SectionC3

Not classy. Not classy at all.

I'm not familiar enough with the case to comment, but my guess is that Jensen is defense counsel. If you have the time when you're done with name-calling and you can enlighten me on your knowledge of Brady I'd appreciate it. Let I checked Brady material is, among other things, evidence suppressed by the prosecution. Evidence can't be suppressed if defendant knew of, or reasonably should have known of, the evidence and its exculpatory nature. So perhaps it is that Jensen conducted his own investigation and found exculpatory evidence that wasn't disclosed, but I'm skeptical based on your general cluelessness and your particular cluelessness in this realm.

There's nothing crackerjack about it. If Flynn pleaded guilty, then he has been convicted. I haven't followed the case closely (I have different d-bags that demand my attention), but to my understanding he entered a guilty plea and he's now trying to vacate the plea based on a purported change in the government's position with respect to sentencing. The idea that "[n]othing is resolved at this point" is baseless. We have resolution on the question of Flynn's guilt. The open question is whether he should be allowed to undo the guilty plea. It's rare that a court allows such a maneuver.

The question was phrased poorly by Albwan. Almost everyone who pleads guilty changes his/her plea (from guilty to not guilty). So the technical answer is that this happens all the time. The change in plea at the sentencing stage is rare, principally because courts have discretion whether to let a defendant "out" of a guilty plea and frequently chose not to allow the defendant to walk back the guilty plea. Defendants ask for that type of relief all the time (it's a way of trying to extend local time in a state proceeding), but it's rarely granted.

And, I'll add, that if your "argument that argues" held water here, Mueller necessarily would have exonerated Trump based on Mueller's failure to identify a crime related to collusion. Sounds like Foxxy is talking out of his rear end again.

Let's see your "argument that argues." It seems dubious to me given that obstruction theoretically defeats the ability to prove guilt of the underlying crime, but I'll look at anything you have on that front.

Sigh. Too many internet legal "experts" today. Whether a judgment of conviction has been entered is not something I'm clear on (it almost certainly hasn't because he hasn't been sentenced, and there's usually but one judgment in a criminal proceeding - a judgment of conviction and sentence). But, as far as I know, Flynn pleaded guilty and he therefore has been convicted. Just like a jury convicts a defendant following deliberations. The judgment comes later. So, bottom line, it looks like we have a conviction. That is that.

It might take an hour to explain how clueless your statement is. The bottom line, though, is that Mueller concluded that there was legally insufficient evidence of a crime with respect to the collusion question. He could have reached the same conclusion with respect to obstruction, but he didn't. And since he couldn't present the case to a grand jury per DOJ policy, the question whether Trump committed obstruction of justice will await the end of Trump's presidency. He absolutely, unequivocally, did not conclude that "there was not an acceptable level proven." From Bob Mueller's typewriter to your deluded eyes: Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. In addition to being homophobic you're not very funny. You really should try the whole "honey" approach to get some more friends.

I'm a vegetarian. Out of the two of us, you're the only one who likes meat.

Hoax. I gave up bread a long time ago. Hoax. And now I'm done. Cheers!

I have to go do something productive. It's been fun arguing on the Internet today. Before I leave I'll recap what I learned: 3rdnlng has a suspected case of penis envy. Deranged Rhino has not read the Mueller report and still hasn't discovered that Trump may have obstructed justice. Foxx is into name calling today. Cheers!

Maybe, maybe not. But the question is whether the Mueller report exonerates Trump with respect to obstruction of justice. It does not.

Or they perform a truth-seeking function more critical now than ever. Either or. He's of the "if I repeated it enough it might come true" school of politics.

I didn't realize that there are non-plastic sporks. Cool. Where and when? The Mueller report left the question open.

Anything specific that you would like me to read?

Once we get a determination on the obstruction point we'll probably be good to go.

What fact pattern is that, professor?

I know nothing about salty. But I have to say that response was a good one. It made me laugh.

That's what thirdn"long" says.

Hoax.

Why is that, foxxy?

I made no mention of your "member." You keep on bringing that up. I read something about penis envy when I was in a college psych class. Maybe that's your problem. Also, FYI, you get more flies with honey. If you're nice to others, they're much more likely to be nice to you.

You mean exercising presidential power while being the president?

The next time you'll say something about having mommy handle your wine cork. I'll guess again. You're going to play the "But there's no judgment!" game, right?

I suspect I'll find it right next to your TPS report.