daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 ...and someday DR you'll wake up, and realize this script was written long before Hillary or Obama were even suckling on their mama's udder. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 Just now, daz28 said: ...and someday DR you'll wake up, and realize this script was written long before Hillary or Obama were even suckling on their mama's udder. You're literally supporting my position. Now go back to sleep. Important developments are breaking. ************** Those Barr trips to Rome sure do have some more meaning now. 2 1
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 Is it "your position", or is it the truth? If it's the truth, it's awful bold to claim it belongs to you. That's probably your biggest error. 1
Magox Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: More: This is remarkable. Does this mean that there will be hearings? 1
Deranged Rhino Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, daz28 said: Is it "your position", or is it the truth? If it's the truth, it's awful bold to claim it belongs to you. That's probably your biggest error. It's truth, which doesn't need to be defended, only let loose like a lion. Read the OP on the deep state thread and you'll see why you're arguing for my position rather than against it. Just now, Magox said: This is remarkable. Does this mean that there will be hearings? He doesn't head the committee, so I don't know if he can make that call by himself. Edited May 13, 2020 by Deranged Rhino 1
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: It's truth, which doesn't need to be defended, only let loose like a lion. Read the OP on the deep state thread and you'll see why you're arguing for my position rather than against it. Only a fool argues the truth
Magox Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: It's truth, which doesn't need to be defended, only let loose like a lion. Read the OP on the deep state thread and you'll see why you're arguing for my position rather than against it. He doesn't head the committee, so I don't know if he can make that call by himself. I believe it was Grassley who released it. So if Grassley wants to do it then they will I assume, correct? 3
Deranged Rhino Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 Just now, daz28 said: Only a fool argues the truth And yet, you're still arguing. Go back to sleep, or do the work. Either way, I wish you luck.
SectionC3 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 44 minutes ago, snafu said: The political winds were pretty much set. He pled guilty in December, 2018. Then, the judge kept stalling the actual sentencing date because the government didn’t supply to the defense all potential exculpatory evidence. Why? Maybe the judge didn’t like the plea at the time it was made. From what I recall, it sure seemed that way. Sullivan made a big show about Flynn’s plea. After that, he let the defense pick at loose thread after loose thread and held the government’s feet to the fire to show up with what they were fighting to withhold. Finally, what appears to be true exculpatory evidence came out — after Barr had to appoint a third party prosecutor to review what the heck was going on. This led to two things: (1) a defense motion to withdraw the plea and dismiss the charge — which is pending. That motion also details the fact that Flynn’s prior counsel had a conflict of interest issue regarding possible FARA charges and they pushed hard for him to plead, and (2) Barr’s DOJ dropping the charges. Courts DO undo guilty pleas. It is up to the judge and in this case, it looks like a 50/50 thing, even in light of Sullivan’s strange order yesterday. I can’t figure out why he gives a rats ass about amicus briefs. He’s no novice, he can make a decision based on what’s in front of him. It is rare for a court to undo a guilty plea. Very rare. The amicus thing is unusual, I grant you that. Could be a delay tactic. Could be that he wants a group of prosecutors opposed to the Barr DOJ to chime in. I don't know of any peculiarity here that would demand amicus participation; I'm unaware of any issue of wide concern or novelty that would warrant such a step. Then again, I don't practice in federal courts, so maybe there's something about what Flynn characterizes as the prosecutorial about face that is unusual here. I disagree about the political winds. Impeachment is over. Trump (and Barr) can get away with this chicanery now. This would be a much worse look for the DOJ during impeachment. FWIW, I glanced at the supporting memo. It looks like the court denied the Brady requests, and that the motion to vacate the plea is based on the prosecution's change in position with respect to sentencing. This doesn't strike me as some grand conspiracy. Edited May 13, 2020 by SectionC3
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: And yet, you're still arguing. Go back to sleep, or do the work. Either way, I wish you luck. I'm not the one here arguing daily, so maybe your crystal ball ain't so crystal clear. I have no interest in arguing things I know are true. Good luck on finding Hillary's emails, cuz that'll make all the evils of the past go away. Crowdstrike exists, I know it does. Edited May 13, 2020 by daz28
Deranged Rhino Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 Just now, Magox said: I believe it was Grassley who released it. So if Grassley wants to do it then they will I assume, correct? I'm not an expert on the Senate rules, so don't take this as gospel. But my understanding is that Grassley will definitely push for it -- but he doesn't take the gavel back from Graham until next term (in the Judiciary). Graham will have to consent to the request -- which he has said he'd do in the past but has yet to do it. So I am hopeful -- but not holding my breath quite yet. Just now, daz28 said: I'm not the one here arguing daily, so maybe your crystal ball ain't so crystal clear. I have no interest in arguing things I know are true. You think I'm arguing, I'm not. I'm sharing information and evidence for people to vet for themselves. Go back to sleep. 1
SectionC3 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 49 minutes ago, bdutton said: Thanks for completely wasting about 15 minutes of my life reading your willfully ignorant posts defending the indefensible. I saw tinfoil on sale at Wegmans recently if you're looking to make yourself a new hat.
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: You think I'm arguing, I'm not. I'm sharing information and evidence for people to vet for themselves. Go back to sleep. The only thing sleeping here is the 60 previous years of injustice. I consider things before that to be prehistoric.
SectionC3 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I Silliness. What the facts show is that the DOJ reviewed the facts of the case as they exist, recognized that the case was bad and moved to make things right. You are correct in that General Flynn entered a plea for reasons only he can explain, ultimately chose to withdraw the plea, and the DOJ opted to discontinue the case. It happens in our justice system sometimes...people are wrongfully convicted, evidence is planted/manipulated/withheld, defendants are wrongfully convicted and in some cases plead guilty because they are being crushed under the weight of unscrupulous prosecutors. The summary: Flynn was charged; Flynn cut a deal to be done with things; Flynn realized he was being had and moved to withdraw his plea; DOJ review confirmed he was being had, released exculpatory evidence to his legal team, and dropped the case; Seems to me the judge is playing politics, we'll have to see how his actions shake out; Putting aside the crushing financial and emotional weight of being under the thumb of unethical prosecutors, the case is an example of availing oneself of the resources available when justice isn't just, and coming out the other side stronger. Thank God General Flynn had the strength to see it through. The "had' part seems to relate to the sentence promise, not to guilt or innocence. Which is a bit of a problem with respect to your view of things.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 Just now, daz28 said: The only thing sleeping here is the 60 previous years of injustice. I consider things before that to be prehistoric. You've been clear you've given up. That's your choice. Be happy with it and go back to sleep. There are others who will fight for you even though you're not willing to fight for yourself. Just be grateful to those brave souls, or ***** off.
SectionC3 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 11 minutes ago, daz28 said: Is it "your position", or is it the truth? If it's the truth, it's awful bold to claim it belongs to you. That's probably your biggest error. That's saying something with him.
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 Just now, SectionC3 said: That's saying something with him. I personally have no reason to insist I'm right 10k times in a row when I know I'm right. You get one copy of the truth. it's up to you to consume it or not
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: You've been clear you've given up. That's your choice. Be happy with it and go back to sleep. There are others who will fight for you even though you're not willing to fight for yourself. Just be grateful to those brave souls, or ***** off. You don't know what I've fought for, but thanks anyways
Recommended Posts