SectionC3

Again, poorly drawn. Go back and figure out what might be dismissed with prejudice (hint: it’s not the case) and then we can talk again.

So if Flynn gets sentenced you go on vacation for a year? Done. Your terms are vague and poorly drawn, and I note that they include an escape hatch that would allow you to win the bet that you have proposed if Trump pardons Flynn. Apparently you are not confident that Flynn will prevail on the law here.

Me too. This Q fellow is starting to piss me off. I’ve had enough of his disrespect for the Anons.

Got any other hot tips about the “case record” to share today? Or maybe you can regale us with tales of your hoaxy logic about how a declaration is the same as withdrawing a plea. Or, better yet, explain again how a case about charging discretion is deciding case law with respect to the prosecutorial abandonment issue in the Flynn case. Keep the hits coming, my man! That’s right. We all need to know the difference between Qs and Anons. It is the path to enlightenment. Thank you, sir.

Whose practice went so well that she is . . . A journalist!

Says the journalist. Hoax! How would that help in my effort to Keep Making America Great Keep Make Again? I beg you, sir, please help me understand whether we are Again Making America Great Again or if we’re focused on Keeping America Great now.

So it’s Made in America? I don’t follow. I’’m not sure if I should focus on Again Making America Great Again or on Keeping America Great. Please help!

Not in the least. But I’m glad that you finally came to terms with the fact that you have a wine cork. Now the healing can begin!

Hey, at least he didn’t bring a wine cork to a sword fight. Unlike someone else here.

But the virus has been reduced to ashes!

Another fake conspiracy theory to distract the 38% of Americans who believe that a pandemic, racial injustice, depression-era unemployment numbers, and climate change are great! Keep America Great! Or is it Make America Great Again again? I can’t remember. Maybe its Again Make America Keep Great. Can you clear this up for me?

Hoax. That’s not remotely close to what I said. The perjury identified by Gleeson can be considered at sentencing if that uncharged and therefore unproven crime is not used to elevate the sentence imposed with respect to the crime of which Flynn was convicted beyond the presently-existing sentencing range for that crime. Read a case called Apprendi (a predecessor to the case cited by the alt-wrong lawyer Deranged Rhino referenced earlier in this thread). This morning he reduced coronavirus to ashes*! *Except for in Arizona and Texas and the other places where rates of infection are soaring. Nice! A case about charging discretion. Unfortunately for Mr. Flynn we have a conviction here, meaning that there is no issue of charging discretion. Justice, 1. Deranged Rhino, 0.

Hoax. Read the article. Gleeson alleged that Flynn perjured himself in moving to withdraw the plea. Have a nice day! that’s not very nice, sir. More comments like that will get you in a list. Please take a friendlier time in your discussion.

So ... Gleason gave the judge cover. Powell is mouthing off. Bad look. Flynn is likely going to get sentenced. Whether he sees a day in prison is uncertain bc he might get a stay. But not a good day for Flynn.

Hoax. As usual. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/502066-court-appointed-former-judge-accuses-flynn-of-perjury-urges-court-to%3famp almost as unbelievable as a bunch of trump appointees trying to rig the justice system for Flynn!

Looks like Gordo messed up her Apprendi analysis here. The unconvicted crime (here, perjury) can be considered in determining where within a permissible range a sentence should fall. It can’t be used to enhance a sentence beyond its permissible maximum term. But I’m sure legal savants Psycho Rhino and Buffalo Gal knew that! Apprendi was decided in 2000, Gordo!

You’re right, I should read your “deciding case law.”

Apparently the boring nature of the work gave you time to hatch some of your nonsense conspiracy theories and invent such gems as “case records” and “deciding case law.” Well done, sir!

“Deciding case law!” Outstanding. Now I’ve heard two novel things today! Keep it up!

Got any more case law for me, Mr. Dershowitz? I can’t wait to see it! Better yet, get it to Flynn’s counsel ASAP. They need you! Is that where you came up with the “case record” phrase? That one was rich!

Flynn admitted it! Outstanding!

Hoax. Flynn lied. Then he admitted his lie was criminal. Then he got cold feet and decided he didn’t want to go to the can. And then, after the career prosecutor bailed on the case in what almost certainly was a protest, a political appointee tried to have the government abandon the prosecution. But the problem that none of those geniuses considered was that the government needs the permission of the court to do so! Oops! Nitpicking Mr. Gleeson’s submission doesn’t change any of those truths. Sad! Most likely because you have a lousy education, cling to Trump as a sliver of self worth, and generally have no clue what you’re talking about in the legal and political arenas.

FYI - calling the submission nonsense a bunch of times doesn’t actually make it nonsense. Also, have you considered consulting on this case? The General needs you. Only your brilliance can rescue this matter from the jaws of injustice. Certainly he would appreciate your expertise! Great stuff! I wasted 30 seconds of my life reading a case about a DPA and a speedy trial concern before wondering how that might possibly be relevant where, as here, the government seeks to abandon a prosecution that already has resulted in a conviction. Only your brilliant legal mind can explain this one to me!

Maybe you can also enlighten me on some of the “case law” on which you rely. Can’t wait!

Yuppers. Everyone else is wrong but you. That guilty plea? Flynn was just joking. Only kidding around. Did it for fun because he was playing Trumpian 4D chess and thought it would work out to his advantage in a way that only clairvoyants like this Psycho Rhino guy can see. That’s the ticket! Fake logic. Even assuming that I hadn’t read any submission at the time what you characterize as the prior representations were made, I have not indicated that I did not engage in any such reading in the period between the time at which those representations were made and the present. And, in point of fact, I read part of the a memorandum previously submitted (and, ostensibly filed). Section C3, 1; Washed up Psycho Rhino, 0. Nice dodge, brochacho. Any chance you can educate me on how today’s submission is “baseless” and “contradicted” by the “case record?”