SectionC3

Bognino is a loser. I’d go with “the IQ of people who watch OAN,” but there might not be too much room for downward departure there.

If all of that is true then maybe Mr. Flynn shouldn’t have pleaded guilty. Grandstanding. Reassignment is rare.

I stopped reading after your first sentence because you obviously didn’t understand what I wrote. A defendant can’t withdraw a plea simply because he/she feels like it. A certain threshold must be met for that to happen, or a certain showing by the defendant must be made. The “coulds” in my post highlighted some of the “usual suspects” on which defendants rely in moving to withdraw a plea. Whichever one or ones Flynn picked or picks is up to him; I suspect he went with the “bait and switch” and IAC approaches based on some of the point headings in his memo. But, in any event, it’s Tuesday afternoon and Michael Flynn still is guilty. Enjoy! I’ll take, “it’s because he admitted guilt” for $200! This literally made me laugh out loud. The conspiracy theorists telling someone else they’re on shaky intellectual ground. That’s rich. That’s the equivalent of an affidavit there, big boy. It’s not a plea or his “current plea.” And paragraph 47 confirms that Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty. So, as of 4:31 p.m. today, Mike Flynn still is guilty.

And even if it’s been prescribed I wonder whether he actually consumes the drug.

I read a bit of it. Looks like he’s a law prof without significant postconviction experience. He lost me when he mixed up intervention and amicus participation. Oops. Spelling Michael correctly might help me take him a bit more seriously, too.

Agreed. He’s full of something, and it’s not hcq. Maybe he can show us the script.

I don’t lose anything. Today i saw a piece in the news, and it turns out that Flynn pleaded guilty. There has been no change in position. The motion apparently is to vacate the plea. At this point, the question of Flynn’s guilt (he was convicted upon his plea of guilty) is settled. Flynn wants to reopen that question, but to do so he has to demonstrate a reason why he should be permitted by the court to withdraw the plea. It can’t be simply that he changed his mind. It could be a change in govt position on sentence recommendation (aka the bait and switch). It could be that his plea was infected by ineffective assistance of counsel. Or it could be that the plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Here it appears that he’s pursuing the first two grounds. Maybe the court allows him to withdraw the plea, maybe it doesn’t. But it can’t be as simple as him changing his mind and declaring that he decided he no longer wants to be guilty. Otherwise we’d never have finality in any criminal case. Here, yup. He is. I’d love to hear from you how he’s not. Please share your expertise.

It is extremely rare for a verdict to be set aside. It’s more frequent for a judgment to be reversed on appeal, but that too is fairly rare. Until the verdict is set aside or judgment reversed, those people are considered guilty. When the judgment is reversed the finding of guilt is expunged. At this point, that makes Flynn ... you guessed it ... guilty!

I have pictured him like that World of Warcraft dude on South Park. I’m sure some crumbs and early onset diabetes are in the mix, too.

Also, you should work on your potty mouth. Cursing always gives your opponent the high ground. Putting the “Deranged” in “Deranged Rhino.” Maybe he’s popping some hydroxychloroquine with the Donald right now.

Why is that? Pretty simple. Because he pleaded guilty and now wants to take it back. Kind of like how a defendant tries to undo a conviction on appeal. He’s guilty, and he wants the courts to do something about it. Section C3, 2. Deranged Rhino, 0.

Still waiting for your education on how Flynn has not been convicted.

Has the case reached a conclusion? No. Ergo it has yet to resolve. Has Flynn pleaded guilty? Yes. Ergo, the issue of guilt is resolved. Other issues remain unresolved (Flynn’s pending motion, sentencing, and potentially appeal). It’s not that hard when you’re not trying to be obtuse about it.

Still waiting to hear about how Flynn hasn’t been convicted. Stop insulting people and give us the information that we not only deserve, but need.

Sorry, but that’s the way it goes. Guilt is a legal determination. Like it or not. And in the eyes of the law, your boy Flynn is guilty. Educate me, Rhino man.

And they walked out after the finding of guilt was vacated. We may sometimes imprison the innocent in this country, but we do not imprison the “not guilty.” The first sentence is disjunctive. I’ll take the bet. He has been convicted. So I win. Section C3, 1. Deranged Psycho Rhino, 0.

The fact that the case remains unresolved does not mean that the question of guilt remains unresolved. Flynn’s guilty plea resolved that issue. And even absent the motion to withdraw the case would not be resolved because sentencing has not occurred. What the DOJ did here is very, very odd. What the judge has done frankly isn’t partisan, it’s prudent. If there’s merit to Flynn’s contentions, then they will withstand the scrutiny of amicus review. Imagine, if you will, a crooked prosecutor in a state criminal proceeding where the defendant has pleaded guilty. Simply because the defendant has asked to withdraw the guilty plea, and simply because the crooked prosecutor has not opposed the application, doesn’t mean that the court should effectively vacate the conviction. The court has to have a legal ground upon which to take that step, and the court here is asking the friend to confirm the solidity of that ground before it goes any further.

Not classy. Not classy at all.

Indeed they do. And the reason IP clients don’t immediately walk out of prison is that those people are guilty and there is typically an arduous process to earning vacatur of the judgment of conviction. Oh I bet. This guy is probably the source for all things I need to know about how the moon landing was faked, how 9/11 was a hoax, and how the Easter Bunny and Santa are spies set by the military-industrial complex.

I don’t do Twitter. But maybe I should. I can always use help discerning the alternative hoaxes from the real hoaxes. Seems like this Rhino fellow has his finger on the pulse of all of the hoaxes, fake or otherwise.

Sigh. Legally OJ is not guilty. He’s also not innocent. Nuances are tough sometimes. I’d like to buy this book. Do you have an Amazon link?

Unfortunately for Dixon it was only the law that counted. And the law had him as guilty, right or wrong. That’s why the law doesn’t acknowledge the distinction that you seek to draw. We don’t lawfully imprison people who are merely “legally guilty” but not “actually guilty.” One is either guilty, or he is not. That’s how it goes.

Will you please get to work on those referrals to the attorney grievance committee? Only you can cut through the “sea of disinformation” on this case and yield the “important accomplishment” of establishing the unethical conduct that simply should not allow these prosecutors to continue in the practice of law. We need you now more than ever, Deranged Rhino. *** So, getting somewhat closer to reality, my understanding is that four years ago you thought to yourself, “I’m going to take my talents to the twobillsdrive.com message board because the anonymous dudes on that message board need me now more than ever to filter from their undiscerning eyes and ears all of the fake news and alternative facts floating around these days. I could write for a local paper, or start a blog, or even write a book. But no. Anonymous football fans (some of whom already know everything and have nothing to learn) need me. And I need to help them determine which hoaxes are real and which hoaxes are fake. Which facts are alternative and which are just regular facts. Which conspiracy theories are real, and which are just hoaxy fakes. What news is fake, and the degree of fakery in such news.” Makes. Perfect. Sense.

Yup. He was convicted of the crime, ergo he was guilty in the eyes of the law. In that instance, it also happened to be that he was wrongfully convicted. And the post-conviction procedures (all of which occurred while he was guilty) established that the conviction was wrongful. That’s what Flynn’s trying to do here. He changed his mind on his guilty plea, and has asked the court to allow him to withdraw it. We shall see what happens down the road, but as it stands as of 4:32 p.m. today, Flynn is guilty.

I’d have to think it through, but probably not. Guilt is a legal determination. So “actual guilt” and “guilt from a legal perspective” are one and the same.