• 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!

Exculpatory Russia evidence about Mike Flynn that US intel kept secret

Exculpatory evidence means that it exonerates the accused. Exculpatory evidence overrules all other evidence. If it didn't, it wouldn't have exculpatory value.

You are wrong on so many levels it is not funny.

First, exculpatory evidence is simply evidence that tends to support the claim of not guilty by the defendant. It does not automatically exonerate the defendant.

Second, the prosecution is only obligated to provide the defense with all evidence in its possession if the defendant chooses to go to trial and mount a defense. Flynn chose not to go to trial, therefore the prosecutors were under no obligation to release any of their evidence to anyone.

During Flynn's plea, he was required to allocute. That means the judge asked Flynn specific questions to determine he understood what it was he was pleading guilty to. Flynn was obligated to answer truthfully, including specific details of the crime. If Flynn were to withdraw his guilty plea, the prosecutor would then use his allocution in any subsequent trial. This would not end well for Flynn.
 
You are wrong on so many levels it is not funny.

First, exculpatory evidence is simply evidence that tends to support the claim of not guilty by the defendant. It does not automatically exonerate the defendant.

Second, the prosecution is only obligated to provide the defense with all evidence in its possession if the defendant chooses to go to trial and mount a defense. Flynn chose not to go to trial, therefore the prosecutors were under no obligation to release any of their evidence to anyone.

During Flynn's plea, he was required to allocute. That means the judge asked Flynn specific questions to determine he understood what it was he was pleading guilty to. Flynn was obligated to answer truthfully, including specific details of the crime. If Flynn were to withdraw his guilty plea, the prosecutor would then use his allocution in any subsequent trial. This would not end well for Flynn.

The judge ordered the prosecution to turn over ALL EVIDENCE in the case.
 
Opinion pieces are simply that. Opinions. Not facts. A source can be “credible” and still have an opinion column. I thought this was common knowledge...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It isn't an opinion piece.
 
You are wrong on so many levels it is not funny.

First, exculpatory evidence is simply evidence that tends to support the claim of not guilty by the defendant. It does not automatically exonerate the defendant.

Second, the prosecution is only obligated to provide the defense with all evidence in its possession if the defendant chooses to go to trial and mount a defense. Flynn chose not to go to trial, therefore the prosecutors were under no obligation to release any of their evidence to anyone.

During Flynn's plea, he was required to allocute. That means the judge asked Flynn specific questions to determine he understood what it was he was pleading guilty to. Flynn was obligated to answer truthfully, including specific details of the crime. If Flynn were to withdraw his guilty plea, the prosecutor would then use his allocution in any subsequent trial. This would not end well for Flynn.

You're wrong:

Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt. It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to present guilt.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exculpatory_evidence

You're wrong again:

The spoliation of evidence is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence
 
You heard? Tell more more about what you heard, that's fascinating. He was guilty of more than one count of lying...that's what you're going with? That he is NOW lying to protect his son? Oh good lord.

Yes, if you read the transcript, like everyone else, Flynn was blindsided. He went in thinking he was getting no jail, and the Judge used the T-word, and excoriated him, and pointedly told him that if they proceed with sentencing, he could NOT guarantee no jail time given the egregious nature of Flynn's behavior.
Flynn asked for a recess to talk to counsel.
They came back and asked if they could postpone sentencing.

Running scared Holbritter.

Got that video link of him 'running'?
 
Got that video link of him 'running'?

You're not serious. In the sad event that you are ignorant about common phrases in English:

phrase
If you say that a person or group is running scared, you mean that they are frightened of what someone might do to them or what might happen.
The administration is running scared.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/be-running-scared

I bet there are illegals who understand the phrase.
 
It isn't an opinion piece.

here is what i found:
Exculpatory Russia evidence about Mike Flynn that US intel kept secret
BY JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 01/02/19 04:30 PM EST
[emphasis added by bubba for the farsighted]
 
Can you explain how it’s not an opinion piece? It literally says “opinion!”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cuz he FEELS that it's true and it's a STRONG FEELING, so it's gotta be true right? Much like Trump FEELS like a good president to him, and that's what really matters.:roll:
 
The judge ordered the prosecution to turn over ALL EVIDENCE in the case.

You sure about that? ALL EVIDENCE? And turn it over to who? The defense? Is that what you think?

You may want to read this left wing fake news story from FOX News. They seem to think very differently from you.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fl...ll-filing-claiming-he-was-pressured-by-agents

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordered Mueller late Wednesday to turn over all of the government's documents and "memoranda" related to Flynn's questioning.
Not ALL EVIDENCE, just the material related to the interviews.

The judge's brief order states that Mueller can choose to file the materials under seal if necessary.
Which means the judge, not the defense will see that 'evidence.'

Oh, and just to be clear, the judge was even-handed.
Sullivan also ordered the Flynn team to turn over the documents backing up its assertions.
So now the judge can look at both sides, compare and contrast, and decide what is just.

And if Flynn should decide to withdraw his plea, that does not mean he is off scott-free. The facts that he allocuted to are still out there.
 
You're wrong:
Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt. It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to present guilt.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exculpatory_evidence

You said exculpatory evidence overrules all other evidence. That is false.


You're wrong again:

The spoliation of evidence is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence

OK, so explain 'when' Mueller was obligated to turn over this alleged exculpatory evidence. Again, I maintain that the prosecution is not obligated to turn over any evidence to the defense until the defendant chooses to go to trial. In this particular case, the judge has said he wants to see some documents related to Flynn's interview. He has not ordered the documents be turned over to the defense.

The defense is claiming that the prosecutors forced him to answer questions without having counsel present. They essentially are saying Flynn should have been Mirandized. That may be an interesting strategy. Maybe Flynn would like to go to trial. We'll see.
 
Back
Top Bottom