SectionC3

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.

"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.