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

[billsfan1959]

15 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

All of that might be true.  But let’s agree on one thing:  Flynn is guilty, as of 3:58 p.m. today.  That’s undeniable.  Whether he is allowed to withdraw his plea and relitigate that question remains to be seen. 

 

Let’s hear about the IAC and the issue whether the alleged lack of meaningful representation infected the plea. 

 

Flynn is legally guilty at the moment. I have never disputed that. However, can you agree there can be a distinction between guilt from a legal perspective and actual guilt?

[SectionC3]

Just now, billsfan1959 said:

 

Flynn is legally guilty at the moment. I have never disputed that. However, can you agree there can be a distinction between guilt from a legal perspective and actual guilt?

 

I’d have to think it through, but probably not.  Guilt is a legal determination.  So “actual guilt” and “guilt from a legal perspective” are one and the same.  

[Deranged Rhino]

[billsfan1959]

5 minutes ago, BillStime said:

@Deranged Rhino - don’t you get tired of logging in and out? 

 

Since I joined this forum four years before @Deranged Rhino, wouldn't that make him me?

 

Don't you ever tire of trying to turn idiocy into an olympic sport?

[bdutton]

1 minute ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Flynn is legally guilty at the moment. I have never disputed that. However, can you agree there can be a distinction between guilt from a legal perspective and actual guilt?

Guilt and actual justice are sometimes two separate things and I would hope that anyone with the sense and desire for justice would understand that too.

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Since I joined this forum four years before @Deranged Rhino, wouldn't that make him me?

 

Don't you ever tire of trying to turn idiocy into an olympic sport?

@Deranged Rhino - that’s your issue - not mine. 

[billsfan1959]

6 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I’d have to think it through, but probably not.  Guilt is a legal determination.  So “actual guilt” and “guilt from a legal perspective” are one and the same.  

 

In July 1991, John Dixon pled guilty to first degree kidnapping, first degree robbery, two counts of first degree aggravated sexual assault, and unlawful possession of a weapon in the third degree. He later asked the judge to withdraw his plea and perform DNA testing, claiming his plea was induced by fear of a harsher sentence if convicted by jury. The court denied Dixon’s motion and he was sentenced to forty-five years with a fifteen year parole eligibility disqualifer.

 

Testing on the rape kit samples were eventually completed by the New Jersey State Police Laboratory in 2001. The results indicated that Dixon could not have been the source of spermatozoa collected from the victim. His conviction was vacated on November 29, 2001, and he was released the next week. He served ten years of his conviction.

 

In 1991, Dixon was legally guilty. Was he actually guilty?

Edited May 18, 2020 by billsfan1959

[Warren Zevon]

13 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Everyone in Trumps orbit is above the law - why is that?

 

 

 

New thread worthy 

[Buffalo_Gal]

This thread has come down to people who followed the Russian hoax unfold for years, including reading the report, watching the testimony, reading the redactions of newly released declassified documents, following the minutia of any and all court actions and released documents vs a couple of trolls who came in last week and are now "experts" in XYZ to gaslight. 

 

[BillStime]

2 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

In July 1991, John Dixon pled guilty to first degree kidnapping, first degree robbery, two counts of first degree aggravated sexual assault, and unlawful possession of a weapon in the third degree. He later asked the judge to withdraw his plea and perform DNA testing, claiming his plea was induced by fear of a harsher sentence if convicted by jury. 

 

Testing on the rape kit samples were eventually completed by the New Jersey State Police Laboratory in 2001. The results indicated that Dixon could not have been the source of spermatozoa collected from the victim. His conviction was vacated on November 29, 2001, and he was released the next week. He served ten years of his conviction.

 

In 1991, Dixon was legally guilty. Was he actually guilty?

 

Shouldn't you source your info?

 

https://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/john-dixon/

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

This thread has come down to people who followed the Russian hoax unfold for years, including reading the report, watching the testimony, reading the redactions of newly released declassified documents, following the minutia of any and all court actions and released documents vs a couple of trolls who came in last week and are now "experts" in XYZ to gaslight. 

 

 

Via Brietbart, Redstate, Alex Jones...

 

What have you all accomplished?

[keepthefaith]

8 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I’d have to think it through, but probably not.  Guilt is a legal determination.  So “actual guilt” and “guilt from a legal perspective” are one and the same.  

 

That makes no sense. 

Edited May 18, 2020 by keepthefaith

[B-Man]

2 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Shouldn't you source your info?

 

https://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/john-dixon/

 

 

Non-Answer Alert !

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, BillStime said:

What have you all accomplished?

 

For four years now, I've shared information and first hand evidence with this community for the purposes of giving the community I care about a fighting chance against the largest psychological operation ever launched against the American people by its own intelligence services. At the start of that process, my information was laughed at and mocked by nearly all. Which was fine and expected as I knew that would happen going in. But I continued to follow the evidence and information. 

 

Now, four years later and reams of evidence and developments since, what was dismissed as crazy has now been confirmed as fact. I consider throwing a life line to people I care about, and helping them through the sea of disinformation a small but important accomplishment. 

 

You disagree because you're not an independent thinker.

[SectionC3]

6 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

In July 1991, John Dixon pled guilty to first degree kidnapping, first degree robbery, two counts of first degree aggravated sexual assault, and unlawful possession of a weapon in the third degree. He later asked the judge to withdraw his plea and perform DNA testing, claiming his plea was induced by fear of a harsher sentence if convicted by jury. The court denied Dixon’s motion and he was sentenced to forty-five years with a fifteen year parole eligibility disqualifer.

 

Testing on the rape kit samples were eventually completed by the New Jersey State Police Laboratory in 2001. The results indicated that Dixon could not have been the source of spermatozoa collected from the victim. His conviction was vacated on November 29, 2001, and he was released the next week. He served ten years of his conviction.

 

In 1991, Dixon was legally guilty. Was he actually guilty?

 

Yup.  He was convicted of the crime, ergo he was guilty in the eyes of the law.  

 

In that instance, it also happened to be that he was wrongfully convicted.  And the post-conviction procedures (all of which occurred while he was guilty) established that the conviction was wrongful.  That’s what Flynn’s trying to do here.  He changed his mind on his guilty plea, and has asked the court to allow him to withdraw it.  We shall see what happens down the road, but as it stands as of 4:32 p.m. today, Flynn is guilty.  

[BillStime]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

For four years now, I've shared information and first hand evidence with this community for the purposes of giving the community I care about a fighting chance against the largest psychological operation ever launched against the American people by its own intelligence services. At the start of that process, my information was laughed at and mocked by nearly all. Which was fine and expected as I knew that would happen going in. But I continued to follow the evidence and information. 

 

Now, four years later and reams of evidence and developments since, what was dismissed as crazy has now been confirmed as fact. I consider throwing a life line to people I care about, and helping them through the sea of disinformation a small but important accomplishment. 

 

You disagree because you're not an independent thinker.

First hand “evidence” from questionable sources. Again - what has this hard core evidence resulted in? 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, BillStime said:

First hand “evidence” from questionable sources. Again - what has this hard core evidence resulted in? 

 

Questionable sources -- you mean like DOJ memos, congressional testimony, White House records and visitor logs, traveling to London, DC, and several other cities to interview people who were involved first hand? 

 

Questionable like that? 

 

This is why you're losing so badly. You don't know the basics about the matter -- or me -- but you presume to know it all.

[billsfan1959]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Yup.  He was convicted of the crime, ergo he was guilty in the eyes of the law.  

 

In that instance, it also happened to be that he was wrongfully convicted.  And the post-conviction procedures (all of which occurred while he was guilty) established that the conviction was wrongful.  That’s what Flynn’s trying to do here.  He changed his mind on his guilty plea, and has asked the court to allow him to withdraw it.  We shall see what happens down the road, but as it stands as of 4:32 p.m. today, Flynn is guilty.  

 

In the example I gave, Dixon was guilty in the eyes of the law. He was not actually guilty of the crime - for that to be true he would have actually had to have raped the victim. He didn't.

 

They are not one and the same. The fact that you actually believe they are discredits any opinion you have because it is clear you have no interest intellectual honesty.

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

For four years now, I've shared information and first hand evidence with this community for the purposes of giving the community I care about a fighting chance against the largest psychological operation ever launched against the American people by its own intelligence services. At the start of that process, my information was laughed at and mocked by nearly all. Which was fine and expected as I knew that would happen going in. But I continued to follow the evidence and information. 

 

Now, four years later and reams of evidence and developments since, what was dismissed as crazy has now been confirmed as fact. I consider throwing a life line to people I care about, and helping them through the sea of disinformation a small but important accomplishment. 

 

You disagree because you're not an independent thinker.

 

Will you please get to work on those referrals to the attorney grievance committee? Only you can cut through the “sea of disinformation” on this case and yield the “important accomplishment” of establishing the unethical conduct that simply should not allow these prosecutors to continue in the practice of law.  We need you now more than ever, Deranged Rhino. 

 

***

 

So, getting somewhat closer to reality, my understanding is that four years ago you thought to yourself, “I’m going to take my talents to the twobillsdrive.com message board because the anonymous dudes on that message board need me now more than ever to filter from their undiscerning eyes and ears all of the fake news and alternative facts floating around these days.   I could write for a local paper, or start a blog, or even write a book.   But no.  Anonymous football fans (some of whom already know everything and have nothing to learn) need me.  And I need to help them determine which hoaxes are real and which hoaxes are fake.  Which facts are alternative and which are just regular facts.  Which conspiracy theories are real, and which are just hoaxy fakes.  What news is fake, and the degree of fakery in such news.”  Makes. Perfect. Sense. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, billsfan1959 said:

 

In the example I gave, Dixon was guilty in the eyes of the law. He was not actually guilty of the crime - for that to be true he would have actually had to have raped the victim. He didn't.

 

They are not one and the same. The fact that you actually believe they are discredits any opinion you have because it is clear you have no interest intellectual honesty.

 

100%

[SectionC3]

Just now, billsfan1959 said:

 

In the example I gave, Dixon was guilty in the eyes of the law. He was not actually guilty of the crime - for that to be true he would have actually had to have raped the victim. He didn't.

 

They are not one and the same. The fact that you actually believe they are discredits any opinion you have because it is clear you have no interest intellectual honesty.

 

Unfortunately for Dixon it was only the law that counted.  And the law had him as guilty, right or wrong.  That’s why the law doesn’t acknowledge the distinction that you seek to draw.  We don’t lawfully imprison people who are merely “legally guilty” but not “actually guilty.”  One is either guilty, or he is not.  That’s how it goes.