SectionC3

"Incoming" NSC. And we weren't at Day One at that point in time. Oops.

That's kind of the point. Flynn wasn't an administration official at that point. Big no no on his part. But the rule of law is a matter of convenience to Doc. Was the point of Mueller's point to give Trump the opportunity to commit an obstruction offense? I'll take it as a yes if I don't hear anything else on the matter.

Nice. Hiding behind invective. To be expected from a hoaxy washed up psycho. Anyhow, I'll ask again. Are you saying that the Russia investigation afforded Trump the opportunity to commit an obstruction offense?

So where are we on entrapment?

You are on a roll today! This is awfully hoaxy.

Nope. Looks to me like homeboy pleaded guilty to a relatively low level offense, got lucky with a shift in the political wind, and now conveniently has some cold feet. Courts don't undo that kind of stuff, no matter what kind of unproven conspiracy theory hoaxers like you come up with.

That's the Washed up Psycho in you coming out again. I also detect a hint of melting snowflake there. And some hoax, as well. But let's play. With your reference to entrapment I take it that you're saying that the Russia investigation afforded Trump the opportunity to commit an obstruction offense, right?

I know that you're an expert, so this probably comes as no surprise, but the question whether to allow a defendant to withdraw a plea typically rests within the discretion of the court of first instance. And where, as here, there's nothing in the plea allocution to call Flynn's guilt into question, well . . . don't hold your breath waiting for an "appellate smack-down." People plead guilty for lots of different reasons. But the fact remains here that Flynn, not the lawyers, chose to plead guilty. If the evidence was trash, as you say, then it's tough to explain why Flynn didn't carry the mantle of truth to trial. Hoax. Based on Flynn's admissions Flynn is the one who lied. More comments like that one will get you on the Hoax List, sir.

So put together some papers and push the ineffective assistance of counsel angle. Good luck!

Which experts? The same ones Trump now ignores? If you consider 80k dead in this situation a success, then I can't help you. I'm sorry that you support a fake winner for president. I demand better.

And yet volume II ends with no exoneration on obstruction. "Being able to read . . ." I'll let you finish. On Flynn, last I checked he pleaded guilty to violation of 18 USC 1001. The information underlying that plea alleges that Flynn made false statements to the FBI. "Facts aren't your friends when you don't know them." But that's to be expected when you're on the Washed up Psycho list. https://www.lawfareblog.com/michael-flynn-plea-agreement-documents https://www.lawfareblog.com/michael-flynn-plea-agreement-documents Read and enjoy. Paragraph 3d of the statement of offense (signed by Flynn and his counsels) is a pretty tough workaround for the fake news crowd here.

A case like that probably would be very tough to prove absent a cluster and a very diligent plaintiff who otherwise could establish that he/she took stringent precautions outside the area in question.

Are you talking about the Mueller report? Or the transcript of the Ukraine call? I joined late. Gotta fill me in.

Interesting. An economic argument for not prosecuting crime. Are there any other instances in which you would apply this theory? The guy who burglarizes your house? The person who steals from your car? The bar assault where somebody sustains a broken arm? Or is it just because you like Flynn's politics?

Would have been a great point at oral argument. Particularly with argument being broadcast. Great, great point.

Right as rain.

Yeah, no. He lied to the FBI about activity that undermined the sitting United States government. And pleaded guilty to that activity. *** From what little I know about this the judge presiding over the Flynn case pulled a lovely move yesterday. Predictable to anyone who does this for a living, but hilarious nonetheless. Just because the government wants to vacate the plea (and drop the prosecution) doesn't meant the court, which has jurisdiction over the matter, has to accede to the request. Out. Freaking. Standing.

Still no statistic. I'm leaning toward the "rear" explanation for your point.

Also, I just received a census form. Should my wife take a pregnancy test before I return the form? What if she's pregnant? Do we add an extra child to the form? Do I "deduct" that unborn "child" on my federal income tax return? Any advice in this respect would be appreciated, counselor.

If a fetus is a person, then consuming beer on behalf of that minor person would constitute endangering the welfare of a child. "A person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child when . . . [h]e or she knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than [17] years old . . . ." EDIT: This is admittedly a bit dicey with respect to an unknown pregnancy. Knowingly can be interpreted as pertaining to the consumption of the beer, but it's arguable. There would be no argument with respect to alcohol consumption if the pregnant consumer was aware of the pregnancy.

Seriously. My understanding is that there is a 30% uptick in deaths this spring over last.

Hoax.

The short man has arisen this morning. Top of the morning to you, sir! He’s good at rallies at TV. Bad at retail politics. But retail isn’t his game.

What about having a beer before the pregnancy is known? Endangering the welfare of a child? Talk about governmental excess.

You're more like CNN than you think.