SectionC3

And they walked out after the finding of guilt was vacated. We may sometimes imprison the innocent in this country, but we do not imprison the “not guilty.” The first sentence is disjunctive. I’ll take the bet. He has been convicted. So I win. Section C3, 1. Deranged Psycho Rhino, 0.

The fact that the case remains unresolved does not mean that the question of guilt remains unresolved. Flynn’s guilty plea resolved that issue. And even absent the motion to withdraw the case would not be resolved because sentencing has not occurred. What the DOJ did here is very, very odd. What the judge has done frankly isn’t partisan, it’s prudent. If there’s merit to Flynn’s contentions, then they will withstand the scrutiny of amicus review. Imagine, if you will, a crooked prosecutor in a state criminal proceeding where the defendant has pleaded guilty. Simply because the defendant has asked to withdraw the guilty plea, and simply because the crooked prosecutor has not opposed the application, doesn’t mean that the court should effectively vacate the conviction. The court has to have a legal ground upon which to take that step, and the court here is asking the friend to confirm the solidity of that ground before it goes any further.

Not classy. Not classy at all.

Indeed they do. And the reason IP clients don’t immediately walk out of prison is that those people are guilty and there is typically an arduous process to earning vacatur of the judgment of conviction. Oh I bet. This guy is probably the source for all things I need to know about how the moon landing was faked, how 9/11 was a hoax, and how the Easter Bunny and Santa are spies set by the military-industrial complex.

I don’t do Twitter. But maybe I should. I can always use help discerning the alternative hoaxes from the real hoaxes. Seems like this Rhino fellow has his finger on the pulse of all of the hoaxes, fake or otherwise.

Sigh. Legally OJ is not guilty. He’s also not innocent. Nuances are tough sometimes. I’d like to buy this book. Do you have an Amazon link?

Unfortunately for Dixon it was only the law that counted. And the law had him as guilty, right or wrong. That’s why the law doesn’t acknowledge the distinction that you seek to draw. We don’t lawfully imprison people who are merely “legally guilty” but not “actually guilty.” One is either guilty, or he is not. That’s how it goes.

Will you please get to work on those referrals to the attorney grievance committee? Only you can cut through the “sea of disinformation” on this case and yield the “important accomplishment” of establishing the unethical conduct that simply should not allow these prosecutors to continue in the practice of law. We need you now more than ever, Deranged Rhino. *** So, getting somewhat closer to reality, my understanding is that four years ago you thought to yourself, “I’m going to take my talents to the twobillsdrive.com message board because the anonymous dudes on that message board need me now more than ever to filter from their undiscerning eyes and ears all of the fake news and alternative facts floating around these days. I could write for a local paper, or start a blog, or even write a book. But no. Anonymous football fans (some of whom already know everything and have nothing to learn) need me. And I need to help them determine which hoaxes are real and which hoaxes are fake. Which facts are alternative and which are just regular facts. Which conspiracy theories are real, and which are just hoaxy fakes. What news is fake, and the degree of fakery in such news.” Makes. Perfect. Sense.

Yup. He was convicted of the crime, ergo he was guilty in the eyes of the law. In that instance, it also happened to be that he was wrongfully convicted. And the post-conviction procedures (all of which occurred while he was guilty) established that the conviction was wrongful. That’s what Flynn’s trying to do here. He changed his mind on his guilty plea, and has asked the court to allow him to withdraw it. We shall see what happens down the road, but as it stands as of 4:32 p.m. today, Flynn is guilty.

I’d have to think it through, but probably not. Guilt is a legal determination. So “actual guilt” and “guilt from a legal perspective” are one and the same.

He’s getting busy on his referral of the Flynn prosecutors to the appropriate attorney grievance committee. Cut him some slack.

Glad it wasn’t you. You have enough problems.

In my experience when someone pleads guilty the law views that person as guilty. Maybe you have different experience with respect to the law that you would care to share.

These dudes saw ThirdnLong, didn’t they? Sad!

Actually, Beavis, the DOJ is the employer and can hire and fire re: unethical conduct. But the question whether these “unethical” prosecutors can continue to practice law is to be answered by the courts. It seems to me like the public not only needs, but demands, your insight on this unethical conduct to make sure that these attorneys don’t prosecute another case or harm another participant in the legal system. All of that might be true. But let’s agree on one thing: Flynn is guilty, as of 3:58 p.m. today. That’s undeniable. Whether he is allowed to withdraw his plea and relitigate that question remains to be seen. Let’s hear about the IAC and the issue whether the alleged lack of meaningful representation infected the plea.

But in the meantime we can agree the question of his guilt has been resolved, and that he is guilty.

Quit typing on an Internet message board and get to work on your referral. If these prosecutors acted unethically, then we have to make sure they lose their law licenses. Make sure you put in the referral that you go by the Internet moniker “Deranged Rhino.” It will give your referral more credibility.

Breaking news. It’s 3:54 p.m. And Mike Flynn is still guilty.

Fake news. Flynn pleaded guilty. The guilty plea has not been withdrawn or vacated. Consequently, Flynn is guilty. Rule of law! Nope. The licensing bodies, bro. Like an attorney grievance committee. But I’m sure you knew that given your deep expertise in this and other areas.

Hoax. I’m not deeply stupid. Also, if the lawyers acted unethically, then they should be reviewed to a governing body for sanction. You and Buffalo Gal feel pretty strongly about that point, so perhaps you should make the referral. Hoax. Flynn is guilty right now. Rule of law!

Hoax. Responding twice to a post is not creepy. Also, aren’t you the guy who was talking about being with a Disney child star before I started using this board? Now that’s creepy. Very, very creepy. I hope that wasn’t you.

Ohh, but honey, Flynn IS guilty. That’s what happens when somebody pleads guilty. Rule of law! If you feel that these prosecutors acted unethically and you can prove it, then you should refer them to a grievance committee somewhere.

I have to hand it to Trump. Most mere mortals would have folded under the pressure of competing public health and economic crises and personal turmoil. But nothing bothers this guy and he keeps right on trucking into a fake conspiracy. It’s . . . Unique. Hoax. I read the Mueller report. It seems like you, as the obstruction denier, have not.

This is reasonable. And it’s probably similar to the logic underlying the appointment of the friend in the Flynn case. The court wants to make sure that the highly unusual change in position is motivated by the facts and the law — not by politics.

So what’s the status of the Brady motion? And if Brady is an issue, did Flynn try to withdraw the plea on Brady grounds? I didn’t read the entire memo, but based on the point headings it looked like “bait and switch” and IAC were at the core of the motion. Also, as much as you seem not to want to accept it, Flynn is guilty. He may be allowed to withdraw his plea. Or he may not (I’ll bet on the latter, but the former is a reasonable possibility.) But as of this moment in time there can be no dispute that Michael Flynn is guilty. I’s a fake conspiracy theory. Par for the course from this fake news president.