resolved because the plea has not been withdrawn. Now the question before the court is whether he should be permitted to withdraw the plea. If that question is answered in the affirmative, and Flynn withdraws the guilty plea and pleads not guilty, then the question of his guilt is open again.

No, not at all. I’m not sure where you got that from, but it is par for the course for you to resort to the absurd. One of the justifications for the plea given by another poster was that the government wrongfully threatened to lean on the son. Guess what? It’s a relatively common (and, typically, sanctioned) law enforcement activity. I’m not familiar with the facts, but there are two truisms about the case. 1. Flynn pleaded guilty. If he had the information that you mentioned before he pleaded guilty, then he’s waived any complaints about the effect of that information on his guilty plea (save for IAC, but that’s a different question and much harder to establish). 2. If this material was withheld by the prosecution prior to the guilty plea and only disclosed after the guilty plea, then the story might be different. Perhaps it’s Brady, and perhaps the withholding of Brady requires vacatur of the plea. That’s something that should have been the subject of Flynn’s motion to vacate the plea. Again, it’s not something I’m going to spend a ton of time on, but my understanding is that the motion to vacate is based on the government changing its position with respect to sentencing. That is, I understand Flynn to have complained of a “bait and switch” in the plea agreement, not that he was induced to plead guilty by exculpatory material in the sole possession of the government that was withheld by the government.

I'm aware that different people plead guilty for different reasons. What hasn't changed is that the question of Flynn's guilt remains resolved. He is guilty. Maybe his plea is vacated, but that's a different legal question with different considerations. Normally the I is capitalized in Internet. And the fact remains that the question of guilt is resolved. Still no education on Brady from the Foxxy expert. I'm waiting.

As the guy who does this every day, let me just say that pleaded is proper convention. Look at Black's Law Dictionary or any Garner source you want. Oh no. You haven't explained. I'm waiting.

Simple question. Did he plead guilty? If the answer is yes, then the question of his guilt is resolved. The open question is whether he is allowed to vacate the plea. It's a different legal question. Which I'm sure you know given your expertise in this area. Another post, another misused legal term. Nice work.

Still waiting for your pearls of wisdom on Brady. Maybe while you're working on that you can take a peek at what "standing" means.

You're wrong. It's pleaded. Just like "flied out," not "flew out." Why am I incorrect? D pleaded guilty, and now someone is saying nothing is resolved? Actually, Beavis, he's guilty in the eyes of the law and he's trying to get it undone. The question of guilt strikes me as pretty well resolved here based on the guilty plea.

I can't speak to the facts, but your points about the son are misplaced. Counsel can't coerce a plea through what you characterized as a recommendation with respect to potential difficulties faced by Flynn's son. And, as a general matter, it's perfectly proper for law enforcement to capitalize on a defendant's reluctance to have a family member involved in a pending investigation.

Not classy. Not classy at all.

I'm not familiar enough with the case to comment, but my guess is that Jensen is defense counsel. If you have the time when you're done with name-calling and you can enlighten me on your knowledge of Brady I'd appreciate it. Let I checked Brady material is, among other things, evidence suppressed by the prosecution. Evidence can't be suppressed if defendant knew of, or reasonably should have known of, the evidence and its exculpatory nature. So perhaps it is that Jensen conducted his own investigation and found exculpatory evidence that wasn't disclosed, but I'm skeptical based on your general cluelessness and your particular cluelessness in this realm.

There's nothing crackerjack about it. If Flynn pleaded guilty, then he has been convicted. I haven't followed the case closely (I have different d-bags that demand my attention), but to my understanding he entered a guilty plea and he's now trying to vacate the plea based on a purported change in the government's position with respect to sentencing. The idea that "[n]othing is resolved at this point" is baseless. We have resolution on the question of Flynn's guilt. The open question is whether he should be allowed to undo the guilty plea. It's rare that a court allows such a maneuver.

The question was phrased poorly by Albwan. Almost everyone who pleads guilty changes his/her plea (from guilty to not guilty). So the technical answer is that this happens all the time. The change in plea at the sentencing stage is rare, principally because courts have discretion whether to let a defendant "out" of a guilty plea and frequently chose not to allow the defendant to walk back the guilty plea. Defendants ask for that type of relief all the time (it's a way of trying to extend local time in a state proceeding), but it's rarely granted.

And, I'll add, that if your "argument that argues" held water here, Mueller necessarily would have exonerated Trump based on Mueller's failure to identify a crime related to collusion. Sounds like Foxxy is talking out of his rear end again.

Let's see your "argument that argues." It seems dubious to me given that obstruction theoretically defeats the ability to prove guilt of the underlying crime, but I'll look at anything you have on that front.

Sigh. Too many internet legal "experts" today. Whether a judgment of conviction has been entered is not something I'm clear on (it almost certainly hasn't because he hasn't been sentenced, and there's usually but one judgment in a criminal proceeding - a judgment of conviction and sentence). But, as far as I know, Flynn pleaded guilty and he therefore has been convicted. Just like a jury convicts a defendant following deliberations. The judgment comes later. So, bottom line, it looks like we have a conviction. That is that.

It might take an hour to explain how clueless your statement is. The bottom line, though, is that Mueller concluded that there was legally insufficient evidence of a crime with respect to the collusion question. He could have reached the same conclusion with respect to obstruction, but he didn't. And since he couldn't present the case to a grand jury per DOJ policy, the question whether Trump committed obstruction of justice will await the end of Trump's presidency. He absolutely, unequivocally, did not conclude that "there was not an acceptable level proven." From Bob Mueller's typewriter to your deluded eyes: Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. In addition to being homophobic you're not very funny. You really should try the whole "honey" approach to get some more friends.

I'm a vegetarian. Out of the two of us, you're the only one who likes meat.

Hoax. I gave up bread a long time ago. Hoax. And now I'm done. Cheers!

I have to go do something productive. It's been fun arguing on the Internet today. Before I leave I'll recap what I learned: 3rdnlng has a suspected case of penis envy. Deranged Rhino has not read the Mueller report and still hasn't discovered that Trump may have obstructed justice. Foxx is into name calling today. Cheers!

Maybe, maybe not. But the question is whether the Mueller report exonerates Trump with respect to obstruction of justice. It does not.

Or they perform a truth-seeking function more critical now than ever. Either or. He's of the "if I repeated it enough it might come true" school of politics.

I didn't realize that there are non-plastic sporks. Cool. Where and when? The Mueller report left the question open.

Anything specific that you would like me to read?