We Knew It Was Coming

[Adre]

I understand that the rabid rightwing partisans here want Flynn cleared. You probably don’t care what Flynn was trying to arrange with the Russian diplomat. I get it. With an AG to do his personal bidding Trump can arrange to get his buddy free. It’s interesting that Trump’s own transition team, headed up by a Republican, warned Trump to stay miles away from Flynn, and kept him off of all recommendation lists for high level jobs. Looks like there was a good reason for their concern.

 

[HisArpy]

I understand that the rabid rightwing partisans here want Flynn cleared. You probably don’t care what Flynn was trying to arrange with the Russian diplomat. I get it. With an AG to do his personal bidding Trump can arrange to get his buddy free. It’s interesting that Trump’s own transition team, headed up by a Republican, warned Trump to stay miles away from Flynn, and kept him off of all recommendation lists for high level jobs. Looks like there was a good reason for their concern.

Not really a very good story bro. Nor does it make Flynn guilty of a crime.

What it does is show that you're an idjit for believing any of it.

 

[Adre]

Lots of folks get away with crimes. Doesn’t mean they’re innocent. Trump had the pardon ready anyway. He might even give the guy another job. It won’t matter in January.

 

[Conager]

Here you are reduced to plagiarizing some made up narrative you got from someone brighter than you, but just as willing to lie and grasp at straws:

I understand that the rabid rightwing partisans here want Flynn cleared. You probably don’t care what Flynn was trying to arrange with the Russian diplomat. I get it. With an AG to do his personal bidding Trump can arrange to get his buddy free. It’s interesting that Trump’s own transition team, headed up by a Republican, warned Trump to stay miles away from Flynn, and kept him off of all recommendation lists for high level jobs. Looks like there was a good reason for their concern.

Then you fantasize about the future:

Lots of folks get away with crimes. Doesn’t mean they’re innocent. Trump had the pardon ready anyway. He might even give the guy another job. It won’t matter in January.

Flynn doesn't need a pardon for something he did not do.

 

[HisArpy]

Lots of folks get away with crimes. Doesn’t mean they’re innocent. Trump had the pardon ready anyway. He might even give the guy another job. It won’t matter in January.

We're all guilty even though we haven't been convicted yet?

Does this make sense to anyone other than Adre?

 

[Adre]

Here you are reduced to plagerizing some made up narrative you got from someone brighter than you, but just as willing to lie and grasp at straws:

Show me where I found those words, shrimp.

And you accusing someone of plagiarism is rich.

 

[Adre]

We're all guilty even though we haven't been convicted yet?

Cite?

 

[Conager]

Like I said.

A guy that doesn't understand the distinction between plagiarizing a narrative and plagerizing "those words" isn't bright enough to come up with the Russian plot.

You sure didn't get that narrative by reading even the highly edited FD-302s since there was nothing in them about any concerns about the contents of the call with the Russian Ambassador, which is why closing the case had been reccomended.

 

[HisArpy]

Cite?

^ idjit in public.

 

[HisArpy]

Like I said.

A guy that doesn't understand the distinction between plagerizing a narrative and plagerizing "those words" isn't bright enough to come up with the Russian plot.

You could write a sentence consisting of 3 words, all of them the words which consist of a specific reader's name IN ORDER, and that specific reader would be unable to comprehend what he just read before he reached the end of the sentence.

It's just sad.

 

[Adre]

Like I said.

A guy that doesn't understand the distinction between plagerizing a narrative and plagerizing "those words" isn't bright enough to come up with the Russian plot.

You sure didn't get that narrative by reading even the highly edited FD-302s since there was nothing in them about any concerns about the contents of 5he callbwith the Russian Ambassador, which is why closing the case had been reccomended.

Look the word up. Maybe you’ll learn to spell it as well as what it means.

 

[Rightguide]

Maybe this judge has detected the stink of politics in this DOJ decision. Maybe his standards force him to look a little deeper. You know, maybe he’s not a fucking flunky like Barr.

Maybe he's trying to reclaim his reputation as a fair arbiter of the truth. Maybe he trying to provide a forum from which to retry the Russian Collusion hoax. Who knows? This is the same judge who accused Flynn of treason and then had to apologize for the baseless suggestion. He has made incorrect decisions based on the false and perjurous charges of the former prosecutors. He pondered Flynn's guilt in dealings with Turkey that, "arguably" had undermined "everything this flag over here stands for,” all of which has been shown to be total bullshit, Flynn was never charged with violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act. To suggest without evidence this General with 33 years of unblemished faithful service to his country is a traitor, is bizarre and worrisome coming from the mouth of a judge sworn to uphold the General's rights.

The declassified evidence presented to the Court shows Flynn never lied to the FBI. Prosecutors revealed that any false statement Flynn may have made was were not material to any legitimate investigation and thus could not form the basis for a Section 1001 prosecution.

Now that the evidence is in it shows there never was a lawful case against Flynn, it was a malicious prosecution of an innocent man. I would note, that in our courts of law "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity...and to controversies to which the United States shall be a party" The government has withdrawn the charges and is refusing to prosecute, so there is no "case in law" and thus no controversy. So it seems to me the legal options of the court aside from granting dismissal have all but evaporated.

 

[Rightguide]

I understand that the rabid rightwing partisans here want Flynn cleared. You probably don’t care what Flynn was trying to arrange with the Russian diplomat. I get it. With an AG to do his personal bidding Trump can arrange to get his buddy free. It’s interesting that Trump’s own transition team, headed up by a Republican, warned Trump to stay miles away from Flynn, and kept him off of all recommendation lists for high level jobs. Looks like there was a good reason for their concern.

He did not lie to the FBI. The FBI said so itself. You should want Flynn cleared yourself.

 

[Rightguide]

Cite?

Decriminalize the Average Man


10/12/2011Wendy McElroy

"Outright innocence is not sufficient to escape the brutality of detention."

If you reside in America and it is dinnertime, you have almost certainly broken the law. In his book Three Felonies a Day, civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate estimates that the average person unknowingly breaks at least three federal criminal laws every day. This toll does not count an avalanche of other laws — for example misdemeanors or civil violations such as disobeying a civil contempt order — all of which confront average people at every turn.

An article in the Economist (July 22, 2010) entitled "Too many laws, too many prisoners" states,

Between 2.3m and 2.4m Americans are behind bars, roughly one in every 100 adults. If those on parole or probation are included, one adult in 31 is under "correctional" supervision. As a proportion of its total population, America incarcerates five times more people than Britain, nine times more than Germany and 12 times more than Japan.

By contrast, in 1970, less than one in 400 Americans was incarcerated. Why has the prison population more than quadrupled over a few decades? Why are you, as an average person and daily felon, more vulnerable to arrest than at any other time?

https://mises.org/library/decriminalize-average-man

 

[Rightguide]

Andy McCarthy, Former federal prosecutor, weighs in on Sullivan's travesty:


The Politicized Order Inviting Amicus Briefs against the Flynn Case’s Dismissal
By Andrew C. McCarthy

May 13, 2020 11:53 AM

Late Tuesday, federal district judge Emmet Sullivan issued a bizarre order, inviting third-party groups with no legal interests in the case to file amicus briefs addressing the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the false-statements charge against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national-security adviser.

The cantankerous jurist is stoking opposition to the dismissal. He knows the law calls for him to accede to attorney general Bill Barr’s decision. But Barr can’t stop Sullivan from turning the dismissal into anti-Trump group therapy — and who knows, maybe the grieving Legal Left will figure out some way for the judge to convict Flynn despite DOJ’s retreat.

Flynn’s counsel relates that on 24 prior occasions, Judge Sullivan has summarily refused to entertain input from non-parties to the case. No federal criminal rule authorizes such interventions. Yet Sullivan now encourages them.

There is no complex legal issue to be resolved. DOJ’s dismissal motion may be politically controversial, but legally it is pro forma. The only branch of government constitutionally authorized to proceed with a criminal prosecution is the executive. The Justice Department has declined to prosecute. There is nothing for the judge to do besides the ministerial task of ending the case on the court’s records.

Lest we forget, the primary function of the federal judiciary is to protect the accused from overbearing government action, not to agitate for the prosecution of Americans. Even if he’s convinced Flynn is as guilty as the day is long, one might expect Judge Sullivan to be disturbed by the FBI’s perjury trap, by its editing of and misrepresentations about the “302 report” of Flynn’s interview. By the prosecution’s withholding of exculpatory evidence and concealment from the court of its threat to prosecute Flynn’s son. By the derelictions of Flynn’s original counsel, who took the case notwithstanding a deep conflict-of-interest, and who appear to have counseled Flynn to plead guilty without ever reviewing rudimentary discovery — we know they never inspected the 302 (which is mind-boggling in a false-statements case); did they ever demand that Mueller’s prosecutors produce the recording of the Flynn–Kislyak “sanctions” conversation that is the heart of the case?

Much more here:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020...cus-briefs-against-the-flynn-cases-dismissal/

 

[Adre]

Like I said.

A guy that doesn't understand the distinction between plagiarizing a narrative and plagerizing "those words" isn't bright enough to come up with the Russian plot.

You sure didn't get that narrative by reading even the highly edited FD-302s since there was nothing in them about any concerns about the contents of the call with the Russian Ambassador, which is why closing the case had been reccomended.

Look the word up. Maybe you’ll learn to spell it as well as what it means.

If you’re going to edit your post to correct the misspellings I pointed out, may I suggest you do it each time the word was misspelled. You’ll look marginally smarter.

 

[hogjack]

... to correct the misspellings I pointed out

Please don't smack anyone's knuckles with a ruler.

Find a different way to demonstrate that misspellings will not be tolerated!

 

[Conager]

If you’re going to edit your post to correct the misspellings I pointed out, may I suggest you do it each time the word was misspelled. You’ll look marginally smarter.

The day I look to you to look even marginally smarter will be the day I hope my kids check me into the Sleepy Joe Biden Memorial Memory Care Center.

 

[Adre]

The day I look to you to look even marginally smarter will be the day I hope my kids check me into the Sleepy Joe Biden Memorial Memory Care Center.

Would that be the kids you don’t support or nurture? I can’t imagine they’ll check you into anywhere.

 

[Conager]

Would that be the kids you don’t support or nurture? I can’t imagine they’ll check you into anywhere.

Oh, look. Adre the stupid is so mortally wounded he has to resort to repeating lies. You should at least invent some lies of your own. Resorting to falsely demeaning the relationship between a father and kids who you know nothing about and have nothing to do with your wounded feelings says nothing about me, and everything about you.

Insults grounded in the truth are far more effective, like when I point out that you are a pompous, pretentious windbag who is awfully impressed with his purported wealth.

None of that demeans you as much as you dishonor yourself, bub.

 

[Adre]

Oh, look. Adre the stupid is so mortally wounded he has to resort to repeating lies. You should at least invent some lies of your own. Resorting to falsely demeaning the relationship between a father and kids who you know nothing about and have nothing to do with your wounded feelings says nothing about me, and everything about you.

Insults grounded in the truth are far more effective, like when I point out that you are a pompous, pretentious windbag who is awfully impressed with his purported wealth.

None of that demeans you as much as you dishonor yourself, bub.

Wounded? Pfffft. Sure, shrimp.

 

[Conager]

You sure?

You seem wounded.

Maybe shell out a few bucks for a therapist so he can help you explore your seething anger which is obviously a cover for more vulnerable emotions.

 

[Rightguide]

You sure?

You seem wounded.

Maybe shell out a few bucks for a therapist so he can help you explore your seething anger which is obviously a cover for more vulnerable emotions.

He's visibly upset, his belief system is collapsing all around him.

 

[SpeareChucker]

The day I look to you to look even marginally smarter will be the day I hope my kids check me into the Sleepy Joe Biden Memorial Memory Care Center.

Is that what he calls his basement campaign bunker?

 

[Rightguide]

Judge Sullivan:

“t is further ORDERED that amicus curiae shall address whether the Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 401, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42, the Court’s inherent authority, and any other applicable statutes, rules, or controlling law.”

Harpy, if you're here, I have to ask if you've ever heard of a amicus curiae proceeding at the trial court level in opposition to a rule 48 motion?