DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal

[SectionC3]

3 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

You should have no problem providing a link to the unredacted 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. 

[BillStime]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

Good point.  

 

You made a claim I could see the unredacted report.

 

Back it up.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

 

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. 

 

Chance for you to show your legal chops: why was it problematic for the Mueller team to do this? What are the long term implications to the grand jury system itself if it's allowed to be revealed (without charges being brought from said material, which Mueller had the opportunity to do but did not)?

 

Once you answer that, you'll have to revise your scoreboard. Unless you're fake news. 

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Chance for you to show your legal chops: why was it problematic for the Mueller team to do this? What are the long term implications to the grand jury system itself if it's allowed to be revealed (without charges being brought from said material, which Mueller had the opportunity to do but did not)?

 

Once you answer that, you'll have to revise your scoreboard. Unless you're fake news. 

 

Where is the link to the unredacted report?  Stop moving the goal posts.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Reality Check]

If the Russia conspiracy theorists really think that General Flynn will be going to prison, they are going to be sadly disappointed.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[bdutton]

16 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I love wikkileaks! 

 

Trump was working with the Russians and Putin while Putin was hacking the DNC, spreading Russian propaganda and hacking election systems to help Trump. 

 

Those are all facts. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, bdutton said:

Just shows you cannot handle the truth. Pure and simple. 

 

Weak person you are 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

19 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 

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. 

Wait a second...you're telling me I'm wrong because you've opted to guess about the status?  While that's a bold play, I politely decline to engage in speculation as to my knowledge, there has been no conviction. 

 

 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

37 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

You should have no problem providing a link to the unredacted report.

In other words, "Mommy, will you wipe me"?

[SectionC3]

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

In other words, "Mommy, will you wipe me"?

 

The next time you'll say something about having mommy handle your wine cork. 

26 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Wait a second...you're telling me I'm wrong because you've opted to guess about the status?  While that's a bold play, I politely decline to engage in speculation as to my knowledge, there has been no conviction. 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll guess again.  You're going to play the "But there's no judgment!" game, right?

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

 

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.  

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? 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, 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? 

[SectionC3]

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. 

Edited May 15, 2020 by SectionC3

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

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?

You are a waste of oxygen. 

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

You are a waste of oxygen. 

 

Hoax.

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I made no mention of your "member."  You keep on brining 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. 

Stop with the salty language. 

[SectionC3]

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. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

12 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

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?

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?  

[Deranged Rhino]

2 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

 

For those who are paying close attention, do we know if Flynn was under surveillance prior to his call with the Russian diplomat?  Anyone know when Crossfire Razor began? 

 

A little more -- had a talk with Jeff on this after you raised this to see his thoughts, he shared them here: 

 

[njbuff]

Is this what you mean by Crossfire Razor........

 

 

[SectionC3]

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. 

[Foxx]

23 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 

"Above board" is a funny turn of phrase.  See, here, the trial judge obviously thinks the DOJ presently is acting out of political motivation, rather than in prosecutorial discretion, in taking this highly unusual step.  The DOJ isn't getting the judge off the case anytime soon; it's a discretionary issue, the judge is highly unlikely to do it himself, and there's nothing that I've seen to support an intermediate appellate conclusion to the contrary.  

 

So, in the interim, the judge did something eminently fair.  The judge basically assigned counsel to the government to ensure that the government's abdication of the case is motivated by legal considerations, not by political calculations.  

 

Finally, this isn't about the fairness of the adjudicatory process.  Flynn had a chance to fight the case.  He lost some pre-trial motions from what I can tell (Brady issues, specifically), and then chose not to, in spite of what you characterize as the weakness of the matter. This kind of thing happens all the time.  There was nothing wrong with the adjudication of the matter.  Whether there was an overzealous prosecution is a different question.  And, because the judge obviously doesn't trust Barr here (with good reason, from what I've observed), he assigned an amicus to explore the issue.  It's an obviously reasoned and balanced approach, and we'll see what happens from here.  

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.

[Deranged Rhino]

9 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

So, bottom line, it looks like we have a conviction.  That is that. 

 

And this looks like a man -- but it isn't. It's a CGI'd newscaster, not a flesh and blood person. 

 

So... what it "looks" like is irrelevant. 

 

You're a terrible attorney. You keep proving it daily. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Clockwork... impeachment attempt on Barr on track: 

 

 

If it's just a "fake" conspiracy theory, then there's nothing to be afraid of. So, why are they so obviously panicked? 

 

(Because they KNOW what happened, and it was as bad as it gets)

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

 

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. 

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. 

Edited May 15, 2020 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[Deranged Rhino]

Interview is up: 

 

[Hedge]

 

 

[Foxx]

please excuse this being a couple days old. i meant to post it but have been very busy of late and forgot.

additionally, i don't think i saw it posted in my catch up.

 

posted mainly for the first one but i included the second as well for the article.

 

 https://twitter.com/mikebravodude/status/1260693688130383872

 

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Foxx

[Albwan]

Did I miss the ppp karen outrage about Manafort's release?

[Deranged Rhino]

One of the worst hucksters throughout this whole ordeal: 

 

He is desperate and very afraid about what is coming next. Sorry, Max. You picked the wrong side now you're stuck with it. You deserve every bit of the hell about to rain down upon you and yours. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Albwan]

I know nothing about the law, however don't people change their pleas often?

I see the reverse a lot...Starting off with not guilty and changing to guilty.

Is there something i'm missing about this?

 

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, Albwan said:

I know nothing about the law, however don't people change their pleas often?

I see the reverse a lot...Starting off with not guilty and changing to guilty.

Is there something i'm missing about this?

 

 

They do, but it rarely happens during sentencing. 

(to my knowledge)

[SectionC3]

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.  

[Deranged Rhino]

Correct. 

 

[SectionC3]

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.  

[SectionC3]

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.