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

[B-Man]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[BillStime]

Gee you know how far off Trump has gone with Obama and Biden if his lap dog won’t back him.

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

25 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

No one ever expected Obama or Biden to be charged. Hoped? Yes. Expected? No.

I have wondered for a long time the kind of hoops that need to be gone through to exclude them from being indicted, while knowing that this went up to Obama. 
 

[BillStime]

37 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Your friend Barr has ZERO credibility. 

[Hedge]

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Nanker]

Those *****. 

[billsfan1959]

47 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

No one ever expected Obama or Biden to be charged. Hoped? Yes. Expected? No.

I have wondered for a long time the kind of hoops that need to be gone through to exclude them from being indicted, while knowing that this went up to Obama. 
 

 

I like what Barr said and I agree completely. The use of the criminal justice system for political ends is abhorrent and shouldn't happen. If any charges come out of the Durham investigation, they need to be legitimate, meaning just what Barr said, that each element of any offense needs to be provable beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

For me, it really isn't about charging and prosecuting anyone. It is about determining the truth about what transpired, showing that truth to the American people, and taking steps to ensure it doesn't happen again. If it is legitimately determined that criminal offenses were committed, then charges should be brought against those that committed them. 

[Cinga]

37 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

I like what Barr said and I agree completely. The use of the criminal justice system for political ends is abhorrent and shouldn't happen. If any charges come out of the Durham investigation, they need to be legitimate, meaning just what Barr said, that each element of any offense needs to be provable beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

For me, it really isn't about charging and prosecuting anyone. It is about determining the truth about what transpired, showing that truth to the American people, and taking steps to ensure it doesn't happen again. If it is legitimately determined that criminal offenses were committed, then charges should be brought against those that committed them. 

 

For me, and dare I say millions of other Americans, it is indeed about charging and prosecuting those responsible. Without that, truth itself is merely a mirage to be whatever we want it to be. Without prosecutions you would have people justifying what was done by saying no one was prosecuted, and NOTHING to stop someone from doing the same damn thing all over again.

No.... There HAS to be prosecutions or we can kiss our Republic goodbye.

[SectionC3]

On 5/15/2020 at 7:07 PM, GG said:

 

So in essence this is a crime in a name of the son?

 

I'm guessing if the setting was Ireland in the '70s Belfast, you and your fellow travelers would be lining up to applaud the Oscar worthy tale of the father taking the plea for the son.

 

No, not at all. I’m not sure where you got that from, but it is par for the course for you to resort to the absurd.  One of the justifications for the plea given by another poster was that the government wrongfully threatened to lean on the son.  Guess what?  It’s a relatively common (and, typically, sanctioned) law enforcement activity. 

On 5/17/2020 at 8:57 AM, billsfan1959 said:

 

Setting aside the guilty plea and his reasons for doing so (which would be a lengthy discussion), I have a question.

 

When the Agents interviewed Flynn, it was primarily about conversations Flynn had with the Russian Ambassador. The Agents possessed the actual transcripts of those conversations and, I am sure, were familiar with every detail going into that interview, as the transcripts were the basis for their questions. Now, when they finished that interview, they told Comey, according to Comey's testimony before congress, that they did not believe Flynn had lied to them.

 

This is not an instance of asking a question, getting an answer, and later finding evidence to show that the answer was a lie. They were asking him about statements he made in transcripts they had in their hands at the time. They would know for certain, during the interview, if he was telling the truth or lying about what he said in those transcripts.

 

On the same day of the interview, when everything Flynn said was still fresh in their minds, the Agents did a draft FD-302 and told the Director of the FBI that Flynn did not lie to them. Over three weeks later, Strzok , submits a final version of the FD-302 that stated Flynn did lie during the interview. 

 

Did Strzok lie the day of the interview when he said there was no indication that Flynn had lied to them? Or, did he lie in the final version of the FD-302?

 

Because, they can't both be true.

 

 

I’m not familiar with the facts, but there are two truisms about the case.  

 

1.  Flynn pleaded guilty.  If he had the information that you mentioned before he pleaded guilty, then he’s waived any complaints about the effect of that information on his guilty plea (save for IAC, but that’s a different question and much harder to establish). 

 

2.  If this material was withheld by the prosecution prior to the guilty plea and only disclosed after the guilty plea, then the story might be different.  Perhaps it’s Brady, and perhaps the withholding of Brady requires vacatur of the plea.  That’s something that should have been the subject of Flynn’s motion to vacate the plea.  Again, it’s not something I’m going to spend a ton of time on, but my understanding is that the motion to vacate is based on the government changing its position with respect to sentencing.  That is, I understand Flynn to have complained of a “bait and switch” in the plea agreement, not that he was induced to plead guilty by exculpatory material in the sole possession of the government that was withheld by the government.   

[SectionC3]

On 5/15/2020 at 4:37 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I think the Flynn case is anything but simple, especially when someone with your legal background struggles to explain his perspective to a humble man of God like me. 

 

If the plea is vacated, and the case dropped, in your world, is he still guilty? If the plea is vacated, and General Flynn set free, and the DOJ continues to espouse his innocence, was he still convicted (maybe) as you have halfheartedly argued? 

 

Or....is your suggestion that because he initially plead guilty (as he surely did), and may subsequently be vindicated, plea withdrawn and charges dropped, that he was guilty from ××/xx/17 to ××/xx/20?   

 

It just seems that so many things are unresolved. 

 

Warmly. 

 

LS

 

 

 

I’m not struggling with anything.  D pleaded guilty.  Guess what?  He’s guilty!  That’s been resolved, and it remains resolved because the plea has not been withdrawn.  Now the question before the court is whether he should be permitted to withdraw the plea.  If that question is answered in the affirmative, and Flynn withdraws the guilty plea and pleads not guilty, then the question of his guilt is open again.  

[The Guy In Pants]

33 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

For me, and dare I say millions of other Americans, it is indeed about charging and prosecuting those responsible. Without that, truth itself is merely a mirage to be whatever we want it to be. Without prosecutions you would have people justifying what was done by saying no one was prosecuted, and NOTHING to stop someone from doing the same damn thing all over again.

No.... There HAS to be prosecutions or we can kiss our Republic goodbye.

I read today that Barr said he does not expect any investigations into Biden or Obama. Take it for what it’s worth.

[SectionC3]

On 5/15/2020 at 4:20 PM, Foxx said:

you're lucky i'm such a nice guy.

 

start here and read forward. if you really want to discover what is going on, you'll do the rest yourself. if you come back with some lame excuse that you seem to be so good at, i'll know your not serious about being educated and are nothing more than a troll.

 

I don’t see anything about Brady v Maryland and the rules that flow therefrom in those posts.  Let me know when you’re ready to share your “expertise” on the matter. 

Edited May 18, 2020 by SectionC3

[BillStime]

A reminder that our federal government is operated like a branch of the Trump Organization - and like a crime syndicate!
 

Fired watchdog was investigating Trump administration arms sales to Saudi Arabia "It’s troubling that Secretary Pompeo wanted Mr. Linick pushed out before this work could be completed," says House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel.

[Cinga]

1 minute ago, The Guy In Pants said:

I read today that Barr said he does not expect any investigations into Biden or Obama. Take it for what it’s worth.

 

Yeah, I saw that too and while it would suck especially if we have the evidence maybe if we prosecute everyone around them I doubt they ever poke their heads out of the sand again. Also note though, he said nothing about the Clintons ?

Epstein still didn't kill himself

[Buffalo_Gal]

11 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

No, not at all. I’m not sure where you got that from, but it is par for the course for you to resort to the absurd.  One of the justifications for the plea given by another poster was that the government wrongfully threatened to lean on the son.  Guess what?  It’s a relatively common (and, typically, sanctioned) law enforcement activity. 

 

I’m not familiar with the facts, but there are two truisms about the case.  

 

1.  Flynn pleaded guilty.  If he had the information that you mentioned before he pleaded guilty, then he’s waived any complaints about the effect of that information on his guilty plea (save for IAC, but that’s a different question and much harder to establish). 

 

2.  If this material was withheld by the prosecution prior to the guilty plea and only disclosed after the guilty plea, then the story might be different.  Perhaps it’s Brady, and perhaps the withholding of Brady requires vacatur of the plea.  That’s something that should have been the subject of Flynn’s motion to vacate the plea.  Again, it’s not something I’m going to spend a ton of time on, but my understanding is that the motion to vacate is based on the government changing its position with respect to sentencing.  That is, I understand Flynn to have complained of a “bait and switch” in the plea agreement, not that he was induced to plead guilty by exculpatory material in the sole possession of the government that was withheld by the government.   

1) Exculpatory information was withheld from the Flynn team
which didn't matter all that much when Covington was representing him because...
2) Covington was working on behalf of the FBI, not Flynn
3) Once Flynn changed representation, material was withheld from Powell (Flynn's new attorney)
 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I’m not struggling with anything.  D pleaded guilty.  Guess what?  He’s guilty!  That’s been resolved, and it remains resolved because the plea has not been withdrawn.  Now the question before the court is whether he should be permitted to withdraw the plea.  If that question is answered in the affirmative, and Flynn withdraws the guilty plea and pleads not guilty, then the question of his guilt is open again.  

Who is D? Defendant? #confusing

 

When is the sentencing for the guilty plea?  

 

The case is not resolved, but only in the sense that it continues.  Let's move on-- did you figure out convicted/not convicted yet?   You were sorta wishy-washy on that issue on the 15th. 

[SectionC3]

On 5/15/2020 at 3:58 PM, 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.

 

 

 

Which opinions were/are incorrect?  This coming from the guy who insisted that Roe v Wade conferred personhood upon a fetus a couple of days ago.  

 

FYI, attorneys are bound by rules of conduct in their professional interactions.  And this forum does not involve professional interactions.  Mostly it involves me mixing it up with stubborn conspiracy theorists and people who get way too angry on the Internet when somebody tells the truth about Donald Trump.  (No wall!  No repeal and replace!  Ballooning deficits!  Exploding unemployment!  Pandemic!  No exoneration!).  

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

Who is D? Defendant? #confusing

 

When is the sentencing for the guilty plea?  

 

The case is not resolved, but only in the sense that it continues.  Let's move on-- did you figure out convicted/not convicted yet?   You were sorta wishy-washy on that issue on the 15th. 

 

I think we were playing the “judgment” game a few days ago, right?  As in, I wondered whether you would contend that the issue of guilt hasn’t been resolved because the court hasn’t entered judgment in the matter.  But the bottom line remains that D is convicted upon his plea of guilty even in the absence of a judgment because the judgment abides sentencing.  

 

You’d have to ask the court when sentencing will occur.  Beats me.  

 

And you’re right, the case isn’t resolved inasmuch as we await sentencing and have a pending motion to withdraw the plea to be decided in the interim.  But the fact remains that, as of today, the question of guilt has been resolved.  And Flynn is guilty.