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

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

38 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I don’t lose anything.   Today i saw a piece in the news, and it turns out that Flynn pleaded guilty.  There has been no change in position. 
 

The motion apparently is to vacate the plea.  At this point, the question of Flynn’s guilt (he was convicted upon his plea of guilty) is settled.  Flynn wants to reopen that question, but to do so he has to demonstrate a reason why he should be permitted by the court to withdraw the plea.  It can’t be simply that he changed his mind.  It could be a change in govt position on sentence recommendation (aka the bait and switch).  It could be that his plea was infected by ineffective assistance of counsel.  Or it could be that the plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.  Here it appears that he’s pursuing the first two grounds.  Maybe the court allows him to withdraw the plea, maybe it doesn’t.  But it can’t be as simple as him changing his mind and declaring that he decided he no longer wants to be guilty.   Otherwise we’d never have finality in any criminal case. 

Here, yup.  He is.  I’d love to hear from you how he’s not.  Please share your expertise. 

I don’t know why I bother trying to understand you.  You keep moving the mark.  You previously said people resort to name-calling when they have lost an argument, and you resorted to name calling.  You can’t go all Joe Biden here and change the rules midstream so they don’t apply to you. Well, you can, obviously but why bother? 

 

Yes or No....did I correctly  characterize what you said about name-calling in an earlier post?   
 

As for the conviction issue, I only tried to square what you said to me on Friday, when you guessed but were not sure, v what you stated today emphatically to DR.  I’m confused because last week, you indicated you knew he plead guilty, and that seemed to be common knowledge.  Today,  you say you saw an article that indicated he plead guilty  and it cleared it up for you, but I’ve read all the posts you sent me and something seems off.  You  strike me as an intelligent, cautious and calculating man.  I find it hard to believe you would shift so dramatically from Maybe-Conviction-Friday to 100%-Certain-Conviction-Monday over some half-baked article written by Suzie Dipwadd at the Toronto Sun.  You were excruciatingly technical on this issue previously.
 

Finally, I appreciate the time and effort it took to type the 14 sentences in your second paragraph that prove your point once and for all that the case is fully, completely and undeniably resolved (almost), other than the matters not yet resolved. 
 

At the risk of repeating myself, it’s a very complicated case and it seems to get more complicated by the day.  The 12 attorneys general  through a wrench in it all today, they seem to think the case is not resolved at this point, even though General Flynn is now banging out license plates on deaf row in Attica.  
 

Yes, deaf row.  He’s right next to Suge Knight. 
 

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[The Guy In Pants]

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

I don’t know why I bother trying to understand you.  You keep moving the mark.  You previously said people resort to name-calling when they have lost an argument, and you resorted to name calling.  You can’t go all Joe Biden here and change the rules midstream so they don’t apply to you. Well, you can, obviously but why bother? 

 

Yes or No....did I correctly  characterize what you said about name-calling in an earlier post?   
 

As for the conviction issue, I only tried to square what you said to me on Friday, when you guessed but were not sure, v what you stated today emphatically to DR.  I’m confused because last week, you indicated you knew he plead guilty, and that seemed to be common knowledge.  Today,  you say you saw an article that indicated he plead guilty  and it cleared it up for you, but I’ve read all the posts you sent me and something seems off.  You  strike me as an intelligent, cautious and calculating man.  I find it hard to believe you would shift so dramatically from Maybe-Conviction-Friday to 100%-Certain-Conviction-Monday over some half-baked article written by Suzie Dipwadd at the Toronto Sun.  You were excruciatingly technical on this issue previously.
 

Finally, I appreciate the time and effort it took to type the 14 sentences in your second paragraph that prove your point once and for all that the case is fully, completely and undeniably resolved (almost), other than the matters not yet resolved. 
 

At the risk of repeating myself, it’s a very complicated case and it seems to get more complicated by the day.  The 12 attorneys general  through a wrench in it all today, they seem to think the case is not resolved at this point, even though General Flynn is now banging out license plates on deaf row in Attica.  
 

Yes, deaf row.  He’s right next to Suge Knight. 
 

 

 

The maturity level of one group is much lower than the other. The way they engage in discussion is indicative of the way they vote. So, it’s easy to see why you are frustrated.

Edited May 19, 2020 by The Guy In Pants

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

14 minutes ago, The Guy In Pants said:

 

The maturity level of one group is much lower than the other. The way they engage in discussion is indicative of the way they vote. So, it’s easy to see why you are frustrated.

This really doesn’t frustrate me at all.  It’s a welcome distraction from thinking about the $&#@ show that is our political system. 
 

 

[The Guy In Pants]

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

This really doesn’t frustrate me at all.  It’s a welcome distraction from thinking about the $&#@ show that is our political system. 
 

 

 

Crazy isn’t it? 

[SectionC3]

32 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

As you should have discerned,

 

The expertise is shown by the experienced lawyer in the posted article.

 

The one you likely ignored.

 

Your constant asking for others opinions, which you obviously do not really want, says a lot about how you post.

 

I have been a Registered nurse for over 40 years, I have offered my own opinion when I choose to.

 

 

 

 

I read a bit of it. Looks like he’s a law prof without significant postconviction experience.  He lost me when he mixed up intervention and amicus participation.  Oops. Spelling Michael correctly might help me take him a bit more seriously, too. 

[billsfan1959]

15 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

The motion apparently is to vacate the plea.  At this point, the question of Flynn’s guilt (he was convicted upon his plea of guilty) is settled.  Flynn wants to reopen that question, but to do so he has to demonstrate a reason why he should be permitted by the court to withdraw the plea.  It can’t be simply that he changed his mind.  It could be a change in govt position on sentence recommendation (aka the bait and switch).  It could be that his plea was infected by ineffective assistance of counsel.  Or it could be that the plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.  Here it appears that he’s pursuing the first two grounds.  Maybe the court allows him to withdraw the plea, maybe it doesn’t.  But it can’t be as simple as him changing his mind and declaring that he decided he no longer wants to be guilty.   Otherwise we’d never have finality in any criminal case. 

 

It could be... It could be... It might be....It appears....

 

Your language tells me you haven't read a single document filed in regard to this issue. That is confirmed by statements earlier in this thread in which you admitted that you don't really know the details of this case. Maybe you should do a little reading to acquaint yourself of the facts before arguing. I take it you are familiar with that concept? However, you don't really care to know the facts, do you?. The only thing that is clearly important to you is that Flynn is, at the moment, "guilty in the eyes of the law." That is the sum total of every argument you have put forth.

 

Behavior is a function of consequence, meaning, we do things for a reason. That the most important thing to you is that Flynn is "guilty in the eyes of the law" says that you need for him to be "guilty" to support everything you have believed over the last three years. You have proven this in the level of semantic gymnastics you have gone through in order to blur the distinction between guilt and innocence. You didn't do that for us, you did that for you. It alleviates the cognitive dissonance you might experience in allowing such concepts as right and wrong, or justice and injustice to enter your thought processes.

 

When Flynn was charged with making false official statements, I didn't give it much thought, outside of I felt the underlying investigation was unjustified. However, my stance at the time was, if he lied, he lied - and the consequences are what they are. I never posted anything about Flynn until recently, when I read some of the information being released from the prosecution. There were some things that really disturbed me, so, I downloaded and read everything I could to get a better understanding of the facts.

 

Like many here, I don't give a S**t about "guilty in the eyes of the law" when I see injustice and wrongdoing in the process that brought an individual to that point. It is more important to me that when the FBI conducts an investigation, it is based on legitimate and truthful information, and free from political motivations. It is more important to me that the Agents involved in an investigation of this type not have histories of severe bias. It is more important to me that the FBI not ignore DOJ and in-house reccommendations and guidelines in the manner in which they set up the interview because it helps achieve the stated goal of the Agents conducting the interview to "get him to lie." It is more important to me that Agents not be allowed to change documents to reflect what they want rather than the truth. It is more important to me that the government turn over all information relevant to the underlying investigation and charges before a guilty plea, not over two years later - and information is still being released. It is more important to me that the lack of the knowledge of that information played a central role in forcing someone to plead guilty to avoid worse consequences, particularly for his family. It is more important to me that the weight of the US Government not be used to intentionally set a man up to be criminally charged for political purposes.

 

But, hey, you go ahead and remain ignorant of the facts and cling to "he's guilty in the eyes of the law" if it helps you sleep at night.

 

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by billsfan1959

[Warren Zevon]

3 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

remain ignorant of the facts and cling to "he's guilty in the eyes of the law"

 

What you quoted is the only fact that matters and why he's in this predicament. Unfortunately you remain ignorant of that fact.

 

#FLYNNDICATED, though, yes - I know. 

Edited May 19, 2020 by Warren Zevon

[billsfan1959]

1 minute ago, Warren Zevon said:

 

What you quoted is the only fact that matters and why he's in this predicament. Unfortunately you remain ignorant of that fact.

 

#FLYNNDICATED, though, yes - I know. 

 

The fact that you and BillZStime are the only intellectual support for SectionC3 should be enough for him to understand just how wrong he is.

 

I know that alone would make me want to consider a fish tank cleaner cocktail - or at least withdraw from the argument out of sheer embarrassment.

[Warren Zevon]

Just now, billsfan1959 said:

how wrong he is.

 

Flynn's current plea?

[billsfan1959]

24 minutes ago, Warren Zevon said:

 

Flynn's current plea?

 

It's always amusing when you try to engage with adults...

 

 

[Warren Zevon]

Just now, billsfan1959 said:

 

 

So you refuse to say Flynn's current plea?

 

#FLYNNDICATED

[Deranged Rhino]

His current plea in fact: 

https://sidneypowell.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Mike-Declaration-1.29.2020.pdf

[billsfan1959]

11 minutes ago, Warren Zevon said:

 

So you refuse to say Flynn's current plea?

 

#FLYNNDICATED

 

I have no problem saying it. I already said his current accepted plea is guilty. I have said it in a number of posts. That was never my point.

 

Apparently your inability to comprehend what you read is only surpassed by your inability to participate in conversations that require more than a room temperature IQ.

 

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

His current plea in fact: 

https://sidneypowell.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Mike-Declaration-1.29.2020.pdf

 

He'll never read it. And if he did, he wouldn't understand it... He crawls out of his hole every now and then only to parrot something somebody else says, gets intellectually slam dunked, and then crawls back into his hole. It's kind of like that wack a mole game.

Edited May 19, 2020 by billsfan1959

[Magox]

This is either sheer stupidity or craven partisanship.  Or maybe a little bit of both.  Only one of the three can exist here.

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Warren Zevon]

8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Is former president Barack Obama who Barr said isn't a target of Durham's the Obama referred to in "Obamagate?"

Edited May 19, 2020 by Warren Zevon

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[billsfan1959]

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

This is a good article. The Logan Act was never in play. Nor was FARA. If there was a legitimate, prosecutable violation of either, they would have been pursued. That Rosenstein continued to use it as justification for Mueller's team to target Flynn in August of 2017 is nothing short of abuse of power. The fact that the FBI did not open a criminal investigation prior to the interview of Flynn on 24 Jan 2017 (Or at anytime), and the manner in which that interview was conducted tells us all we need to know about where the FBI and the DOJ stood, in terms of the legitimacy of any violations of the Logan Act.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Hedge]