SectionC3

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.

I looked at the report and it appears that there are a lot of redactions - some for personal privacy, some for investigative techniques, and some for grand jury evidence. Bottom line: GJ material appears to have been included in the report, and the public has not seen an unredacted copy of the report. BillStime, 1, Washed up Psycho, 0.

Who's "we"?

Totally. The hoaxiest thing ever. No Obstruction!

You're right. Makes total sense. Trying to undo a guilty plea with respect to a nonviolent crime deserves attention equal to that given to competing world public health and economic crises.

Do you mean that my posts should be improved? I'm a little confused by what you said. Also, who judges the quality of the posts?

Coming from a guy who knows a thing or two about an inch. I'm losing track of all the hoaxes here. Is there any information about the virus hoax? That seems to be the more pressing matter.

How is one proven to be not an idiot?

What are the rules? Where do I find a copy? And who set the rules?

Keep America Great.

Name calling is not nice, sir.

The idiom is "truth be told," Eric. Also, it seems like you, too, have become an Internet legal expert. Congratulations!

Sounds like you're coming down with a case of Biden Derangement Syndrome.

Why would you support someone who holds thinly-veiled Klan rallies? Very disturbing, old timer.

And yet people on this website are not shy about acting like legal experts.

You kind of miss the point. He’s not inviting an investigation. He’s inviting participation from people who will stand in the shoes if the government and say that there is/is not legal reason for the government to take this peculiar approach. Getting a whole bunch of people, or a couple of the rght people, to say that this is an inexplicable legal maneuver will support the idea that the flip flop was made not for legal reasons, but for political reasons. edit: his experience (I’m taking you at your word on that one) and lack of need for guidance strongly suggests that he’s taking the approach I outline herein, ie, he smells a rat on the change on course and wants some other eyes, support, and, potentially, cover on the issue.

Maybe that's true. But did you read the order in question? That's the issue here. Based on your responses, it looks like the answer to that one is that you haven't read it.

We have a guilty plea, right? If so, the whole "no crime" thing is ludicrous. See other posts. Judge is doing this very, very fairly. Just because you political affinity for Flynn/Trump doesn't mean that the judge is engaging in a charade. Another legal eagle! Let's hear your interpretation of what's going on here, old timer.

I read it, too. Amicus can do whatever the court wants. And here the court wants to see if there is a legal reason for the government's change in position (which there could be, if Flynn was rope-a-doped in the plea machinations). Absent a legal reason, however, we'll be left with the stink of political influence. And the court likely will deny the application to withdraw the plea. See, that's where you're wrong here. This isn't just a prosecution anymore. To my knowledge (I haven't followed this closely), we have a conviction. And the judge has jurisdiction to determine whether to vacate the plea of guilty yielding the conviction. It's fair for the judge to seek information with respect to the prosecution's change in position. The judge's fidelity is to the rule of law, and if the judge feels that the change in position is politically motivated, it's within his discretion to deny the application to vacate the plea.

Hoax. And, apparently neither of you two have read the tweet that snafu embedded in his initial post on the topic. Oops.