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

[B-Man]

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.

 

Exactly.

 

Apparently,  Section 8 thinks that OJ is not guilty then.

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I could write for a local paper, or start a blog, or even write a book.   

 

I have worked with journalists and authors the entire time, and continue to do so. Sharing/researching/writing. This started as a book, in fact. My work here is secondary to the primary work. But, again, you're in such a rush to try to dunk on someone that you don't see how foolish you make yourself look. 

 

[SectionC3]

Just now, B-Man said:

 

Exactly.

 

Apparently,  Section 8 thinks that OJ is not guilty then.

 

 

 

 

Sigh.  Legally OJ is not guilty.  He’s also not innocent.  Nuances are tough sometimes. 

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I have worked with journalists and authors the entire time, and continue to do so. Sharing/researching/writing. This started as a book, in fact. My work here is secondary to the primary work. But, again, you're in such a rush to try to dunk on someone that you don't see how foolish you make yourself look. 

 

 

I’d like to buy this book.  Do you have an Amazon link?

[Warren Zevon]

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

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. 

 

You should see it's Twitter

 

I proudly follow

[billsfan1959]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

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. 

 

The Innocence Project says hello...

 

[B-Man]

4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

      It depends what the meaning of guilty is.........nuance ya know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by B-Man

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, Warren Zevon said:

 

You should see it's Twitter

 

I proudly follow

 

I don’t do Twitter.  But maybe I should.  I can always use help discerning the alternative hoaxes from the real hoaxes.  Seems like this Rhino fellow has his finger on the pulse of all of the hoaxes, fake or otherwise. 

[Warren Zevon]

Cutting edge stuff that gets hundreds of impressions

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

The Innocence Project says hello...

 

 

Indeed they do.  And the reason IP clients don’t immediately walk out of prison is that those people are guilty and there is typically an arduous process to earning vacatur of the judgment of conviction. 

Just now, Warren Zevon said:

Cutting edge stuff that gets hundreds of impressions

 

Oh I bet.  This guy is probably the source for all things I need to know about how the moon landing was faked, how 9/11 was a hoax, and how the Easter Bunny and Santa are spies set by the military-industrial complex. 

Edited May 18, 2020 by SectionC3

[Deranged Rhino]

[SectionC3]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

Not classy.  Not classy at all.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

19 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

In my experience when someone pleads guilty the law views that person as guilty.  Maybe you have different experience with respect to the law that you would care to share.  

Your experience could range from grocery store bagger to longshoreman to JC Penny Hand'n'Foot Model, so that doesn't help me here.  

 

My experience tells me that legal matters can be complicated.  Innocent people plead guilty.  Guilty people plead not guilty.  Plea deals are offered, some taken, others rejected.  So, when I read that Michael Flynn plead guilty, had that been the end of it I would have assumed he plead guilty.  When he wasn't sentenced, I thought that was odd, given that he plead guilty.  When he filed to withdraw his plea, it seemed to me that he was stating emphatically he was not guilty.  Had his request to withdraw his plea been denied by the court, I'd have assumed the court was moving forward to the sentencing phase.  When that didn't happen, I moved it into the unresolved bucket.  When the DOJ decided he wasn't guilty of anything at all, and that the case should be dropped, I wondered why there was any need for any further deliberation, since the government clearly stated the case against him was not valid.  Then, when it was returned to the judge, I figured he would figure that since the DOJ dropped the case, and there was clear evidence that prosecutors withheld evidence that should have been provided to him, the judge would move forward and close this bad boy out.  When the judge opted instead to continue the matter in a partisan fashion, i thought that seemed odd.  

 

To me, it seems that the case itself is unresolved, but again, I want to be clear:  it's only unresolved because it lacks resolution. 

 

I understand where you are coming from and I want you to know I value you.    

 

 

[billsfan1959]

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Indeed they do.  And the reason IP clients don’t immediately walk out of prison is that those people are guilty and there is typically an arduous process to earning vacatur of the judgment of conviction. 

 

And the reason many of them do walk out of prison is because they were not actually guilty of the crime they pled guilty to or were convicted of.

 

See how easy that was?

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by billsfan1959

[Warren Zevon]

He's so in tune he predicted QANON

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

Not classy.  Not classy at all.  

 

What's not classy is your intellectual dishonesty. 

 

Carry on. You're really winning these debates. You're not exposing yourself as a giant asshat of epic proportions. 

[Warren Zevon]

1 minute ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

And the reason many of them do walk out of prison is because they were not actually guilty of the crime they pled guilty to or were convicted of.

 

See how easy that was

 

 

They were guilty, though, thus their unfortunate circumstances.

[BillStime]

6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

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.

You source Tweets from those opinions from radical far right that has resulted in NOTHING. You can’t even point to Flynn as a success lmao.

 

And don’t forget - you lost all credibility on day one with your psychotic obsession of defending EVERYTHING - and I mean EVERYTHING Trump.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[SectionC3]

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Your experience could range from grocery store bagger to longshoreman to JC Penny Hand'n'Foot Model, so that doesn't help me here.  

 

My experience tells me that legal matters can be complicated.  Innocent people plead guilty.  Guilty people plead not guilty.  Plea deals are offered, some taken, others rejected.  So, when I read that Michael Flynn plead guilty, had that been the end of it I would have assumed he plead guilty.  When he wasn't sentenced, I thought that was odd, given that he plead guilty.  When he filed to withdraw his plea, it seemed to me that he was stating emphatically he was not guilty.  Had his request to withdraw his plea been denied by the court, I'd have assumed the court was moving forward to the sentencing phase.  When that didn't happen, I moved it into the unresolved bucket.  When the DOJ decided he wasn't guilty of anything at all, and that the case should be dropped, I wondered why there was any need for any further deliberation, since the government clearly stated the case against him was not valid.  Then, when it was returned to the judge, I figured he would figure that since the DOJ dropped the case, and there was clear evidence that prosecutors withheld evidence that should have been provided to him, the judge would move forward and close this bad boy out.  When the judge opted instead to continue the matter in a partisan fashion, i thought that seemed odd.  

 

To me, it seems that the case itself is unresolved, but again, I want to be clear:  it's only unresolved because it lacks resolution. 

 

I understand where you are coming from and I want you to know I value you.    

 

 

 

The fact that the case remains unresolved does not mean that the question of guilt remains unresolved.  Flynn’s guilty plea resolved that issue.  And even absent the motion to withdraw the case would not be resolved because sentencing has not occurred.  

 

What the DOJ did here is very, very odd.  What the judge has done frankly isn’t partisan, it’s prudent.  If there’s merit to Flynn’s contentions, then they will withstand the scrutiny of amicus review.  Imagine, if you will, a crooked prosecutor in a state criminal proceeding where the defendant has pleaded guilty.  Simply because the defendant has asked to withdraw the guilty plea, and simply because the crooked prosecutor has not opposed the application, doesn’t mean that the court should effectively vacate the conviction.  The court has to have a legal ground upon which to take that step, and the court here is asking the friend to confirm the solidity of that ground before it goes any further. 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, BillStime said:

You source Tweets from those opinions from radical far right that has resulted in NOTHING. You can’t even point to Flynn as a success lmao.

 

 

You still think Flynn is going to jail or will be convicted? How about a bet? If he's convicted and sent to jail, I'll never post here again. If the charges are dismissed and his case dropped, you won't ever post here again? 

 

Got a deal?