No they don’t. It is a usurpation. Especially since there is documentary evidence the plea was both a sham and coerced
Yes, they do.
When one pleads guilty to a crime, they swear under penalty of law that what they have said - including the voluntary admission of guilt - was true and uncoerced.
If someone pleads guilty, and then later decides to change their plea, they have to prove to the judge that the fact that they lied before was justified.
According to the FBI Special Agent William Barnett, Bathhouse Barry’s investigation of Flynn was total bullshit. Flynn must have not lubed up cause the chafing runs deep for Barry!
10 Disturbing Revelations on Flynn Probe from Former FBI Agent Barnett
The DOJ released a summary of its interview of a former FBI special agent who revealed damaging information on the FBI probe into Flynn.www.breitbart.com
You left the most important part out The same agent admits that Flynn LIED!
And Mueller prosecuted Flynn for that LIE!
Feds air FBI agent’s gripes about Flynn probe
The official public release of such candid assessments from inside a federal investigative team is extraordinarily rare.news.yahoo.com
An FBI agent formerly assigned to special counsel Robert Mueller’s office told Justice Department investigators last week that he believed Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn lied to the bureau to save his job as President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, rather than to cover up a nefarious relationship between Trump and Russia.
Then you have offered more evidence to support the dismissal of charges.
Your statement makes no sense and it is evidence that you are intellectualy incapable of following the conversation and make a rational argument. Flynn was charged with LYING and was convicted. Not only this is corroborated by the agent's interview but one can also read in the same intervew that the SAME agent believed that Flynn should have been interviewed!
The purpose of the interview was about investigating Flynn for being a Russian agent.
As there was no evidence of this, there was no reason to investigate and thus whatever he told the FBI was not material to anything. Thus, the government cannot prove an element of the crime. Thus, the charges were dropped.
The purpose of your post is to repeat debunked claims which I have already addressed and you could not refute my points.
I have explained very clearly in previous posts that the mere fact that Pence revealed in public that Flynn told him that he did to discuss sanctions with the Russian ambassador ws enough by itself to have Flynn being interviewed because the scripts of that conversation that the FBI had showed that Flynn DID discuss the sanctions. A wannabe national security adviser cannot misrepresent such conversation to a Vice President elect.
Now, instead of waiting for a few pages to revert back to the same nonsense try to address my points. If you cannot, keep your mouth shit instead of littering the thread with useless pages saying over and over again the same things!
Whatever a NSC director tells the VP is not the FBI's business. It's a policy issue-- a management issue-- an administrative issue.
The only reason to think there was anything untoward about the conversation is if it is thought that Flynn was a Russian agent.
We have long known the FBI agents who did the interview didn't think he lied. We recently learned that the FBI was closing the case in Dec 2016 as being cleared of And more recently have learned that the agent who did that investigation was so adamant of the lack of merit to investigate any further he begged off further involvement.
Again, you repeat the same old argument which I have addressed!
Are you trolling or are you really interested in having honest debate?
I ANSWERED that point before by reminding you that when one is planned to be a NSC (because at the time, Obama was the president), he must be cleared to make sure that he is capable of handling national security secrets. Somebody who misrepresents his conversations with a Russian ambassador to the VP is compromised by the simple fact that his lie can become a point that the Russian can use to blackmail him. I even gave you the Mueller report saying the same thing!
Can't blackmail somebody if everyone knows.
The USA had the transcript.
Where have I heard this before?
Oh yeah, from you guys for going on 4 years. Almost 4 full years in fact. This with everything else.
So let's get to the present issue before the court of Judge Sullivan. Do you think that, if Sullivan dismisses the case he will dismiss it with prejudice or without prejudice? Cause that's the only issue if Sullivan might go ahead to accept Barr's motion to dismiss.
However, if Sullivan doesn't dismiss the case, how many of you guys will be nice enough to visit Your Hero Flynn in the Big House? My visitation question aside, this is the only matter before the court since DoJ has decided to be a no show because they're not prosecuting any more. DoJ is not defending either izzit.
Only you guys here are prosecuting the used to be case that is no longer being argued in Judge Sullivan's court. In fact you guys are so turned around you're trying to prosecute LEA and Judge Sullivan while completely ignoring the Appellate Court 8-2 decision against you. Indeed, all that remains is for the ami to make his recommendation to Sullivan with the ami's reasons and rationale. Then it's up to the judge.
Judge Sullivan.
Sullivan btw is immune to the Big Lie repeated repeated and repeated as is everyone else over here. The Triumph of The Will Big Lie.
Without prejudice-- no reason for Flynn to accept otherwise.
Appellate Court simply said Sullivan had to make the decision. The releases from last week continue to show the complete lack of merit of the prosecution.
BTW-- I haven't heard anything from the NY TIMES report the other day about all that Russian financial entanglements Trump was supposedly wrapped up in.
Without prejudice-- no reason for Flynn to accept otherwise.
Appellate Court simply said Sullivan had to make the decision. The releases from last week continue to show the complete lack of merit of the prosecution.
BTW-- I haven't heard anything from the NY TIMES report the other day about all that Russian financial entanglements Trump was supposedly wrapped up in.
Can't blackmail somebody if everyone knows.
The USA had the transcript.
When Trump said he loves the poorly educated, he was talking about you.That means every judge becomes a prosecutor and is no longer impartial. BTW, who’s jail can he put someone in? Federal is under the Justice Department. Does he have an old Conex container behind his courthouse?
They are kicking it to SCOTUS because TDS’ers all stick together. After all, judges are still lawyers but in different clothes.
Judge Sullivan said today he's "not prepared to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn."
Hence the Rowers sudden surge of hysteria and wild claims.
If Sullivan decides after additional discussion in court between Powell and the judge not to dismiss the case it will move immediately to sentencing Flynn to the Big House.
The Flynn lawyer Sydney Powell will immediately appeal.
And so on cause this case is yet another Russian novel going on against the Constitution and the United States.
Anybody else shocked ?
DOJ’S NSL REPORT PROVES THAT WILLIAM BARNETT MISREPRESENTED THE EVIDENCE IMPLICATING MIKE FLYNNEmmet Sullivan Appears Skeptical of Michael Flynn Arguments | Law & Crime
Technical difficulties plagued a digital hearing over the fate of onetime National Security Advisor and retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn on Tuesday--but one thing was constant through the first hour of the quickly-recessed hearing: the court's iciness toward the defendant and the U.S. Department...lawandcrime.com
September 29, 2020 - by emptywheel
"Later today, DOJ will stand up before Emmet Sullivan and argue that Peter Strzok — whom, they’ll claim, had it in for Mike Flynn even though they’ve submitted evidence that Strzok protected Flynn in August 2016 and December 2016 and February 2017 and May 2017 — obtained National Security Letters targeting Mike Flynn without proper predicate.
In fact, their “evidence” to support that claim will show that in his interview with Jeffrey Jensen, William Barnett misrepresented the evidence when he claimed it was “astro projection” that Mike Flynn lied to hide Trump’s involvement in Flynn’s effort to blow up sanctions on Russia. Indeed, their evidence will actually affirmatively provide more reason to think that this entire effort is an attempt to protect Flynn because he protected the President from being charged in a quid pro quo, rewarding Russia with sanctions relief in exchange for help getting elected.
What DOJ wants to show is that, in December 2016, Barnett and others on the Flynn investigation wanted to get NSLs targeting Flynn, but Strzok stopped them, in part because the investigation into Flynn — but not the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign as a whole — did not treat Flynn as an Agent of a Foreign Power. [I’ll fill this post in with links once I post it.] But then, in February and March — after DOJ said that they didn’t think Flynn was a Foreign Agent (but also said they needed to check to make sure!!!) — Strzok approved NSLs targeting Flynn. DOJ plans to claim that Strzok had no other reason to do this except to take Trump down.
The claim is amazing, in its own right, because even making the claim suggests that FBI had reason to know at that point that an investigation into Flynn which FBI believed to involve only Flynn might bring down Trump. That is, DOJ is claiming that FBI knew precisely what they only discovered by obtaining these NSLs.
FBI didn’t know at the time — but the NSLs would reveal — that in fact, the investigation might take down Trump....."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?