• 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!

Good News! Barr appoints special prosecutor to look into Flynn case

The Judge in the Flynn case may be getting a bit upset as the DoJ apparently can't make up its mind as to what they are recommending

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court in Washington issued an order putting off the Feb. 27 hearing pending a new order from him.

The move represents the latest turn in the case against Flynn, who pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Federal prosecutors once suggested probation for Flynn, then shifted to include prison time, and then said in a late January court filing that probation remained a “reasonable sentence.”
Click to expand...
 
Why is it that liberals want to lock up great Americans who have served their country but let the murderers, rapists, pedophiles, illegal immigrants etc go free?
 
Risky Thicket said:
That's horse****. It sucks like a bucket of ticks.
Click to expand...

Democrats do not need any evidence, much less proof, to accuse republicans of the worst of motives and crimes, but they recoil from any suggestion that people they like and support might be guilty of the crimes they appear to have committed.
 
marke said:
Democrats do not need any evidence, much less proof, to accuse republicans of the worst of motives and crimes, but they recoil from any suggestion that people they like and support might be guilty of the crimes they appear to have committed.
Click to expand...

What about crimes the perps have admitted to committing? As in pleading Guilty, hoping for reduced sentences.
 
Somerville said:
What about crimes the perps have admitted to committing? As in pleading Guilty, hoping for reduced sentences.
Click to expand...

Plea "deals" are the rule rather than the exception - many plead guilty (whether they are or not) to lesser charges rather than decide to demand a "fair" trial to try to prove their innocence when faced with fighting the state's vast legal resources. While the state thinks nothing of spending $100K (or more) to press charges and attempt to prove them, few have the ability (or inclination) to mount a similar effort in their own defense.

When the plea "deal" sentence costs (in many cases far) less than mounting a (likely to succeed) defense effort, it is often seen as financially prudent to accept that plea "deal". Unlike in a civil case, the defense is not financially rewarded (repaid for legal costs incurred) if they win (remain innocent after) a criminal case.
 
Somerville said:
What about crimes the perps have admitted to committing? As in pleading Guilty, hoping for reduced sentences.
Click to expand...

Americans should be interested in fairness, not in excusing the crimes of friends and wanting to bury enemies under lengthy jail sentences due to hateful pent-up violent vengeance towards them.
 
Somerville said:
What about crimes the perps have admitted to committing? As in pleading Guilty, hoping for reduced sentences.
Click to expand...

What about coerced pleas in cases where defendants are innocent?

"Thirty years after their convictions in the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl in rural North Carolina, based on confessions that they quickly repudiated and said were coerced, two mentally disabled half brothers were declared innocent and ordered released Tuesday by a judge here."

https:DNA Evidence Clears Two Men in 1983 Murder - The New York Times

This was a very sad and tragic case. It involved two mentally-challenged boys being sent to prison for 30 years for a crime they did not commit. The true perpetrator was found and the boys(men by now) were freed. One of the boys spent 30 years on death row. The case involved an aggressive, very successful, Bible-thumping DA with a reputation for solving cases quickly and getting death sentences for many. Don't tell me justice department and court officials cannot be crooked.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Plea "deals" are the rule rather than the exception - many plead guilty (whether they are or not) to lesser charges rather than decide to demand a "fair" trial to try to prove their innocence when faced with fighting the state's vast legal resources. While the state thinks nothing of spending $100K (or more) to press charges and attempt to prove them, few have the ability (or inclination) to mount a similar effort in their own defense.

When the plea "deal" sentence costs (in many cases far) less than mounting a (likely to succeed) defense effort, it is often seen as financially prudent to accept that plea "deal". Unlike in a civil case, the defense is not financially rewarded (repaid for legal costs incurred) if they win (remain innocent after) a criminal case.
Click to expand...

So that means they're innocent? Don't think so. It's just how the system works.
 
Michael Cole said:
1) So that means they're innocent? 2) Don't think so. 3) It's just how the system works.
Click to expand...

1) In the sense that they were initially overcharged, in many cases yes.

2) That is precisely my point - you (as many judges and jurors) do not start with the presumption of innocence. If the guy/gal was arrested, had to post a bond or is still in jail and is facing a serious charge (or multiple charges) then that person is "likely" guilty.

3) That is not how the system is supposed to work. For example, if a person is charged with the theft of property worth over $X, claims to have bought it from some other person for far less than $X and yet lacks any proof of that purchase then they are likely to be convicted of at least possession of stolen property worth over $X. It simply makes sense to plead guilty to the lesser included charge of possession of (receiving?) stolen property worth under $X rather than try to "prove their innocence" of having committed that theft.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
1) In the sense that they were initially overcharged, in many cases yes.

2) That is precisely my point - you (as many judges and jurors) do not start with the presumption of innocence. If the guy/gal was arrested, had to post a bond or is still in jail and is facing a serious charge (or multiple charges) then that person is "likely" guilty.

3) That is not how the system is supposed to work. For example, if a person is charged with the theft of property worth over $X, claims to have bought it from some other person for far less than $X and yet lacks any proof of that purchase then they are likely to be convicted of at least possession of stolen property worth over $X. It simply makes sense to plead guilty to the lesser included charge of possession of (receiving?) stolen property worth under $X rather than try to "prove their innocence" of having committed that theft.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with this. What I'm saying is that the fact what you describe does happen, does not tell us anything about any particular case. Each case is different.
 
marke said:
What about coerced pleas in cases where defendants are innocent?

"Thirty years after their convictions in the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl in rural North Carolina, based on confessions that they quickly repudiated and said were coerced, two mentally disabled half brothers were declared innocent and ordered released Tuesday by a judge here."

https:DNA Evidence Clears Two Men in 1983 Murder - The New York Times

This was a very sad and tragic case. It involved two mentally-challenged boys being sent to prison for 30 years for a crime they did not commit. The true perpetrator was found and the boys(men by now) were freed. One of the boys spent 30 years on death row. The case involved an aggressive, very successful, Bible-thumping DA with a reputation for solving cases quickly and getting death sentences for many. Don't tell me justice department and court officials cannot be crooked.
Click to expand...

Appeal to emotion, I believe. Is that what it's called? Appeal to pity or something
 
Michael Cole said:
I'm not disagreeing with this. What I'm saying is that the fact what you describe does happen, does not tell us anything about any particular case. Each case is different.
Click to expand...

The system is not different - the accused is placed at a severe disadvantage to the state since the presumption of innocence is often tossed (lost?) once an arrest was made. After all, "experts" made the decision to arrest and charge that "criminal" and claim to have evidence of their guilt. If the sentence (perhaps a fine and probation) offered in the plea "deal" costs less than the $250/hour for a defense attorney then the odds are that they will simply plead guilty.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The system is not different - the accused is placed at a severe disadvantage to the state since the presumption of innocence is often tossed (lost?) once an arrest was made. After all, "experts" made the decision to arrest and charge that "criminal" and claim to have evidence of their guilt. If the sentence (perhaps a fine and probation) offered in the plea "deal" costs less than the $250/hour for a defense attorney then the odds are that they will simply plead guilty.
Click to expand...

Again, I have no argument with this. Economic status plays a huge role in the Justice system. That doesn't mean we can randomly select a case that was plea bargained, and assume the person is innocent. Most of the time plea bargains involve several charges. There really isn't an incentive for LE to Trump up false charges.
 
Michael Cole said:
Appeal to emotion, I believe. Is that what it's called? Appeal to pity or something
Click to expand...

Appeal to the reasonable point. Just because someone confesses does not mean they were not unjustly coerced into doing so. There are too many bad signs in the rush to condemn Flynn and I'm glad a responsible prosecutor is now reviewing the case.
 
marke said:
Appeal to the reasonable point. Just because someone confesses does not mean they were not unjustly coerced into doing so. There are too many bad signs in the rush to condemn Flynn and I'm glad a responsible prosecutor is now reviewing the case.
Click to expand...

All you gotta do is point out the bad signs. We all know guilty pleas can be coerced,
 
dcaraz said:
Michael Flynn is a tragic example of the greed that is rotting American democracy like an internal cancer.
In the process of writing a political/espionage novel, I did extensive research into America's Defense Intelligence Agency, a major intelligence agency component of the DoD.
In 2012, LT. General Michael Flynn served as the director of the DIA. He was in charge of 16,000 military and civilian employees worldwide.
In his role as DIA Director, Mr. Flynn, a graduate of West Point, was charged with informing national civilian and defense policy makers about the military intentions and capabilities
of foreign governments and non-state actors such as ISIS. Flynn was privy to the most sensitive national and international intelligence and briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee,
during the Senate's Worldwide Threat Assessment hearing. After leaving the Army, this world-class military intelligence leader chose to seek riches in the service of Donald Trump.
Mr. Flynn made a decision to become a shill for Trump's election.
Flynn turned his back on his career-long pledge to honor and defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic when he sat with Putin at dinner parties and enjoyed his
meetings with his new found Kremlin friends. Tragically, one of America's military leaders chose to become a liar to gain Trump's favor.
The fact that this transformation from military hero to convicted felon seems OK with most Trump supporters and elected Republicans is proof that this rot has damaged America deeply.
Those of us who support truth and honesty are fighting the lies, corruption and ethical rot in order to save our nation from spiritual decadence.
Click to expand...

You forgot one very important thing.They trapped Flynn to get Trump.
 
Michael Cole said:
Again, I have no argument with this. Economic status plays a huge role in the Justice system. That doesn't mean we can randomly select a case that was plea bargained, and assume the person is innocent. Most of the time plea bargains involve several charges. There really isn't an incentive for LE to Trump up false charges.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. then why have a judicial system at all? Just let the police lock up and/or fine those "guilty" folks.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm.. then why have a judicial system at all? Just let the police lock up and/or fine those "guilty" folks.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I understand police, prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. What is your point?
 
Michael Cole said:
What are you talking about? I understand police, prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. What is your point?
Click to expand...

Apparently you do not, since you claimed that there really isn't an incentive for it to occur. In the case of a plea deal, the judicial role is reduced to simply accepting the practice.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Apparently you do not, since you claimed that there really isn't an incentive for it to occur. In the case of a plea deal, the judicial role is reduced to simply accepting the practice.
Click to expand...

Okay. Seriously. I really don't know what you're getting at. Innocent people aren't being rounded up and forced to cop a plea. That it happens rarely tells us nothing, other than it is a rare occurrence. We've seen heinous injustice with innocent death row inmates. We see disparity in prosecution according to race and economic status. All bad things.

That does not in any way shape or form call us to suspect each and every plea bargained case. That would be naïve. Instead, let the system work as it has for a long time, and where reform is needed, show your support
 
Michael Cole said:
Okay. Seriously. I really don't know what you're getting at. Innocent people aren't being rounded up and forced to cop a plea. That it happens rarely tells us nothing, other than it is a rare occurrence. We've seen heinous injustice with innocent death row inmates. We see disparity in prosecution according to race and economic status. All bad things.

That does not in any way shape or form call us to suspect each and every plea bargained case. That would be naïve. Instead, let the system work as it has for a long time, and where reform is needed, show your support
Click to expand...

That it happens at all is cause for serious concern. The other side of affairs is even worse - folks guilty of serious criminal offenses (felonies) are being routinely permitted to make "deals" to plead guilty to less serious criminal offenses (misdemeanors) and thus allowed to continue being career (felony) criminals. Keep in mind that few criminal acts result in arrest, indictment and conviction that is especially true for property (non-violent) crimes where under 18% result in the arrest and indictment of any suspect.

FBI — Clearances
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Plea "deals" are the rule rather than the exception - many plead guilty (whether they are or not) to lesser charges rather than decide to demand a "fair" trial to try to prove their innocence when faced with fighting the state's vast legal resources. While the state thinks nothing of spending $100K (or more) to press charges and attempt to prove them, few have the ability (or inclination) to mount a similar effort in their own defense.

When the plea "deal" sentence costs (in many cases far) less than mounting a (likely to succeed) defense effort, it is often seen as financially prudent to accept that plea "deal". Unlike in a civil case, the defense is not financially rewarded (repaid for legal costs incurred) if they win (remain innocent after) a criminal case.
Click to expand...

However, when an "innocent" defendant accepts a plea bargain, they are required to do more than simply say "Yes, I'm guilty." Before the judge will accept the plea bargain, the defendant is required to describe in detail the crime of which they are pleading guilty to. It's called allocution. It is also an opportunity for the defendant to request leniency and the judge reasons to consider a lighter sentence. This is all done under oath. If this allocution is later proved to be false in any respect, it is perjury and the whole agreement can be tossed and the process starts over with perjury now in the mix.

This idea that Flynn was facing immediate bankruptcy simply because he was confronted with the crimes he had committed is nonsense.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
However, when an "innocent" defendant accepts a plea bargain, they are required to do more than simply say "Yes, I'm guilty." Before the judge will accept the plea bargain, the defendant is required to describe in detail the crime of which they are pleading guilty to. It's called allocution. It is also an opportunity for the defendant to request leniency and the judge reasons to consider a lighter sentence. This is all done under oath. If this allocution is later proved to be false in any respect, it is perjury and the whole agreement can be tossed and the process starts over with perjury now in the mix.

This idea that Flynn was facing immediate bankruptcy simply because he was confronted with the crimes he had committed is nonsense.
Click to expand...

That is close to my personal courtroom experience while accepting a plea deal.

After the case docket was read, my defense lawyer expressed my desire to plead guilty adding that I fully and freely admitted my guilt and that I was so guilty that I demanded a minimum of 30 days incarceration (the pre-arranged maximum sentence sought for DUI). The judge (suppressing a laugh) then asked the prosecutor if there was a "factual basis for this plea" (entering into the court record exactly what I was alleged to have done).

My lawyer then approached the bench with a letter from my employer, on Department of the Navy stationary, requesting that I be granted work release. The judge then asked me if I understood the nature of the charges that I was pleading guilty to - a simple yes/no question and (after I said "yes, your honor") sentenced me to 30 days in jail, with work-release recommended, beginning immediately.

The entire "trial" lasted about 10 minutes.
 
Another thing that is lost in all this. Typically, when a defendant first becomes aware that the feds are investigating, it's too late. The feds already have enough to convict. Now it's just a matter of how it's going to go down as far as plea bargaining goes. The feds don't want to go to trial. That's why they build the case, making it solid before they spring it on the defendant. Most defendants, when confronted with the overwhelming evidence that will be presented to the judge and/or jury start looking to minimize their punishment.

There are exceptions I personally have an acquaintance who is currently serving time for Medicare fraud. She was stupid. She was guilty. She had done everything they said she did and they could prove it with both documentation and witnesses. Nevertheless, she refused to cop a plea. She was simply in denial and refused to take her public defender's advice and get a plea bargain. The fed's response? OK, ok dumbass, you're going to prison. Half way through the jury trial, she came out of denial and now wanted a plea bargain. Too late. She had put them through the expense and time of a trial, so no plea bargain was forthcoming. She was easily convicted and is now serving five years in federal prison.
 
marke said:
We are seeing good things in recent days and this news is especially welcome. Because of all the obvious questionable activities by biased Justice Department officials in the Michael Flynn case AG Barr has appointed someone outside the deep state loop to look into the questionable activities and decisions which led to the apparent mishandling of the Flynn case.
Michael Flynn: William Barr appoints outside prosecutor to review Russia case
Click to expand...

Will you be willing to accept the findings if they turn out to be like Huber and Durham?
Or will this prosecutor become one of the bad guys?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom