SectionC3

Kind of like Kentucky, which benefits from welfare provided by, among other places, my tax dollars from New York State.

Yup. Everyone can be fooled some of the time, and some people can be fooled all of the time (looking at you, Trumpers). But the virus can' the fooled at all. I'm honestly surprised it's that high. Seems to be settling down to his MAGA base number.

Maybe if the President wishes hard enough the Democratic bill will go away. By April. Just like the pandemic.

He probably shouldn't have pleaded guilty if "there was no crime." Don't be so sure. Now we know why the judge invited the amicus participation. Because he things the DOJ is politically motivated and full of bunk on this one. I don't believe in reading tea leaves because it's never an exact science. But here it's not looking good for Flynn at the trial level. Maybe appeal will tell a different story, but there's likely to be an election between now and then.

I'll give a little prediction based on my experience in these matters. If the Republicans want to screw state governments, guess who the Democrats controlling state governments are going to screw? Small towns and villages. Cuomo threatened it here a year or so ago. All of those d-bag Trumpers in small town local government who whine about Cuomo this and big spending that got a taste of the hammer when Cuomo threatened to significantly reduce aid to towns (but not to cities, which are controlled by Democrats). And guess who got all whiny? Those Trumper types who love to complain about all things state and spending until the checks aren't coming in. So, here's the breaking news. If the feds don't help their partners in state government who paid the bill for the COVID fight (like, obviously, in New York), then state governments are going to pass the cuts along to localities. And guess who is going to take a big hit? You got it. All of the Republicans on the patronage train in those governments.

Those things are true (this coming from a guy with a nice, self-directed portfolio consisting of a blend of indices and individual holdings). The concern I've always had with the Trump economy was that it was built on debt, and that someone else will pay the bill for his emptying of the treasury. It was a gamble; the tax breaks were supposed to juice GDP by at least 4%, but they didn't. I wonder whether the market would have experienced similar gains in the absence of the tax breaks. Passive investing isn't going away anytime soon. And the larger companies that drag up the indices probably would have grown at a similar rate, anyhow. In any event, all that aside, all the good that was done from an economic perspective for the past 3.5 years --- and there was a lot of good for a lot of people --- was freaking wasted when he stuck his head in the sand and ignored the virus. The virus isn't his fault. And the response to the virus isn't something that he could completely control. The effect of the virus would have been bad even with the best of governments. But the things he could control . . . he has not done a good job. And that's a shame for everyone. Yup. And we have no culpability at all for trying to wish it away for a couple of months instead of, you know, being proactive about it. Makes. Perfect. Sense. *** https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/14/weekly-jobless-claims.html More lovely news.

Yeah, no. Flynn was out of line. Wasn’t his call to make and undermined the sitting administration.

The memo of law supporting the motion to vacate. I poked around and found it on Google.

Nice Beasties reference. LIke it.

That's saying something with him.

The "had' part seems to relate to the sentence promise, not to guilt or innocence. Which is a bit of a problem with respect to your view of things.

I saw tinfoil on sale at Wegmans recently if you're looking to make yourself a new hat.

Yeah, no. He's not allowed to act on behalf of America in that capacity until Trump is the president. There's your "undermine."

It is rare for a court to undo a guilty plea. Very rare. The amicus thing is unusual, I grant you that. Could be a delay tactic. Could be that he wants a group of prosecutors opposed to the Barr DOJ to chime in. I don't know of any peculiarity here that would demand amicus participation; I'm unaware of any issue of wide concern or novelty that would warrant such a step. Then again, I don't practice in federal courts, so maybe there's something about what Flynn characterizes as the prosecutorial about face that is unusual here. I disagree about the political winds. Impeachment is over. Trump (and Barr) can get away with this chicanery now. This would be a much worse look for the DOJ during impeachment. FWIW, I glanced at the supporting memo. It looks like the court denied the Brady requests, and that the motion to vacate the plea is based on the prosecution's change in position with respect to sentencing. This doesn't strike me as some grand conspiracy.

It's hard to believe anything a known hoaxer says. Sorry if I can't trust you. Arguing with conspiracy theorists on the Internet has been fun, but now it's time to accomplish something. Enjoy the afternoon, everyone!

And you brought up entrapment as an affirmative defense to obstruction. Which was the point of my most recent post on the matter. *** Just another hoax from a hopeless hoaxer. Show me, hoaxy. Find the memo I mentioned, let me know where to look, and then I will read it.

You may be washed up, but you are amusing. I enjoyed that one!

I'm not a coward. Far from it. I just don't buy your hoaxy nonsense. Show me the part of the memo in support of the motion to vacate the plea in which Flynn contends that the plea was infected by the FBI's misconduct with respect to a FISA court warrant and maybe I'll start to pay attention. In the meantime, you're free to keep peddling your conspiracy theories. Ohhhh. An interesting question. The hope on Flynn's part is that the prosecution is abated after the plea is vacated. And Flynn really wants to jam it through in case Trump loses and Barr no longer runs Justice in January 2021. Now you've hit on something. Watch out for the slow roll from the motion court skeptical of this chicanery.

I copied this from one of your posts: "Volume 2 was the frame up, dumbass. It was also improper in its foundation, and described obstruction of a crime THEY KNEW did not happen before the probe even started. It's called, entrapment, *****head." *** More fake news from a hopeless fake newser.

Thanks for the tip.

I don't know what the FBI did or didn't do. But I know that Flynn pleaded guilty and signed off on the investigatory issues. My understanding of the motion to withdraw the plea is that it's based mostly on his dissatisfaction with the government's change in position with respect to sentencing. Different kettle of fish if that's true, which has nothing to do with your conspiracy theories. Well, Beavis, you're the one who dropped entrapment into the mix, and your last paragraph looks an awful lot like an entrapment argument. Fortunately I don't fall for your hoaxes.

Let's get to another inarguable point. You cast Volume II of the Mueller report as a story of entrapment. The entrapment affirmative defense, of course, acknowledges that the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct, but that he/she shouldn't be held liable for such conduct based on prosecutorial overstep. So you admit that there is an open question whether Trump engaged in conduct that could constitute obstruction in the first instance. On that front you and I totally agree.

And yet all of those claims were forfeited upon the plea of guilty, hoaxer. Fake news. And a hint of copying the libs to own the libs. Sad!

Which facts are those, hoaxer? The logic is hilarious here. "I was entrapped to obstruct an investigation into a crime I didn't commit! And I was entrapped on, like, seven occasions!"

So the problem with the "logic" of Washed up Psycho/Deranged Rhino on the entrapment issue is that entrapment is an affirmative defense that requires the proponent to establish, among other things, that the prosecutorial methods were designed to cause the proponent to commit a crime that he/she otherwise would not have committed. Essentially what WUS/DR is saying is that Trump wouldn't have been inclined to impede the Russia investigation if Mueller hadn't investigated it so aggressively. Seems a bit unlikely given how touchy the prez is about Russia and how forceful he was with, among others, Comey, but hey, if you wanna take that one to a jury go nuts. And was Flynn authorized to speak for Obama on that matter? Nope. Oops. More fake logic from you, sir.