Will Flynn's plea be tossed Monday by federal Judge Sullivan, and he set free?

[BoyNextDoor]

But you claim to know those charges well enough to indict Flynn here?



So, "They said in court today" that if not for the deal of Flynn pleading to one count of lying to federal investigators about a phone call during which no crimes were committed, which carries a maximum sentence of 6 months in jail and a $9,500 fine, they'd charge him with being an unregistered foreign agent committing treason in the White House?

If that's true as YOU say, and treason being a death sentence crime, then Mueller and his entire team should be fired, charged and prosecuted for criminal dereliction of duty.

One of the funnier instances in court today was reportedly when Judge Sullivan asked prosecutors if Flynn could be charged for allegedly being an unregistered foreign agent, as the Judge "Arguably" charged him with being. The prosecutor replied, "Uh, the Logan Act?" Incredulous because since being enacted in 1799, only two individuals have been indicted for violating it, one in 1802 and the other in 1852, neither of whom pled to violating it or were convicted of violating it.

So, again, you and the Judge are left with your prejudiced charges of treason. But at least the Judge, after consultation with prosecutors, sensibly backtracked his unsubstantiated treason accusation.

Tin futures are a "buy"


Tin Futures - (TINc1)

Real-time CFD
Create Alert
Add to Portfolio
19,220.00 +65.00 +0.34%

 

[ishtat]

The Judge did a pretty good job:-

1. He got it on the record that Flynn lied, lied more than once, and knew what he was doing was a crime, a serious crime warranting, normally, significant jail time.

2. He clearly thinks he and his court are designated patsies in that he is expected to deliver a light sentence without knowing why.

3. This Judge has a very strong reputation for requiring prosecutors to hand over evidence and state clearly why they are pursuing particular courses of action. Between now and March Sullivan will seek much more justification for leniency from Mueller's team.

 

[IG_88]

So this Bigsly dude is Coach, right?
Kinda my take on it but I could be wrong.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

But you claim to know those charges well enough to indict Flynn here?

No, I'm "indicting" him on what I know of his actions in the public record. JMO. Who knows what actual criminal charges were on the table? Never said I did.

So, "They said in court today" that if not for the deal of Flynn pleading to one count of lying to federal investigators about a phone call during which no crimes were committed, which carries a maximum sentence of 6 months in jail and a $9,500 fine, they'd charge him with being an unregistered foreign agent committing treason in the White House?

No, not what I said. The judge specifically asked about his two partners and said COULD Flynn have been charged with those crimes as well? Those crimes are not "treason," they are "illegal lobbying." The prosecutors said Yes, he could have, were it not for the plea deal.

Flynn was selling a change in US policy for money. I'd personally call that treason, but that's me. He wasn't making decisions based on National Security interests, but on making a couple of hundred thou for himself. What would you call it?

Clearly you don't understand how a cooperating plea deals work, you fool. Yes, you plead to a lesser charge IN EXCHANGE FOR full and complete cooperation. You seem to be forgetting that part. We'll drop the illegal lobbying (and whatever else they could have charged him with, which we don't know) if you cop to lying to the FBI AND tell us everything you know. That's how it works.

Also: the issue of WHAT he talked about with Kislyak (sanctions) is a whole different matter, unrelated to his illegal lobbying for Turkey. It's not true that those phone calls were a nothingburger. In fact, we don't know that yet. No, it's not illegal to have a policy discussion with foreign countries during the transition. But, er, it could be if those discussions were part of a quid pro quo for fucking collusion with Russia during the campaign (a) and (b) if those discussions were technically a violation of the Logan Act by making actual policy change while another President is still Prez.

If that's true as YOU say, and treason being a death sentence crime, then Mueller and his entire team should be fired, charged and prosecuted for criminal dereliction of duty.

Why? They got a treasure trove of info on other people, apparently. We have no clue yet how Flynn's info plays into the larger investigation. All we know is that it was very helpful.

Also, go read the transcript. The judge (unlike me, a layperson) is very careful how he uses the word treason and says plainly he does not know if any of this approaches a technical definition of it. The prosecutors said they "did not know" as well--keeping in mind they are in a courtroom and the legal def of treason is very specific, unlike a general layperson's meaning of basic betrayal and selling your country out for cash.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

One of the funnier instances in court today was reportedly when Judge Sullivan asked prosecutors if Flynn could be charged for allegedly being an unregistered foreign agent, as the Judge "Arguably" charged him with being. The prosecutor replied, "Uh, the Logan Act?" Incredulous because since being enacted in 1799, only two individuals have been indicted for violating it, one in 1802 and the other in 1852, neither of whom pled to violating it or were convicted of violating it.

Awesome. You're perfectly ok with a National Security Advisor literally selling a change in US foreign policy for his own personal gain. Same goes for Trump's stance towards Russia and Saudi Arabia.

So, again, you and the Judge are left with your prejudiced charges of treason. But at least the Judge, after consultation with prosecutors, sensibly backtracked his unsubstantiated treason accusation.

It's not unsubstantiated. What he did is public record.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Sullivan refused to let Flynn and his lawyers parrot the White House's and Tiny's conspiracy theories. He was going to allocute and plead guilty or not.

 

[Busybody18]

Because by then he had committed the crime. Couldn't very well interview him about something which hadn't yet occurred, could we?

no

the conversation with Russiam Amb was AFTER the election


WHY WAS HE EVEN "INTERVIEWED"?

 

[coati]

Sullivan refused to let Flynn and his lawyers parrot the White House's and Tiny's conspiracy theories. He was going to allocute and plead guilty or not.

Right.

To state the obvious: The answer to the specific question posed in the title of this thread is "No". Conspiracy theory talking points were dismissed.

 

[Luk]

So this Bigsly dude is Coach, right?
Kinda my take on it but I could be wrong.

No. It's eyer trying to be a kinder, gentler douchecanoe.

 

[KeithD]

To the poll question: obviously not.

 

[doowdniw]

A guilty plea is a defendant admitting guilt, which is completely different than a Judge or a jury convicting a defendant of a crime.

That both instances RESULT in conviction does not negate the complete difference in how that result came about.

The difference is still in the details.

Meh, at the end of the day, he's still a convicted felon, any way you slice it.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

A guilty plea is a defendant admitting guilt, which is completely different than a Judge or a jury convicting a defendant of a crime.

That both instances RESULT in conviction does not negate the complete difference in how that result came about.

The difference is still in the details.

There is no difference between a court conviction and a guilty plea.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

That's the prejudice: his "evidence" was of only his own making.



No "evidence" exists of what Judge Sullivan clearly had no issue indicting Flynn about. That's prejudice, and that has absolutely no place on any bench if justice is truly to be served.

Also sadly for that justice, Justice Sullivan is probably the only one who can recuse himself, since the prosecutors obviously aren't going to ask him to recuse himself and I doubt Flynn wishes to stir the pot more while working with prosecutors for the next 3 months.

If Justice Sullivan is any more honorable than the defendant he unjustly vilified today, he certainly would recuse himself, for justice's sake.

Flynn is looking at a maximum of 6 months in federal prison and a fine of $9,500, with the prosecution still asking for no prison time served for Flynn. Who knows how many hundreds of thousands of dollars he's liable for already just dealing with that insignificant sentence and fine. To fight it and then risk prosecutors coming after him big time for the ongoing Turkey situation, when they so far have given him a literal free pass about it, will only cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars more.

Flynn witnessed first-hand today how swift "justice" can turn on nothing but unsubstantiated prejudice from a judge. No prison time and $9,500 seems like a cheap deal to make with such "justice" just to be done with it.

You seem to believe that the judge can only comment on the charge(s) to which Flynn pled guilty. Would you feel the same way if the judge was sentencing an armed robber who pled to 1 of 5 robberies for which he was indicted?

 

[KeithD]

There is no difference between a court conviction and a guilty plea.

Right. It's registered as a conviction. It's treated like a conviction. It leads to whatever punishment a conviction leads to. Looks like a duck; quacks like a duck; smells like a duck. It's a duck.

Unless it smells like a Trumpster. Then it's deflecting/denying/distracting/disgusting.

 

[Que]

You seem to believe that the judge can only comment on the charge(s) to which Flynn pled guilty. Would you feel the same way if the judge was sentencing an armed robber who pled to 1 of 5 robberies for which he was indicted?

That's not just moving the goalposts that's playing an entirely new sport with rules of your liking. Flynn wasn't indicted for anything else. The prosecutor in your example would be telling the judge"No, he actually wasn't indicted on other robberies and in fact we don't have any evidence that he committed robberies and or such robberies that you're calling robberies aren't actual robberies and / or never prosecuted as robberies.

This is kind of unlike you. To just be making things up to try to win an argument that you already lost.

 

[Oblimo]

I remember when Judge Sullivan was going to answer all of QAnon’s prayers, dismiss the charges against Flynn, and sua sponte launch some sort of action against the FBI.

It seems like only yesterday, doesn’t it?

When in fact it was the day before yesterday.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

That's not just moving the goalposts that's playing an entirely new sport with rules of your liking. Flynn wasn't indicted for anything else. The prosecutor in your example would be telling the judge"No, he actually wasn't indicted on other robberies and in fact we don't have any evidence that he committed robberies and or such robberies that you're calling robberies aren't actual robberies and / or never prosecuted as robberies.

This is kind of unlike you. To just be making things up to try to win an argument that you already lost.

There sure as shit was something redacted that the judge knows of but you don't.

 

[Que]

There sure as shit was something redacted that the judge knows of but you don't.

The prosecutor,. Not Flynn's lawyers says you are (and the judge was) wrong.

The judgw ACKNOWLEDGED he was wrong.

There are NO "other indictments"

 

[KeithD]

Yet. It's interesting on how little interest Trumpettes have in considering the meaning of "yet."

 

[bigsly]

There is no difference between a court conviction and a guilty plea.

Except that in reality one is a court conviction and the other is a guilty plea, which factually aren't the same thing at all.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I remember when Judge Sullivan was going to answer all of QAnon’s prayers, dismiss the charges against Flynn, and sua sponte launch some sort of action against the FBI.

It seems like only yesterday, doesn’t it?

When in fact it was the day before yesterday.

QAnon is so September.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Except that in reality one is a court conviction and the other is a guilty plea, which factually aren't the same thing at all.

Tell that to your parole officer.

 

[bigsly]

You seem to believe that the judge can only comment on the charge(s) to which Flynn pled guilty.

I believe Flynn has only one charge against him. Would you be so kind as to list all the other charges you imagine have been filed against him?"

I also believe that publicly accusing Flynn of selling out his country when he as not been charged or indicted for that, of outright treason, a capital, possible death sentence offense, when he has not been charged or indicted for that, is judicial prejudice at its worst. Again, it was good to see the Judge realize the reality of that and walk his prejudice back.

Would you feel the same way if the judge was sentencing an armed robber who pled to 1 of 5 robberies for which he was indicted?

Again, please list the other "robberies" you imagine Flynn has been indicted for, when I know of only the one. And yes, I'd feel the same way if a judge, during what is supposed to be sentencing a defendant for the one misdemeanor crime he pled to, spewed his prejudice that the defendant was guilty of murder, too, although the defendant had never been charged or indicted for that capital, possible death sentence crime.

 

[KeithD]

Oh, you believe, do you? Could have fooled me.

You come across as just trolling and I assumed you just waited for the memo to come in from Moscow to tell you what you believe.

 

[Oblimo]

QAnon is so September.

The very idea that Sulluvian was going to free Flynn on Monday was pure QAnon-hyped fantasy.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

I believe Flynn has only one charge against him. Would you be so kind as to list all the other charges you imagine have been filed against him?"

I also believe that publicly accusing Flynn of selling out his country when he as not been charged or indicted for that, of outright treason, a capital, possible death sentence offense, when he has not been charged or indicted for that, is judicial prejudice at its worst. Again, it was good to see the Judge realize the reality of that and walk his prejudice back.



Again, please list the other "robberies" you imagine Flynn has been indicted for, when I know of only the one. And yes, I'd feel the same way if a judge, during what is supposed to be sentencing a defendant for the one misdemeanor crime he pled to, spewed his prejudice that the defendant was guilty of murder, too, although the defendant had never been charged or indicted for that capital, possible death sentence crime.

I'm going to assume that you didn't see the court documents with the large areas of redaction. You source of information might not be covering this story.The judge saw evidence that Flynn was guilty of something that looked and smelled a lot like treason.