The largest law firms in the country can't move the earth. They can't change the fact of whether he was being coerced or not. And it remains the case that Michael Flynn knew at the time of his plea that the only reason he was being prosecuted was that the FBI broke its own rules to seek a politically motivated investigation into him, that the FBI/DoJ illegally leaked the unmasked transcript to the media to destroy his career, and that the FBI set him up in an entrapment operation abusing the presumption of good faith between departments. He knew that the prosecutors on Mueller's team were infamous for breaking rules and railroading people, like Andrew 'Suppress the exculpatory evidence' Weissman. (On that note, was it just a coincidence that a guy infamous for suppressing exculpatory evidence in previous high profile cases and getting away with it once again presided over a high profile case where exculpatory evidence was suppressed for years and got away with it?)

My point is, Michael Flynn knew the system was rigged against him. He knew the facts didn't matter as much as the politics and that being innocent wouldn't save him. The prosecution and investigators had cheated every step of the way- even in ways he didn't know about yet- and when he finally did go through the lengthy legal proceedings, he got a judge so demented he took over the prosecution's case and lawyered himself up and in an attempt to persecute Flynn when the DoJ refused. Is it so hard to believe that Michael Flynn would feel coerced into a plea deal? It was that or take his chances with bogus courts. He was only in this situation in the first place because bogus FBI agents coerced him into lying to them, and he was supposed to expect something different from the left hand than the right?

Now that judge's argument is predicated upon the authority, infallibility and good faith of the justice system- at least, those politically aligned with the democrats, while seething against Trump and Barr. Because it precludes the possibility that investigative, prosecutorial and/or judicial conduct could have coerced an innocent man into a guilty plea, it presumes that any false statements made by a defendant must be malicious and any vow that he wasn't being coerced is proof he wasn't, which is somehow the one thing they think can't be a false statement out of a guy they're accusing of perjuring himself in a trial for false statements. And despite being handed proof of prosecutorial misconduct and suppression of evidence that would lead a normal fairminded judge to toss a case with prejudice irregardless of other factors, this judge can dismiss it by arguing that the document didn't show bad faith by investigators (who were later removed from their posts by Mueller for their raging anti-Trump bias when their texts came out) and thus the prosecution wasn't cheating by not disclosing it and the judge not cheating by giving them a pass on it. Its like instead of a circle jerk, each hand is wiping the other guy's ass as they take a shit over the trial.

Anyways, resetting after that real garden path of a paragraph, I'd like to point out that in addition to what Bogie and me both pointed out about the hypocritical contrast between liberals screaming about criminal justice reform to end misconduct and protect civil rights in their marches in the streets while simultaneously demanding draconian prosecution of high profile Trump allies in cases with all kinds of misconduct- this also comes at the same time they're pushing the insane lynching bill and Rand Paul is the only person speaking out against how it would infringe on civil rights. And ironically, probably wind up locking up a lot of black people with unfair sentences after handing prosecutors another tool to abuse to coerce people into unfair plea deals. Sound familiar?

basically, I'm saying "what if Michael Flynn was a black man"

This post was edited by Goomshill on Jun 12 2020 12:11am

Did you miss where Gleeson laid out the facts surrounding Flynn's lies? The interview was less than a month after the phone call... McCabe gave him a head's up about the topic.... FBI agents used some of his exact words to jog his memory... the request Flynn made on the sanctions was given as the reason that Putin reacted the way he did... he texted McFarland a summary leaving out the sanctions discussion afterwards... Priebus and McGahn looked at the transcript and understood that he obviously lied... etc etc. He had multiple chances over a number of months to withdraw his guilty plea... Sullivan put him under oath and made sure that he wasn't backtracking. Sullivan offered him independent counsel.

The facts in this case are clear. Flynn wasn't a fish out of water... he chose to lie about those conversations because he(while interviewed by Mueller) understood it would be interfering with the current US administration's policy.



What's funny is that Gleeson showed how many of DOJ's arguments aren't even relevant under the law, but decided to shred them anyway.

This post was edited by IceMage on Jun 12 2020 08:22am

The issue is that you look at the facts of this case and see something very different from what I and others do.

Gleeson even rebuts much of this argument. McCabe told Flynn the topic that would be discussed, and FBI agents even repeated some of Flynn's transcript word for word to jog his memory. If this was a setup, it wasn't a very good one. The FBI clearly had the intent to figure out why he was lying about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the VP/CoS/Press Sec, and in that pursuit Flynn lied to them about multiple subjects.

This post was edited by IceMage on Jun 12 2020 08:49am

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1275793944912318464

Appeals court orders Sullivan to dismiss the Flynn case. Now it goes to a panel of all the judges I believe.

This post was edited by IceMage on Jun 24 2020 08:24am

Full opinion here.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/24/politics/michael-flynn-appeals-ruling/index.html

- Government has a "presumption of regularity" that its stated reasons be taken at face value.
- Rule 48(a) motions are specifically to prevent prosecutorial harassment, where the prosecution initiates an indictment and then dismisses the case. That is not the case here.
- Supreme Court precedent makes clear that charging authority, and the authority to dismiss an indictment, belongs solely to the executive branch.
- Denying the writ of mandamus would constitute "irreparable harm" to the Justice Department's charging authority by forcing the Justice department to reveal confidential and internal deliberations with respect to its charging authority. That exposure can't be remedied on appeal.
- The writ is justified because it prevents the usurpation of executive power by the judiciary.

This post was edited by bogie160 on Jun 24 2020 09:05am

Well there you have it, at last
Handwritten notes by Strzok from his meeting on Jan 5th with Obama and Biden.

Obama personally gave the order to the FBI to go after Flynn
Biden personally told the FBI to use the defunct Logan Act

They were not only in the loop, they were not only involved, they gave the order. Obama and Biden instructed their agents at the FBI to go after the turbulent priest, and boy did they

Cool story. The president orders the FBI to look into a criminal. Shocker!

The president, in the middle of a diplomatic slapfight with the incoming administration, orders his FBI to go after the transition team. They wiretap him, they illegally leak the product of those wiretaps, they ambush and entrap him under the false pretense of interdepartmental cooperation, they prosecute him in a rigged trial, they suppress exculpatory evidence for years. They cite a defunct unconstitutional law never enforced in 200 years at the personal suggestion of Joe Biden, their team is exposed as holding extreme biases and has to be shamefully dismissed when its made public, and when their case falls apart they enlist the biased judge to leap over the bar and appoint himself prosecutor. Obama and Biden weaponized their FBI to go after Trump and his team. They personally instructed their FBI toadies to pursue and destroy Michael Flynn despite knowing he had done nothing wrong and certainly not illegal. When they couldn't find a crime, they manufactured one.

That's not what the notes show, lol. You're reading a bunch of stuff into it that isn't there.

Also, is a P/VP calling for investigations and locking people up suddenly wrong? Trump has called multiple times for people to be prosecuted for violating the Logan Act. If VP said it on twitter or in front of a campaign rally, would it suddenly be acceptable? Lol.

This post was edited by IceMage on Jun 24 2020 12:59pm

This post reads like something Cam would write. Full of totally dishonest characterizations and assuming your interpretation is accepted as fact.