Buffalo_Gal Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: 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. 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 maintains they do not have the transcript or a recording of said phone call. But, sure, that is all a-ok amirite? Edited May 15, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 8 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: 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. 1 minute ago, SectionC3 said: 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. 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? 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 (edited) 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. Edited May 15, 2020 by SectionC3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdutton Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 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? Just now, SectionC3 said: You're wrong. It's pleaded. https://preply.com/en/question/past-tense-of-plead The answer is: for past simple it is: pleaded and for past participle is also pleaded, but for both the past simple and past participle pled is also correct. People my consider it as being wrong if pled is used. You both are correct. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 9 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: 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. so... wait... let me see if i have this right... ? you're arguing standing in a case you know absolutely nothing about? wait.... yeah, no. were you not such a *****head, i ordinarily would help you out but since your such a insufferable self absorbed jerk, you can do your own research. and when you discover the merits of the case... go ahead and get back to me again and explain how Flynn has deserved everything he has gotten and how this is just normal prosecution. idiot. 3 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 (edited) Just now, Foxx said: so... wait... let me see if i have this right... ? you're arguing standing in a case you know absolutely nothing about? wait.... yeah, no. were you not such a *****head, i ordinarily would help you out but since your such a insufferable self absorbed jerk, you can do your own research. and when you discover the merits of the case... go ahead and get back to me again and explain how Flynn has deserved everything he has gotten and how this is just normal prosecution. idiot. 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. Edited May 15, 2020 by SectionC3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 11 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: 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. Ok. Now I follow. You're saying it's resolved with open questions on the part of the prosecution, defense, judge and that there are maybe convictions with unusual circumstances yet to be resolved. I understand things as you see them now. I wonder how General Flynn is holding up under all this unresolved certainty. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 9 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: 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. i'd quit while i was behind if i was you until you actually did some discovery with regard here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Ok. Now I follow. You're saying it's resolved with open questions on the part of the prosecution, defense, judge and that there are maybe convictions with unusual circumstances yet to be resolved. I understand things as you see them now. I wonder how General Flynn is holding up under all this unresolved certainty. 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. Just now, Foxx said: i'd quit while i was behind if i was you until you actually did some discovery with regard here. Another post, another misused legal term. Nice work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: Still waiting for your pearls of wisdom on Brady. ... already explained it to you but since you seem to lack any semblance of reading comprehension, i'll offer this... if i were you, i wouldn't hold my breath. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 4 minutes ago, bdutton said: https://preply.com/en/question/past-tense-of-plead The answer is: for past simple it is: pleaded and for past participle is also pleaded, but for both the past simple and past participle pled is also correct. People my consider it as being wrong if pled is used. You both are correct. 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. 1 minute ago, Foxx said: already explained it to you but since you seem to lack any semblance of reading comprehension, i'll offer this... if i were you, i wouldn't hold my breath. Oh no. You haven't explained. I'm waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: 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. ... just for you, idiot. Sixth, should further edification be necessary, see Why Innocent People Plead Guilty, written in 2014 by federal Judge Jed Rakoff (a Clinton appointee). Abusive prosecutors force innocent people to plead guilty with painful frequency. The Mueller special counsel operation led by Andrew Weissmann and Weissmann “wannabes” specializes in prosecutorial terrorist tactics repulsive to everything “justice” is supposed to mean. These tactics are designed to intimidate their targets into pleading guilty—while punishing them and their families with the process itself and financial ruin. Most important, General Flynn was honest with the FBI agents. They knew he was—and briefed that to McCabe and others three different times. At McCabe’s directions, Agent Strzok and McCabe’s “Special Counsel” Lisa Page, altered the 302 to create statements Weissmann, Mueller, Van Grack, and Zainab Ahmad could assert were false. Only the FBI agents lied—and falsified documents. The crimes are theirs alone. 1 minute ago, SectionC3 said: ... Oh no. You haven't explained. I'm waiting. you're a special kind of dense aren't you? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdutton Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 Just now, SectionC3 said: 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. ... and who cares... this is an internet forum. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: 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. You have never heard of someone pleading guilty for reasons other than actual guilt? Yeah, ok. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 1 minute ago, Foxx said: just for you, idiot. Sixth, should further edification be necessary, see Why Innocent People Plead Guilty, written in 2014 by federal Judge Jed Rakoff (a Clinton appointee). Abusive prosecutors force innocent people to plead guilty with painful frequency. The Mueller special counsel operation led by Andrew Weissmann and Weissmann “wannabes” specializes in prosecutorial terrorist tactics repulsive to everything “justice” is supposed to mean. These tactics are designed to intimidate their targets into pleading guilty—while punishing them and their families with the process itself and financial ruin. Most important, General Flynn was honest with the FBI agents. They knew he was—and briefed that to McCabe and others three different times. At McCabe’s directions, Agent Strzok and McCabe’s “Special Counsel” Lisa Page, altered the 302 to create statements Weissmann, Mueller, Van Grack, and Zainab Ahmad could assert were false. Only the FBI agents lied—and falsified documents. The crimes are theirs alone. 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. 1 minute ago, bdutton said: ... and who cares... this is an internet forum. Normally the I is capitalized in Internet. 1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said: You have never heard of someone pleading guilty for reasons other than actual guilt? Yeah, ok. And the fact remains that the question of guilt is resolved. 3 minutes ago, Foxx said: just for you, idiot. Sixth, should further edification be necessary, see Why Innocent People Plead Guilty, written in 2014 by federal Judge Jed Rakoff (a Clinton appointee). Abusive prosecutors force innocent people to plead guilty with painful frequency. The Mueller special counsel operation led by Andrew Weissmann and Weissmann “wannabes” specializes in prosecutorial terrorist tactics repulsive to everything “justice” is supposed to mean. These tactics are designed to intimidate their targets into pleading guilty—while punishing them and their families with the process itself and financial ruin. Most important, General Flynn was honest with the FBI agents. They knew he was—and briefed that to McCabe and others three different times. At McCabe’s directions, Agent Strzok and McCabe’s “Special Counsel” Lisa Page, altered the 302 to create statements Weissmann, Mueller, Van Grack, and Zainab Ahmad could assert were false. Only the FBI agents lied—and falsified documents. The crimes are theirs alone. Still no education on Brady from the Foxxy expert. I'm waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 1 minute ago, SectionC3 said: 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. It is a different legal question, but makes the entire case open until it is resolved. Pretty simple. You're really a lawyer? The lawyers I know act in a professional manner towards others -- even on a Political message board within a football forum. You can't help replying with condescension, even while spouting incorrect legal opinions for cases which you admit you know nothing of. Nobody is asking for your "expertise", but you try to dole it out to people whom you consider to be inferior to you. I understand that all kinds of people are lawyers, but you're representative of the most sanctimonious of them. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdutton Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 1 minute ago, SectionC3 said: Normally the I is capitalized in Internet. Your an idiot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 (edited) 21 minutes ago, snafu said: It is a different legal question, but makes the entire case open until it is resolved. Pretty simple. You're really a lawyer? The lawyers I know act in a professional manner towards others -- even on a Political message board within a football forum. You can't help replying with condescension, even while spouting incorrect legal opinions for cases which you admit you know nothing of. Nobody is asking for your "expertise", but you try to dole it out to people whom you consider to be inferior to you. I understand that all kinds of people are lawyers, but you're representative of the most sanctimonious of them. ....now that I finished this and my diploma is forthcoming from Amazon, I'll be willing to help out here....just sayin'... Edited May 15, 2020 by OldTimeAFLGuy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 14 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: 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. tell me oh great and wonderful, if his guilt is so resolved, why isn't he sentenced and the case over and done with? hint: because it isn't resolved... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts