• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michael Flynn moves to withdraw guilty plea, citing 'bad faith' by government

Now that that portion of the transcripts that "cleared" Mr. Trump are going to be released, when are the rest of the transcripts going to be released?

They have been released. The Obama DOJ and DNI folks had testified they didn't see evidence that would indicate that there was a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Do you really think Mueller found something different?
 
they already released them.

Not that I doubt you for a moment, but I would really appreciate you providing a link to the full text versions of all of the testimony given before the congressional inquiry.

Trump was clear there was no evidence.

Given Mr. Trump's track record for clarity and accuracy, that's not really any great recommendation.

schiff is a liar and a fraud that we knew he was.

And that makes him different from Mr. Trump?

How?
 
they already released them. Trump was clear there was no evidence.
schiff is a liar and a fraud that we knew he was.
So is Eric Swalwell who, along with Schiff, said they had clear videence that General Flynn was 'colluding' the Russians. No one else, apart from the usual leftists, appears to support them.
 
Time for the civil suits to begin. He's got nothing to lose.
 
Not that I doubt you for a moment, but I would really appreciate you providing a link to the full text versions of all of the testimony given before the congressional inquiry.



Given Mr. Trump's track record for clarity and accuracy, that's not really any great recommendation.



And that makes him different from Mr. Trump?

How?

Really, that is just lazy, check out the last refuge, all of them are available.
 
Somehow I have difficulty with a judge agreeing to vacate a guilty plea based on

"Yes, Your Honour, I lied when I said I knew what I was doing by pleading guilty. And, yes, Your honour, I lied when I said that I was pleading guilty of my own free will. And, yes, Your Honour, I lied when I said that I was not being coerced by anyone to plead guilty. And, yes, Your Honour, I lied when I said that I had - in fact - done the things that I was on trial for doing. And, yes, Your Honour, there isn't anything that is new about the situation. But I'm telling the truth now and want to go through with the whole circus now even though the facts haven't changed one little bit and I know that my previous admissions can be used as evidence against me when I claim that I didn't know what I was doing by pleading guilty, and when I claim that I was not pleading guilty of my own free will, and when I claim that I was being coerced, and when I claim that I had not done the things that I was on trial for, and when I claim that there is a whole bunch of things that are new about the situation."

bUT, in American courts the Judges have abandoned the inherent right of the courts to say "Tell me, Sir, do you actually expect any rational and intelligent person to believe that crap.", so it is possible.

So what are we saying here? That in Her Majesty's Courts a person can be charged with a non-existent crime?
 
So is Eric Swalwell who, along with Schiff, said they had clear videence that General Flynn was 'colluding' the Russians. No one else, apart from the usual leftists, appears to support them.
exactly.

schiff had jack squat and lied about it.
this is why he didn't want those transcripts released and he tried to hold them up for so long.
 
Time for the civil suits to begin. He's got nothing to lose.

pfft civil suit and he should file criminal charges for malicious prosecution etc ...
 
So what are we saying here? That in Her Majesty's Courts a person can be charged with a non-existent crime?

Not in the least.

Allowing a person to "withdraw a guilty plea" is something that is solely within the discretion of the judge and has to be based on evidence. When there is evidence that the person knew what they were doing, admitted to doing what they were accused of doing, and stated that their plea was entered into freely and voluntarily, it takes something other than that person admitting that they were lying when they said that they knew what they were doing, lied when they admitted doing what they were accused of doing, and lied when they said that their plea was entered into freely and voluntarily to convince the judge to exercise their discretion and allow the person who has plead guilty to withdraw their guilty plea.

Trying that in a Canadian court is highly likely to elicit a "Tell me, Sir, do you actually expect any rational and intelligent person to believe that crap." from the bench. In an American court the odds tend to favour "Oh, OK.".
 
Do you still think it's an exaggeration and well beyond Trump's will to do?

Your question was "LOL. If Trump loses the election, would anyone be surprised if he opens the doors of all the Federal prisons?"

Yes, I still think that this is an exaggeration. Do I think that Trump may pardon some people in some federal prisons? He just might; other Presidents have. But ALL federal prisons and the release of all federal inmates? This is an exaggeration.
 
Your question was "LOL. If Trump loses the election, would anyone be surprised if he opens the doors of all the Federal prisons?"

Yes, I still think that this is an exaggeration. Do I think that Trump may pardon some people in some federal prisons? He just might; other Presidents have. But ALL federal prisons and the release of all federal inmates? This is an exaggeration.

I admit to being tongue-in-cheek about "all" the prisons, but do you understand Trump is willing to pardon anyone he likes regardless of guilt?

Yes, most Presidents hand out pardons. Ideally, they identify places where they have no relations, personal or business, and where the justice system got it wrong. What Trump has done is politicize the process. He doesn't give a **** about justice. He only cares about what is good for himself or whatever whimsy passes through his brain bucket. Why else would he pardon Eddie Gallagher then parade him around like a show pony?
 
They have been released. The Obama DOJ and DNI folks had testified they didn't see evidence that would indicate that there was a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Do you really think Mueller found something different?
why was Mueller even appointed?
Lisa Page testified and the others as well they had no evidence of any
Russian conspiring (collusion)with any Trump campaign folks when Mueller was appointed
-so why was Mueller even in business?
 
why was Mueller even appointed?
Lisa Page testified and the others as well they had no evidence of any
Russian conspiring (collusion)with any Trump campaign folks when Mueller was appointed
-so why was Mueller even in business?
To falsely smear Trump.
 
why was Mueller even appointed?
Lisa Page testified and the others as well they had no evidence of any
Russian conspiring (collusion)with any Trump campaign folks when Mueller was appointed
-so why was Mueller even in business?

A special counsel is supposed to be appointed to investigate an alleged criminal act within the administration when the existence of a conflict would preclude an investigation through normal DOJ channels. As the various Mueller charging documents show, there was none being claimed claimed. They didn't even have a "fact."
The whole sad affair was driven by politics.
2020 is feeling like a repeat of '92, where I had to vote for a candidate simply to cancel out somebody else's vote-- a negative vote as it were.
 
why was Mueller even appointed?
Lisa Page testified and the others as well they had no evidence of any
Russian conspiring (collusion)with any Trump campaign folks when Mueller was appointed
-so why was Mueller even in business?

Mueller was appointed for a more complete Political Theater for MSM to gush about.

He played a similar role after 911. He is a yes man, and that is how he succeeded in the FBI and DOJ. His role model was J. Edgar
 
why was Mueller even appointed?
Lisa Page testified and the others as well they had no evidence of any
Russian conspiring (collusion)with any Trump campaign folks when Mueller was appointed
-so why was Mueller even in business?

Mueller was appointed because dummy Trump fired Comey for not ending the Flynn investigation.

Nobody testified there was "no" evidence Russia conspired with the Trump campaign. What they testified to was that there was no direct evidence or strong circumstantial evidence proving Russian conspired with the Trump campaign. Investigators do not require a case to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to begin conducting an investigation. If Investigators knew the outcome of an investigation prior to starting an investigation they would never investigate anything. It is wrong to say there was "no" evidence. Here is a summary of the indirect/circumstantial evidence that indicated there was a conspiracy but was not enough to prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt:

Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion” - Just Security

I. Summary of Major Findings

The redacted Mueller Report documents a series of activities that show strong evidence of collusion. Or, more precisely, it provides significant evidence that Trump Campaign associates coordinated with, cooperated with, encouraged, or gave support to the Russia/WikiLeaks election interference activities. The Report documents the following actions (each of which is analyzed in detail in Part II):

1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.

3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

6. Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected.

7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump.

8. Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time.

9. Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers.

10. The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases.

11. The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases.

12. Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016.

13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.

14. During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration.
 
Mueller was appointed for a more complete Political Theater for MSM to gush about.

He played a similar role after 911. He is a yes man, and that is how he succeeded in the FBI and DOJ. His role model was J. Edgar

Mueller was appointed because of Trump's suspicious behavior. Notably, Trump fired Comey for not ending the Flynn investigation.
 
Mueller was appointed because of Trump's suspicious behavior. Notably, Trump fired Comey for not ending the Flynn investigation.
There was no 'suspicious behavior' and, as we have seen, that 'investigation' should never have begun. There was never any evidence of any wrongdoing by Flynn and that is according to sworn testimony by all the major players. It's hard to believe you don't know that, which suggests you're deliberately ignoring it..
 
There was no 'suspicious behavior' and, as we have seen, that 'investigation' should never have begun.

Keep lying. Maybe someday people will believe you.

There was never any evidence of any wrongdoing by Flynn

An investigator need not prove the crime prior to investigating the suspected crime.

and that is according to sworn testimony by all the major players. It's hard to believe you don't know that, which suggests you're deliberately ignoring it...

You confuse the absence of evidence to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt with a total and complete lack of evidence. They are two entirely different things
 
Keep lying. Maybe someday people will believe you.
Lying?? What 'suspicious behavior' did you find?
An investigator need not prove the crime prior to investigating the suspected crime.
There has to be evidence of some crime having been committed. There was never any evidence pf any crime.
You confuse the absence of evidence to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt with a total and complete lack of evidence. They are two entirely different things
They mean the same thing!! There was never any crime nor evidence of any crime. You can have your goofy 'suspicions' but they mean nothing. Any intelligent and unbiased person could see this was all political.
 
Back
Top Bottom