SectionC3

Actually, Beavis, the DOJ is the employer and can hire and fire re: unethical conduct. But the question whether these “unethical” prosecutors can continue to practice law is to be answered by the courts. It seems to me like the public not only needs, but demands, your insight on this unethical conduct to make sure that these attorneys don’t prosecute another case or harm another participant in the legal system. All of that might be true. But let’s agree on one thing: Flynn is guilty, as of 3:58 p.m. today. That’s undeniable. Whether he is allowed to withdraw his plea and relitigate that question remains to be seen. Let’s hear about the IAC and the issue whether the alleged lack of meaningful representation infected the plea.

But in the meantime we can agree the question of his guilt has been resolved, and that he is guilty.

Quit typing on an Internet message board and get to work on your referral. If these prosecutors acted unethically, then we have to make sure they lose their law licenses. Make sure you put in the referral that you go by the Internet moniker “Deranged Rhino.” It will give your referral more credibility.

Breaking news. It’s 3:54 p.m. And Mike Flynn is still guilty.

Fake news. Flynn pleaded guilty. The guilty plea has not been withdrawn or vacated. Consequently, Flynn is guilty. Rule of law! Nope. The licensing bodies, bro. Like an attorney grievance committee. But I’m sure you knew that given your deep expertise in this and other areas.

Hoax. I’m not deeply stupid. Also, if the lawyers acted unethically, then they should be reviewed to a governing body for sanction. You and Buffalo Gal feel pretty strongly about that point, so perhaps you should make the referral. Hoax. Flynn is guilty right now. Rule of law!

Hoax. Responding twice to a post is not creepy. Also, aren’t you the guy who was talking about being with a Disney child star before I started using this board? Now that’s creepy. Very, very creepy. I hope that wasn’t you.

Ohh, but honey, Flynn IS guilty. That’s what happens when somebody pleads guilty. Rule of law! If you feel that these prosecutors acted unethically and you can prove it, then you should refer them to a grievance committee somewhere.

I have to hand it to Trump. Most mere mortals would have folded under the pressure of competing public health and economic crises and personal turmoil. But nothing bothers this guy and he keeps right on trucking into a fake conspiracy. It’s . . . Unique. Hoax. I read the Mueller report. It seems like you, as the obstruction denier, have not.

This is reasonable. And it’s probably similar to the logic underlying the appointment of the friend in the Flynn case. The court wants to make sure that the highly unusual change in position is motivated by the facts and the law — not by politics.

So what’s the status of the Brady motion? And if Brady is an issue, did Flynn try to withdraw the plea on Brady grounds? I didn’t read the entire memo, but based on the point headings it looked like “bait and switch” and IAC were at the core of the motion. Also, as much as you seem not to want to accept it, Flynn is guilty. He may be allowed to withdraw his plea. Or he may not (I’ll bet on the latter, but the former is a reasonable possibility.) But as of this moment in time there can be no dispute that Michael Flynn is guilty. I’s a fake conspiracy theory. Par for the course from this fake news president.

Which opinions were/are incorrect? This coming from the guy who insisted that Roe v Wade conferred personhood upon a fetus a couple of days ago. FYI, attorneys are bound by rules of conduct in their professional interactions. And this forum does not involve professional interactions. Mostly it involves me mixing it up with stubborn conspiracy theorists and people who get way too angry on the Internet when somebody tells the truth about Donald Trump. (No wall! No repeal and replace! Ballooning deficits! Exploding unemployment! Pandemic! No exoneration!). I think we were playing the “judgment” game a few days ago, right? As in, I wondered whether you would contend that the issue of guilt hasn’t been resolved because the court hasn’t entered judgment in the matter. But the bottom line remains that D is convicted upon his plea of guilty even in the absence of a judgment because the judgment abides sentencing. You’d have to ask the court when sentencing will occur. Beats me. And you’re right, the case isn’t resolved inasmuch as we await sentencing and have a pending motion to withdraw the plea to be decided in the interim. But the fact remains that, as of today, the question of guilt has been resolved. And Flynn is guilty.

Hoax. First, you overlook the idea that the obstruction may inhibit the ability of the prosecution to establish the underlying crime. Makes. Perfect. Sense. To reward obstruction. Second, take it up with the DOJ that it didn’t exonerate Trumpy. Tough break for you, but the fact remains that he has not been exonerated with respect to obstruction. It’s on the last page of Volume II of the Mueller Report. Of course, it should come as no surprise that a guy who supports a fake winner and fake conspiracy theories (“Obamagate,” for example) also would promote a fake exoneration. The only one who keeps mentioning your genitalia is you. Frankly I think the subject is disturbing and I wish you’d stop with your penis envy or small man syndrome or whatever problem it is that you have. But the more you bring it up the more lots of people are going to say that there’s an issue there.

I don’t see anything about Brady v Maryland and the rules that flow therefrom in those posts. Let me know when you’re ready to share your “expertise” on the matter.

I’m not struggling with anything. D pleaded guilty. Guess what? He’s guilty! That’s been resolved, and it remains resolved because the plea has not been withdrawn. Now the question before the court is whether he should be permitted to withdraw the plea. If that question is answered in the affirmative, and Flynn withdraws the guilty plea and pleads not guilty, then the question of his guilt is open again.

No, not at all. I’m not sure where you got that from, but it is par for the course for you to resort to the absurd. One of the justifications for the plea given by another poster was that the government wrongfully threatened to lean on the son. Guess what? It’s a relatively common (and, typically, sanctioned) law enforcement activity. I’m not familiar with the facts, but there are two truisms about the case. 1. Flynn pleaded guilty. If he had the information that you mentioned before he pleaded guilty, then he’s waived any complaints about the effect of that information on his guilty plea (save for IAC, but that’s a different question and much harder to establish). 2. If this material was withheld by the prosecution prior to the guilty plea and only disclosed after the guilty plea, then the story might be different. Perhaps it’s Brady, and perhaps the withholding of Brady requires vacatur of the plea. That’s something that should have been the subject of Flynn’s motion to vacate the plea. Again, it’s not something I’m going to spend a ton of time on, but my understanding is that the motion to vacate is based on the government changing its position with respect to sentencing. That is, I understand Flynn to have complained of a “bait and switch” in the plea agreement, not that he was induced to plead guilty by exculpatory material in the sole possession of the government that was withheld by the government.

I'm aware that different people plead guilty for different reasons. What hasn't changed is that the question of Flynn's guilt remains resolved. He is guilty. Maybe his plea is vacated, but that's a different legal question with different considerations. Normally the I is capitalized in Internet. And the fact remains that the question of guilt is resolved. Still no education on Brady from the Foxxy expert. I'm waiting.

As the guy who does this every day, let me just say that pleaded is proper convention. Look at Black's Law Dictionary or any Garner source you want. Oh no. You haven't explained. I'm waiting.

Simple question. Did he plead guilty? If the answer is yes, then the question of his guilt is resolved. The open question is whether he is allowed to vacate the plea. It's a different legal question. Which I'm sure you know given your expertise in this area. Another post, another misused legal term. Nice work.

Still waiting for your pearls of wisdom on Brady. Maybe while you're working on that you can take a peek at what "standing" means.

You're wrong. It's pleaded. Just like "flied out," not "flew out." Why am I incorrect? D pleaded guilty, and now someone is saying nothing is resolved? Actually, Beavis, he's guilty in the eyes of the law and he's trying to get it undone. The question of guilt strikes me as pretty well resolved here based on the guilty plea.

I can't speak to the facts, but your points about the son are misplaced. Counsel can't coerce a plea through what you characterized as a recommendation with respect to potential difficulties faced by Flynn's son. And, as a general matter, it's perfectly proper for law enforcement to capitalize on a defendant's reluctance to have a family member involved in a pending investigation.

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.