SectionC3
-
Posts
7,501 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SectionC3
-
-
6 minutes ago, snafu said:
For the red word, above -- it is "pled". I usually don't go grammar nazi, but geez.
For the bolded parts -- you're incorrect.
For the bolded and underlined part -- why do you spout off if you're not familiar with basic facts of the case?
You're wrong. It's pleaded. Just like "flied out," not "flew out."
7 minutes ago, snafu said:For the red word, above -- it is "pled". I usually don't go grammar nazi, but geez.
For the bolded parts -- you're incorrect.
For the bolded and underlined part -- why do you spout off if you're not familiar with basic facts of the case?
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.
-
1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:
He tried to vacate it after exculpatory evidence the government withheld was finally turned over.
He finally got some competent legal representation (as opposed to his original firm that was working for the FBI). His original legal team was not working on his behalf, recommended he plead guilty so the government would not put his son through this hell (I believe that is coercion), and basically worked on behalf of the FBI, not their client.
Flynn and his defense would still like to see the transcript of that call as the government claims they do not have it. They prosecuted their case based on that phone call and the DOJ says (and has always said) they do not have the transcript or a recording of said phone call.
But, sure, that is all a-ok amirite?
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.
-
1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:
If I'm homophobic that must mean you are the h o m o. Go to your death knowing that you will never get my "honey".
Not classy. Not classy at all.
-
1 hour ago, Foxx said:
so... all the Brady material that they initially denied Flynn but subsequently found by Jensen is not a miscarriage of justice? you're an idiot.
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.
-
1
-
-
53 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
I'm not a legal expert and never claimed I was. It seems that you believe you are an expert on legal matters, and that's fine.
I will leave you with this. As it stands right now, three "experts" or "teams of experts" in the field have come up with three different ways of moving forward with the curious case of Michael Flynn. That was after multiple "experts" in law enforcement debated the initial allegations of wrongdoing by General Flynn, with a variety of opinions before the charges were filed, and a slew of experts performing the post-mortem of the case and cast of characters involved have rendered varying opinions about the legalities and processes followed by the initial "experts" in the case.
Nothing is resolved at this point, and onward we go. Even a rube like me can see that.
Please feel free to mock me further for my lack of legal acuity. If you find the time down the road to button up your crackerjack maybe/maybe not/probably conviction argument, let me know.
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.
-
Just now, Deranged Rhino said:
They do, but it rarely happens during sentencing.
(to my knowledge)
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.
-
42 minutes ago, Foxx said:
lol, clueless is saying the exact same thing i said only with word salad and then claiming it clueless. you are the one who claimed, exoneration' not i.
again there is a legal argument that argues whether or not one can be guilty of obstruction if one is not guilty of the crime being investigated. as for intent, lol... the investigation found no collusion.
tell me you have enough brian cells to be able to put two and two together.
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.
-
36 minutes ago, Foxx said:
lol, clueless is saying the exact same thing i said only with word salad and then claiming it clueless. you are the one who claimed, exoneration' not i.
again there is a legal argument that argues whether or not one can be guilty of obstruction if one is not guilty of the crime being investigated. as for intent, lol... the investigation found no collusion.
tell me you have enough brian cells to be able to put two and two together.
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.
-
49 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Wrong. We all use judgement when discussing these issues, though I try to stick to facts that support my judgement. I assumed you were doing the same until you riffed on the phrase "conviction".
I'm just following the logic of the case, the actions of the various players. As I said a few posts back, as sad as this case appears to be, it reveals what a citizen can accomplish when he/she avails him/herself of the full scope of the justice system. My particular issue on your last guesstimate was that the case had reached the point where a 'conviction' had been attained. It wasn't my guesstimate, it was yours. You hedged a bit by indicating you were not following closely, though apparently closely enough to annoint kindly Judge Atticus Finch-Sullivan fair beyond a reasonable doubt, it just seemed to me that would be easy enough to verify.
As it stands, it's a guess, conjecture, a whisper in the wind. We can both agree there is not much to be gained by debating guesses on factual matters?
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.
-
14 minutes ago, Foxx said:
exoneration is not a legal standard. a level of presumed guilt is however and because there was not an acceptable level proven, it is determined that he is therefore innocent.
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.
3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:Be careful or he might start tapping the floor in the stall next to you. Once he starts it's like Biden on hair sniffing.
In addition to being homophobic you're not very funny. You really should try the whole "honey" approach to get some more friends.
-
42 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:
What with the way his conversations go RC, that's probably a segue into letting you know that he'd prefer your meat.
I'm a vegetarian. Out of the two of us, you're the only one who likes meat.
-
Just now, Reality Check said:
Lawyers have many rolls in life, seeking the truth is seldom one of them, especially when they become politicians.
Hoax. I gave up bread a long time ago.
1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:Still running away.
Continually proving you're a dishonest coward is no way to go through life, 3rdChair.
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!
-
1
-
-
Just now, Reality Check said:
The Mueller report will ultimately prove to be an indictment on the Mueller team itself. Be patient grasshopper.
Maybe, maybe not. But the question is whether the Mueller report exonerates Trump with respect to obstruction of justice. It does not.
-
Just now, Reality Check said:
The trouble with lawyers is that they focus on winning arguments and spinning convincing narratives on behalf of their clients. The trend in having less lawyers in Congress will accelerate.
Or they perform a truth-seeking function more critical now than ever. Either or.
1 minute ago, Tiberius said:Bull sh it!
You lie so easily, don't you
He's of the "if I repeated it enough it might come true" school of politics.
-
Just now, Deranged Rhino said:
Not even Mueller agreed with that
***** off, nitwit. You are bringing a plastic spork to a gunfight.
I didn't realize that there are non-plastic sporks. Cool.
Just now, Deranged Rhino said:Proving you don't know the basic facts on this case. Obstruction has already been determined by the DOJ. No go.
Where and when? The Mueller report left the question open.
-
Just now, Deranged Rhino said:
Read above. Sound out the big words if you need to.
Anything specific that you would like me to read?
-
2 hours ago, Just Joshin' said:
Can this thread be closed now that the transcripts from the dems admit no collusion?
Once we get a determination on the obstruction point we'll probably be good to go.
-
Just now, Deranged Rhino said:
And you're still running from the fact pattern you left out
(because it destroys your position and you're too dishonest to admit you're wrong)
What fact pattern is that, professor?
-
1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:
Stop with the salty language.
I know nothing about salty.
But I have to say that response was a good one. It made me laugh.
-
3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
You left out a part.
That's what thirdn"long" says.
-
1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:
You are a waste of oxygen.
Hoax.
-
Just now, Foxx said:
you are an idiot.
Why is that, foxxy?
-
4 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:
As much as I despise communicating with you 3rd Chair, (one of the reasons being that you always want to discuss my dick) I'm not going to let the above pass. Is trying to undo a guilty plea all you see here? Are you really that dense and so partisan that you'll let part of the biggest scandal in our history go by the wayside?
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.
DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted · Edited by SectionC3
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.