Michael Flynn case to be reheard by full federal appeals court in D.C.

ludin · Jul 30, 2020

Helix said:
I just marked off another day in which I didn't lie to the FBI and then plead guilty to it. I'm thinking about offering a course on how to do that.

the FBI said that he wasn't untruthful and wanted the case closed.
pleading guilty under duress is illegal. the government is not allowed to blackmail you into a confession.

Michael Cole · Jul 30, 2020

ludin said:
Sorry but the guilty pleas are bogus as they were made under duress.

:lamo

That's laughable. What's next? You gonna show me pictures of some poor blacks who were railroaded into guilty pleas? Get real. Flynn had multi-million dollar attorneys. Duress my ass.

Don't even start with the "his son" nonsense. If his son were innocent, he wouldn't have signed the agreement, and if his son is guilty, then he's gotta do the time he agreed to. That's how it works around here.

ludin · Jul 30, 2020

Michael Cole said:
:lamo

That's laughable. What's next? You gonna show me pictures of some poor blacks who were railroaded into guilty pleas? Get real. Flynn had multi-million dollar attorneys. Duress my ass.

Don't even start with the "his son" nonsense. If his son were innocent, he wouldn't have signed the agreement, and if son is guilty, then he's gotta do the time he agreed to. That's how it works around here.

Sorry but the FBI cannot black mail a confession out them.
Threatening to go after his wife and kids for no reason if he didn't sign it is 100% illegal.

Sorry but his son is innocent until he is proven gulity this is the US not sure where you live.
you leftist must always live in another country.

NO he doesn't he was blackmailed his rights trampled on .

Sorry you are out of luck but this is the type of unethical disgusting behavior i expect out of leftist.

Athanasius68 · Jul 30, 2020

Michael Cole said:
The guilty pleas were signed and affirmed. That's the evidence I'm referring to.

And subsequent evidence showed he was not guilty.
Thus the move to drop the charges.

ludin · Jul 30, 2020

Athanasius68 said:
And subsequent evidence showed he was not guilty.
Thus the move to drop the charges.

they already know this they simply don't care.
leftism and facts simply cannot exist.

that is why they are leftist.

bubbabgone · Jul 30, 2020

Lutherf said:
I can't read the article because of the paywall but this is just talking about the en banc review of the panel decision authorizing mandamus, right? They can't possibly be rehearing the entire case.

"Michael Flynn case to be reheard by full federal appeals court in D.C." was just the WAPO headline so you can't expect it to be accurate.

bubbabgone · Jul 30, 2020

ludin said:
they already know this they simply don't care.
leftism and facts simply cannot exist.

that is why they are leftist.

What makes you think "they" would already know "subsequent evidence showed he was not guilty."
What major media outlet that "they" would be familiar with has been reporting all the documents that "showed he was not guilty"?
HINT: It would be the same ones that show riots and call them riots.

Michael Cole · Jul 30, 2020

ludin said:
Sorry but the FBI cannot black mail a confession out them.
Threatening to go after his wife and kids for no reason if he didn't sign it is 100% illegal.

Sorry but his son is innocent until he is proven gulity this is the US not sure where you live.
you leftist must always live in another country.

NO he doesn't he was blackmailed his rights trampled on .

Sorry you are out of luck but this is the type of unethical disgusting behavior i expect out of leftist.

Nonsense. They agreed not to pursue an indictment on his son. Perfectly normal plea bargain. Your attempts at hysteria are noted.

Athanasius68 · Jul 30, 2020

Michael Cole said:
Nonsense. They agreed not to pursue an indictment on his son. Perfectly normal plea bargain. Your attempts at hysteria are noted.

The problem there is that the prosecutors did not reveal in the plea that they would not charge Flynn's kids.

Michael Cole · Jul 30, 2020

Athanasius68 said:
And subsequent evidence showed he was not guilty.
Thus the move to drop the charges.

There is no precedence for the DOJ to interfere between a guilty plea and the sentencing phase. This is repeated every time these arguments come up. It's a founding principle of our country, precedence that is. The proper procedure in this case would be to retract his plea and request a jury trial. That's the precedence.

Athanasius68 · Jul 30, 2020

Michael Cole said:
There is no precedence for the DOJ to interfere between a guilty plea and the sentencing phase. This is repeated every time these arguments come up. It's a founding principle of our country, precedence that is. The proper procedure in this case would be to retract his plea and request a jury trial. That's the precedence.

No-- because the evidence showed that that a prosecution could not be sustained.

Michael Cole · Jul 30, 2020

Athanasius68 said:
The problem there is that the prosecutors did not reveal in the plea that they would not charge Flynn's kids.

So what are you claiming? They beat the plea out of him? Waterboarding? Put contracts out on his family?

Michael Cole · Jul 30, 2020

Athanasius68 said:
No-- because the evidence showed that that a prosecution could not be sustained.

Smh. Do you really not understand how our legal system works?

Helix · Jul 30, 2020

ludin said:
the FBI said that he wasn't untruthful and wanted the case closed.
pleading guilty under duress is illegal. the government is not allowed to blackmail you into a confession.

I don't do alt reality.

Athanasius68 · Jul 30, 2020

Michael Cole said:
So what are you claiming? They beat the plea out of him? Waterboarding? Put contracts out on his family?

What I am saying is that the deal was that Flynn pleads guilty, and the government not to prosecute his son.
Which is ok to make.
But in the plea deal, that was presented to the court, there is no mention of this. Because Flynn was pleading guilty under duress. There was a requirement to report this to the court.

Athanasius68 · Jul 30, 2020

Michael Cole said:
Smh. Do you really not understand how our legal system works?

Yes-- a prosecutor has an ethical responsibility to bring forth charges only when he or she reasonably believes that a reasonable jury will not find reasonable doubt from the facts and evidence presented.
A prosecutor can't just throw mud on the wall and hope something sticks.

ludin · Jul 30, 2020

Michael Cole said:
Nonsense. They agreed not to pursue an indictment on his son. Perfectly normal plea bargain. Your attempts at hysteria are noted.

your poor attempts at deflection are noted.
sorry FBI is not allowed to coerce or blackmail someone for a confession.

which is what they did.
facts do not care about your feelings.

There was no reason to involve his wife or son in the first place.

ludin · Jul 30, 2020

Michael Cole said:
There is no precedence for the DOJ to interfere between a guilty plea and the sentencing phase. This is repeated every time these arguments come up. It's a founding principle of our country, precedence that is. The proper procedure in this case would be to retract his plea and request a jury trial. That's the precedence.

Sure there is. If the DOJ see's that an injustice is done and laws broken and there is an ethical issue with the investigation and with the prosecutor.
they very much have every reason to interfere.

the information that was released showed that there is not a remote chance of a valid prosecution.
not to mention the prosecutor lied to the court.
without evidence from discovery which is highly illegal by the way
and a whole slew of other things.

You are not helping yourself out here.

ludin · Jul 30, 2020

Helix said:
I don't do alt reality.

Evidently you do because as usual nothing you said is remotely close to factual or correct.
do you have anything to actually support what you say?

if not then we will just say you concede the point like you always do and you can run away.

TomFitz · Jul 30, 2020

Rexedgar said:
Are there any other examples you can provide where the prosecution seeks to drop charges between the trial phase and the sentencing phase?

Barr and Trump were able to make an end run in the Stone case. Since we seem to be in scorched earth mode, why doesn’t Trump pardon Flynn?

Trump is trying to avoid having to do that.

They tried to get him off by trying to drop the case after the conviction, which is unheard of.

Then they tried to lean on Emmit Sullivan to let Flynn off the hook.

Then they tried. the three judge panel, and needed to break precident to do that.

Now the full court will hear it.

They’re stuck between forcing a court to drop a case in which the defendant pleaded guilty and was convicted.

There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that this is the President pressuring the judiciary to use its power for a strictly personal and political end.

If the court forces Sullivan to pretend that a convicted man isn’t charged, at the whim of the President, they will have driven another stake into the rule of law.

Trump will be delighted, since he views the law as a weapon he can wield at will, as does Bill Barr.

poweRob · Jul 30, 2020

Athanasius68 said:
No-- because the evidence showed that that a prosecution could not be sustained.

Only according to a highly corrupt DOJ. Which is why it is being reviewed.

Michael Cole · Jul 30, 2020

Athanasius68 said:
What I am saying is that the deal was that Flynn pleads guilty, and the government not to prosecute his son.
Which is ok to make.
But in the plea deal, that was presented to the court, there is no mention of this. Because Flynn was pleading guilty under duress. There was a requirement to report this to the court.

Makes no sense, as I've already discussed. This would necessitate a conspiracy on behalf of Flynn's defense attorneys. He plead guilty. You just can't wiggle your way out of that, regardless of any reasoning. The DOJ doesn't do this. They're is no precedent for this action. Once a plea has been signed and affirmed, the case goes to sentencing. He wasn't coerced; that's ridiculous. Everything has been by the book, until Barr stuck his nose where it doesn't go.

Michael Cole · Jul 30, 2020

ludin said:
Sure there is. If the DOJ see's that an injustice is done and laws broken and there is an ethical issue with the investigation and with the prosecutor.
they very much have every reason to interfere.

the information that was released showed that there is not a remote chance of a valid prosecution.
not to mention the prosecutor lied to the court.
without evidence from discovery which is highly illegal by the way
and a whole slew of other things.

You are not helping yourself out here.

Show me the precedence. One case will do. I'll wait.

Michael Cole · Jul 30, 2020

ludin said:
your poor attempts at deflection are noted.
sorry FBI is not allowed to coerce or blackmail someone for a confession.

which is what they did.
facts do not care about your feelings.

There was no reason to involve his wife or son in the first place.

If his son is guilty of crimes, then there most certainly is reason to involve themselves.

Helix · Jul 30, 2020

ludin said:
Evidently you do because as usual nothing you said is remotely close to factual or correct.
do you have anything to actually support what you say?

if not then we will just say you concede the point like you always do and you can run away.

I have found that the best way to avoid lying to the FBI and then pleading guilty to it is to not lie to the FBI and then plead guilty to it. It works great for me, so i made it part of my daily routine.

Michael Flynn case to be reheard by full federal appeals court in D.C.

USMC 1988-1996