- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 49,651
- Reaction score
- 55,265
- Location
- Tucson, AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Well Flynn was going to be the national security adviser for the Trump administration.
Just for reference, here's the 302 Strozk produced regarding the January 24th "interview" with Flynn - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjI9aLWiNrpAhVGj54KHVJ4Cg8QFjAAegQINRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.documentcloud.org%2Fdocuments%2F5633260%2F12-17-18-Redacted-Flynn-Interview-302.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0Xdx2SHcYNMNMmw3j3pzhD
You can compare what Flynn's answers to Pientka were with the call transcripts. I'd suggest that calling his answers "a lie" is a bit of a stretch.
Flynn Calls 1 | Politics | International Relations | Free 30-day Trial | Scribd
I've read through what there is and, for those interested in some "smoking gun" WRT Flynn, well, good luck with that.
I won't say that sanctions weren't discussed but if I was going to open up a Logan Act case based on the conversation...well.....there just ain't a whole lot there.
Please highlight the part that totally exonerates Flynn?
I won't say that sanctions weren't discussed but if I was going to open up a Logan Act case based on the conversation...well.....there just ain't a whole lot there.
Seems pretty stupid of him to lie then, huh?
There is no reason to "totally exonerate" Flynn. He did discuss what he would prefer the Russian response to diplomatic expulsions to be. His answer in the "interview" with Strozk and Pientka was "not really" and, based on the transcript, that's a valid answer. His conversation with Kislyak on the subject was neither substantive nor protracted. It didn't discuss specific policy or specific intent. There wasn't any discussion regarding what Trump administration responses would be. There wasn't any discussion of promises one way or the other. It was merely an acknowledgement of the situation and a very reasonable expression of Flynn's preference that things not get out of hand.
It was merely an acknowledgement of the situation and a very reasonable expression of Flynn's preference that things not get out of hand.
Did he discuss sanctions or not? He did. So he lied to the FBI. Why? Why didn't he just tell the truth or say he didn't want to discuss it? Why did he need to lie? Why did so many in Trump's campaign need to lie?
I'll tell you why. They were afraid the American people wouldn't like it if they learned the Trump campaign was negotiating and working with an enemy nation.
That's the simple truth. Why can't you accept it? Oh, because it's party before truth, just like the Soviets, right Comrade?
Why so much drama? The call transcripts don't show any impropriety and comparing them to the 302 doesn't show any material falsehoods. It's a TOTAL nothingburger.
Like I said, calling anything Flynn said to the FBI a "lie" is a stretch. Section 1001 requires that the false statement be "material" and nothing Flynn said could REASONABLY be called a material falsehood.
I'm not going to get into materiality because you simply are not a lawyer and I've had it up to here with laymen acting like their personal opinion of what a word in a statute means controls. There's a reason lawyers tend to be expensive: it's actually quite a lot of hard ****ing work. You'd have to skim/read hundreds if not thousands of cases to find ones where there was a similar factual set-up as in Flynn's situation, see what the various courts said, and then weave an answer out of this wordly cloth. You'd have to have working understanding about how jurisprudence worked. You'd have to read the most important cases cited by the decisions you relied on to see what they said, as to what facts. You might even have to trace a line of jurisprudence back fifty years, depending on the argument.
You can't just say "well, it says material and layman me thinks this is not material". That's nothing. A fart in a hurricane.
So I'll ask the layman's question: Then why'd he plead guilty?
He isn't some poor minority defendant who has to choose between staying in jail for a full year before trial, thus losing job/housing/everything, who is thrust into a deliberately underfunded public defense system. He was a man of means and connections. Those people don't plead guilty despite innocence.
He could afford good lawyers. He wasn't facing the prospect of maybe sitting in jail as long as his potential sentence simply for asserting a right to trial. That's what happens to poor people who don't get bail, not people like Flynn. So why'd he plead, if it's so obvious he was innocent that even layman Lutherf can see it?
Why?
Liks has been said over and over again, he took the plea to end the expense of a defense.
Luck is not necessary. All you need is the ability to read English.Flynn Calls 1 | Politics | International Relations | Free 30-day Trial | Scribd
I've read through what there is and, for those interested in some "smoking gun" WRT Flynn, well, good luck with that.
lolI won't say that sanctions weren't discussed but if I was going to open up a Logan Act case based on the conversation...well.....there just ain't a whole lot there.
Washington (CNN)Nearly 2,000 former Justice Department employees criticized Attorney General William Barr for moving to drop the charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn last week, saying in an open letter published Monday that Barr had "assaulted the rule of law" and calling for him to resign.
Flynn Calls 1 | Politics | International Relations | Free 30-day Trial | Scribd
I've read through what there is and, for those interested in some "smoking gun" WRT Flynn, well, good luck with that.
I won't say that sanctions weren't discussed but if I was going to open up a Logan Act case based on the conversation...well.....there just ain't a whole lot there.
Flynn Calls 1 | Politics | International Relations | Free 30-day Trial | Scribd
I've read through what there is and, for those interested in some "smoking gun" WRT Flynn, well, good luck with that.
I won't say that sanctions weren't discussed but if I was going to open up a Logan Act case based on the conversation...well.....there just ain't a whole lot there.
I'm not going to get into materiality because you simply are not a lawyer and I've had it up to here with laymen acting like their personal opinion of what a word in a statute means controls. There's a reason lawyers tend to be expensive: it's actually quite a lot of hard ****ing work. You'd have to skim/read hundreds if not thousands of cases to find ones where there was a similar factual set-up as in Flynn's situation, see what the various courts said, and then weave an answer out of this wordly cloth. You'd have to have working understanding about how jurisprudence worked. You'd have to read the most important cases cited by the decisions you relied on to see what they said, as to what facts. You might even have to trace a line of jurisprudence back fifty years, depending on the argument.
You can't just say "well, it says material and layman me thinks this is not material". That's nothing. A fart in a hurricane.
So I'll ask the layman's question: Then why'd he plead guilty?
He isn't some poor minority defendant who has to choose between staying in jail for a full year before trial, thus losing job/housing/everything, who is thrust into a deliberately underfunded public defense system. He was a man of means and connections. Those people don't plead guilty despite innocence.
He could afford good lawyers. He wasn't facing the prospect of maybe sitting in jail as long as his potential sentence simply for asserting a right to trial. That's what happens to poor people who don't get bail, not people like Flynn. So why'd he plead, if it's so obvious he was innocent that even layman Lutherf can see it?
Why?
He was bankrupted, lost his home with lawyer costs, and was threatened to have his son dragged into it.
What a crock................as usual from you.
You are a team player with no interest in the truth.
I'm not sure what's so hard to understand here, Mr. "Team Player": not only do I actually have training in experience in how the criminal court system works (I will not call it a "justice" system), but the fact that you lot defend people on Team Trump with absurdist conspiracy theories and lies, expecting to be taken seriously despite you not giving half of a **** about all the poor minority defendants who get steamrolled.
You don't care about justice. But you somehow think anyone other than yourself is going to be fooled by your fake outrage squawking. We aren't. I'm not. You don't know what you're talking about and you don't care about what it is anyway. You're the people who defend police just about no matter what they do. You're the people who would never dare complain about a faulty issue of warrant that nabbed an illegal alien drug dealer.
Pure partisanship with you. Hence your volume: you've got to drown your own consciousness of guilt out.
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?