Deranged Rhino Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Just now, billsfan1959 said: Thanks DR. Just out of curiosity, do you use any particular software to organize and analyze documents when researching any particular topic or issue of interest? I do, but it's not as effective as it should be. I keep extensive notes, most of them are searchable by key-words (just on Word). I have about 10 filled legal pads and another five or so notebooks filled with interview notes from when I wasn't allowed/able to take a computer in with me to meet with someone -- those are great for my own work, but take forever to search obviously. I also have a closed network of professionals who are working on this from differing angles (mainly journalists) who use a group document on an encrypted app, which we all update/curate, designed to help find stuff quick. But we ran into a problem with that system a little while ago because older links/articles have been removed from Google's cache in some cases. So it's not a foolproof system. That one tends to be the best one, but sometimes it goes a few days/weeks without anyone updating it (it's essentially an excel spreadsheet listing articles/documents/testimony in chronological order). Days like today, where there's literally a spigot of information being dumped (on this topic, but also on Biden/Ukraine, and Comey/Russia), it's just unorganized chaos. I've been trying to finish my new Flynn review, but we keep getting new stuff which has required me to go back and check/recheck information. I'm thinking this won't slow down anytime soon, so I'll have to take the plunge at some point and just readjust as we go. 4
billsfan1959 Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: I do, but it's not as effective as it should be. I keep extensive notes, most of them are searchable by key-words (just on Word). I have about 10 filled legal pads and another five or so notebooks filled with interview notes from when I wasn't allowed/able to take a computer in with me to meet with someone -- those are great for my own work, but take forever to search obviously. I also have a closed network of professionals who are working on this from differing angles (mainly journalists) who use a group document on an encrypted app, which we all update/curate, designed to help find stuff quick. But we ran into a problem with that system a little while ago because older links/articles have been removed from Google's cache in some cases. So it's not a foolproof system. That one tends to be the best one, but sometimes it goes a few days/weeks without anyone updating it (it's essentially an excel spreadsheet listing articles/documents/testimony in chronological order). Days like today, where there's literally a spigot of information being dumped (on this topic, but also on Biden/Ukraine, and Comey/Russia), it's just unorganized chaos. I've been trying to finish my new Flynn review, but we keep getting new stuff which has required me to go back and check/recheck information. I'm thinking this won't slow down anytime soon, so I'll have to take the plunge at some point and just readjust as we go. I have my own software I developed and use on a daily basis organizing and analyzing voluminous case files. I won't go into it here. Just message me if you have any interest. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Just now, billsfan1959 said: I have my own software I developed and use on a daily basis organizing and analyzing voluminous case files. I won't go into it here. Just message me if you have any interest. Appreciated, will do. 1
SectionC3 Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 6 hours ago, billsfan1959 said: It could be... It could be... It might be....It appears.... Your language tells me you haven't read a single document filed in regard to this issue. That is confirmed by statements earlier in this thread in which you admitted that you don't really know the details of this case. Maybe you should do a little reading to acquaint yourself of the facts before arguing. I take it you are familiar with that concept? However, you don't really care to know the facts, do you?. The only thing that is clearly important to you is that Flynn is, at the moment, "guilty in the eyes of the law." That is the sum total of every argument you have put forth. Behavior is a function of consequence, meaning, we do things for a reason. That the most important thing to you is that Flynn is "guilty in the eyes of the law" says that you need for him to be "guilty" to support everything you have believed over the last three years. You have proven this in the level of semantic gymnastics you have gone through in order to blur the distinction between guilt and innocence. You didn't do that for us, you did that for you. It alleviates the cognitive dissonance you might experience in allowing such concepts as right and wrong, or justice and injustice to enter your thought processes. When Flynn was charged with making false official statements, I didn't give it much thought, outside of I felt the underlying investigation was unjustified. However, my stance at the time was, if he lied, he lied - and the consequences are what they are. I never posted anything about Flynn until recently, when I read some of the information being released from the prosecution. There were some things that really disturbed me, so, I downloaded and read everything I could to get a better understanding of the facts. Like many here, I don't give a S**t about "guilty in the eyes of the law" when I see injustice and wrongdoing in the process that brought an individual to that point. It is more important to me that when the FBI conducts an investigation, it is based on legitimate and truthful information, and free from political motivations. It is more important to me that the Agents involved in an investigation of this type not have histories of severe bias. It is more important to me that the FBI not ignore DOJ and in-house reccommendations and guidelines in the manner in which they set up the interview because it helps achieve the stated goal of the Agents conducting the interview to "get him to lie." It is more important to me that Agents not be allowed to change documents to reflect what they want rather than the truth. It is more important to me that the government turn over all information relevant to the underlying investigation and charges before a guilty plea, not over two years later - and information is still being released. It is more important to me that the lack of the knowledge of that information played a central role in forcing someone to plead guilty to avoid worse consequences, particularly for his family. It is more important to me that the weight of the US Government not be used to intentionally set a man up to be criminally charged for political purposes. But, hey, you go ahead and remain ignorant of the facts and cling to "he's guilty in the eyes of the law" if it helps you sleep at night. I stopped reading after your first sentence because you obviously didn’t understand what I wrote. A defendant can’t withdraw a plea simply because he/she feels like it. A certain threshold must be met for that to happen, or a certain showing by the defendant must be made. The “coulds” in my post highlighted some of the “usual suspects” on which defendants rely in moving to withdraw a plea. Whichever one or ones Flynn picked or picks is up to him; I suspect he went with the “bait and switch” and IAC approaches based on some of the point headings in his memo. But, in any event, it’s Tuesday afternoon and Michael Flynn still is guilty. Enjoy! 2 hours ago, Warren Zevon said: Why do they need to withdraw a guilty plea? I’ll take, “it’s because he admitted guilt” for $200! 6 hours ago, billsfan1959 said: The fact that you and BillZStime are the only intellectual support for SectionC3 should be enough for him to understand just how wrong he is. I know that alone would make me want to consider a fish tank cleaner cocktail - or at least withdraw from the argument out of sheer embarrassment. This literally made me laugh out loud. The conspiracy theorists telling someone else they’re on shaky intellectual ground. That’s rich. 5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: His current plea in fact: https://sidneypowell.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Mike-Declaration-1.29.2020.pdf That’s the equivalent of an affidavit there, big boy. It’s not a plea or his “current plea.” And paragraph 47 confirms that Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty. So, as of 4:31 p.m. today, Mike Flynn still is guilty.
SectionC3 Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 4 hours ago, billsfan1959 said: This is a good article. The Logan Act was never in play. Nor was FARA. If there was a legitimate, prosecutable violation of either, they would have been pursued. That Rosenstein continued to use it as justification for Mueller's team to target Flynn in August of 2017 is nothing short of abuse of power. The fact that the FBI did not open a criminal investigation prior to the interview of Flynn on 24 Jan 2017 (Or at anytime), and the manner in which that interview was conducted tells us all we need to know about where the FBI and the DOJ stood, in terms of the legitimacy of any violations of the Logan Act. If all of that is true then maybe Mr. Flynn shouldn’t have pleaded guilty. 2 hours ago, Hedge said: Grandstanding. Reassignment is rare.
billsfan1959 Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 21 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: I stopped reading after your first sentence because you obviously didn’t understand what I wrote. A defendant can’t withdraw a plea simply because he/she feels like it. A certain threshold must be met for that to happen, or a certain showing by the defendant must be made. The “coulds” in my post highlighted some of the “usual suspects” on which defendants rely in moving to withdraw a plea. Whichever one or ones Flynn picked or picks is up to him; I suspect he went with the “bait and switch” and IAC approaches based on some of the point headings in his memo. When you take the time to read enough to actually acquaint yourself with the facts of the case, get back to me. I can't think of a greater waste of my time than arguing with someone whose perspective is from an admitted position of willful ignorance. 5
SectionC3 Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 3 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said: When you take the time to read enough to actually acquaint yourself with the facts of the case, get back to me. I can't think of a greater waste of my time than arguing with someone whose perspective is from an admitted position of willful ignorance. Guess what? Mike Flynn still is guilty. Enjoy!
Deranged Rhino Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 4 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said: When you take the time to read enough to actually acquaint yourself with the facts of the case, get back to me. I can't think of a greater waste of my time than arguing with someone whose perspective is from an admitted position of willful ignorance. It's just further proof of his dishonesty and his true agenda: to troll. Not have a conversation. 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Senator Kennedy always has a colorful way of putting things! 3 2
SectionC3 Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: It's just further proof of his dishonesty and his true agenda: to troll. Not have a conversation. How are you coming on learning the difference between a declaration and a plea?
SectionC3 Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Bottom line: You still haven’t figured out the difference between a declaration and a plea. *** EDIT: In the meantime, just in case you forgot, Mike Flynn still is guilty. Enjoy! 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Tell Hans at the next conspiracy theorists meeting that the Court spoke to “applicable local rules,” not simply to “local rules.”
SectionC3 Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 5 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Senator Kennedy always has a colorful way of putting things! Did Trump take his hydroxychloroquine at lunch?
snafu Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 1 hour ago, SectionC3 said: Reassignment is rare. Not too rare. Sullivan was not the original judge for Flynn’s case, if I recall correctly. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 10 minutes ago, snafu said: Not too rare. Sullivan was not the original judge for Flynn’s case, if I recall correctly. Correct. The first judge was Strzok’s friend and a FISA Judge. 2
snafu Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Correct. The first judge was Strzok’s friend and a FISA Judge. Was he removed right after the Flynn plea and replaced by Sullivan? Didn’t Sullivan almost immediately order the prosecution to turn over all exculpatory evidence just days later? Is it true that the evidence wasn’t actually turned over until after Barr had a Missouri prosecutor specifically look into the matter? Didn't the Missouri prosecutor only just release the exculpatory evidence to the defense a month ago? But, hey, he pled guilty — there’s no need for context. None whatsoever. Throw the book and slam the jail cell door. Duh, you idiot. You’re wasting everyone’s time. 2
Koko78 Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, snafu said: Was he removed right after the Flynn plea and replaced by Sullivan? Didn’t Sullivan almost immediately order the prosecution to turn over all exculpatory evidence just days later? Is it true that the evidence wasn’t actually turned over until after Barr had a Missouri prosecutor specifically look into the matter? Didn't the Missouri prosecutor only just release the exculpatory evidence to the defense a month ago? But, hey, he pled guilty — there’s no need for context. None whatsoever. Throw the book and slam the jail cell door. Duh, you idiot. You’re wasting everyone’s time. Removed? No. The first judge suddenly decided there was a conflict after taking Flynn's plea. Based on new information that he already knew. ***** dirty. Edited May 19, 2020 by Koko78 4
Recommended Posts