BARR told Trump to his face, "you're going to lose, you're humiliating yourself: pettiness, acrimony, punching down, chaos--we're tired of this shit"

Also not entrapment. You don't think Flynn's lawyers thought of that before you did? They are career lawyers. You are an uneducated slob.

They tried that. Big fail. Join us in reality.
It most definitely was entrapment. Strzok and company lied to Flynn when they interview him. They told him he didn't need a lawyer. The charges should have been thrown out on that basis alone.
 
It most definitely was entrapment. Strzok and company lied to Flynn when they interview him. They told him he didn't need a lawyer. The charges should have been thrown out on that basis alone.
Sorry, it wasn't. His lawyers tried that tack. They went down in flanes. But you go ahead and keep strokingyour little fantasy.
 
Nah, just desperate cultist fantasy and crybabying. A special little idiotic talking point you reserve for your cult high priests and nobody else.
How can it be voluntary when the alternative to not doing it is going to prison?

"Voluntary" means there are no penalties imposed for not doing it.
 
Sorry, it wasn't. His lawyers tried that tack. They went down in flanes. But you go ahead and keep strokingyour little fantasy.
Yes, we know the government used some weasel argument to deny it.


Previously undisclosed documents in the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn offer us a chilling blueprint on how top FBI officials not only sought to entrap the former White House aide but sought to do so on such blatantly unconstitutional and manufactured grounds.
These new documents further undermine the view of both the legitimacy and motivations of those investigations under former FBI director James Comey. For all of those who have long seen a concerted effort within the Justice Department to target the Trump administration, the fragments will read like a Dead Sea Scrolls version of a “deep state” conspiracy.
One note reflects discussions within the FBI shortly after the 2016 election on how to entrap Flynn in an interview concerning his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. According to Fox News, the note was written by the former FBI head of counterintelligence, Bill Priestap, after a meeting with Comey and his deputy director, Andrew McCabe.
ADVERTISEMENT
The note states, “What is our goal? Truth and admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” This may have expressed an honest question over the motivation behind this targeting of Flynn, a decision for which Comey later publicly took credit when he had told an audience that he decided he could “get away” with sending “a couple guys over” to the White House to set up Flynn and make the case.
The new documents also explore how the Justice Department could get Flynn to admit breaking the Logan Act, a law that dates back to from 1799 which makes it a crime for a citizen to intervene in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. It has never been used to convict a citizen and is widely viewed as flagrantly unconstitutional.
In his role as the national security adviser to the president elect, there was nothing illegal in Flynn meeting with Kislyak. To use this abusive law here was utterly absurd, although other figures such as former acting Attorney General Sally Yates also raised it. Nevertheless, the FBI had latched onto this abusive law to target the retired Army lieutenant general.
Another newly released document is an email from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page to former FBI special agent Peter Strzok, who played the leadership role in targeting Flynn. In the email, Page suggests that Flynn could be set up by making a passing reference to a federal law that criminalizes lies to federal investigators. She suggested to Strzok that “it would be an easy way to just casually slip that in.” So this effort was not about protecting national security or learning critical intelligence. It was about bagging Flynn for the case in the legal version of a canned trophy hunt.
It is also disturbing that this evidence was only recently disclosed by the Justice Department. When Flynn was pressured to plead guilty to a single count of lying to investigators, he was unaware such evidence existed and that the federal investigators who had interviewed him told their superiors they did not think that Flynn intentionally lied when he denied discussing sanctions against Russia with Kislyak. Special counsel Robert Mueller and his team changed all that and decided to bring the dubious charge. They drained Flynn financially then threatened to charge his son.
 
No, the claim that a guilty plea is voluntary is a government imposed fiction.

Except for the fact that in order to plead guilty, you have to do so to the judge, under oath.

Pleading guilty when you're not guilty is perjury.
 
It most definitely was entrapment. Strzok and company lied to Flynn when they interview him. They told him he didn't need a lawyer. The charges should have been thrown out on that basis alone.
The USSC has ruled that law enforcement officers can legally lie to suspects, such as telling the suspect that his victim is alive, when he actually died, or that he died when he's still alive. They can lie that his accomplice is singing like a canary, when they're silent as the Cheshire cat.

Law enforcement can lie to a suspect, but a suspect lying to law enforcement is a crime, often a serious felony.
 
How can it be voluntary when the alternative to not doing it is going to prison?

"Voluntary" means there are no penalties imposed for not doing it.
Wrong (and stupid on top of that). Like in the old days when a kid got in trouble with the law, had a choice of service a year in jail, or 4 years in the army.

The choice was voluntary either way.
 
Pure horseshit. The whole Russian collusion scam has been proven to be lie. Every accusation Mueller made about Flynn has been proven to be a lie.

The fact that Flynn paid out every dime he had, and even had to mortgage his house to pay his legal bills, shows what a callous insufferable NAZI douchebag you are.
‘BARR told Trump to his face, "you're going to lose, you're humiliating yourself: pettiness, acrimony, punching down, chaos--we're tired of this shit"’

This is why if you foolishly nominate Trump for president in 2024 he’ll lose to President Biden.
 
If you don't start defending yourself until AFTER you plead guilty, that's not defending yourself.
He never had the opportunity to defend himself. He pled guilty under coercion, and the case lingered for a year and a half while the Mueller investigation dragged on. Flynn appeared for sentencing in December 2018, but the judge threatened him with prison time if he did not accept a delay until the Mueller investigation was complete.

The DOJ was forced to release Brady evidence and emails that showed Flynn was ambushed and the plea deal was coerced, with an improper side agreement that promised to leave the son alone.

Then when Flynn fired his lawyers and hired Syndey Powell, the DOJ changed their recommendation from probation to prison time.

That's when Flynn retracted his guilty plea, and the DOJ later retracted the charges. The crazy judge wouldn't drop the case, and Trump issued a pardon to close it once and for all.

 
The note states, “What is our goal? Truth and admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” This may have expressed an honest question over the motivation behind this targeting of Flynn, a decision for which Comey later publicly took credit when he had told an audience that he decided he could “get away” with sending “a couple guys over” to the White House to set up Flynn and make the case.

You can't induce anybody to LIE. That's a voluntary act. The only way to force somebody to LIE is under torture or threat of torture.

Similarly you can't induce anybody to answer questions. You can invoke your 5th and 6th amendment rights, and remain completely silent, and immune from inducement to lie.
 
Last edited:
They drained Flynn financially then threatened to charge his son

Posting this takes a special kind of stupid. You can't threaten to prosecute an innocent person. That would only set the government up for a false arrest case worth millions of dollars.

If Flynn plead guilty in order to protect his son from prosecution, that confirms that Flynn brought his son into his illegal schemes, and thus knew the criminal exposure his son faced.

It's no different than the Robert Hansen case, where his wife aided and abetted, and committed misprision of a felony.
 
He never had the opportunity to defend himself. He pled guilty under coercion, and the case lingered for a year and a half while the Mueller investigation dragged on. Flynn appeared for sentencing in December 2018, but the judge threatened him with prison time if he did not accept a delay until the Mueller investigation was complete.
That's a twisted way of saying the judge was offering him leniency for his cooperation.
 
Because Flynn was dumb enough to lie to the FBI.

Just ask Martha Stewart why that isn't a good idea.

I didn't want to get into this topic, but if I remember correctly, the FBI agents told Flynn it was not an official investigation, they just were curious about a few things.

 
That's a twisted way of saying the judge was offering him leniency for his cooperation.
He was already cooperating. He had been cooperating for a year. The cooperation was a condition of the plea deal he had entered into a year prior.

The judge didn't want to sentence him because the DOJ was recommending probation and the Mueller probe was still ongoing. Sullivan was hoping Mueller would give him some excuse to refuse the plea deal and throw the book at Flynn.

You were arguing that Flynn was abusing the legal system by dragging out the case, but that is not what happened. It was the government and the court that dragged it out, with the Mueller investigation and not sentencing Flynn in a timely manner.

It's not the government's behavior that really concerns me though- I expect gov't to abuse it's authority. It's that when the abuse is exposed, rank and file democrats still think it's acceptable. Pretextual investigations for political purposes, fabricating evidence, entrapment of material witnesses and coerced guilty pleas are just rationalized away.

The rule of law means nothing if it's not impartially and fairly applied.
 
I didn't want to get into this topic, but if I remember correctly, the FBI agents told Flynn it was not an official investigation, they just were curious about a few things.
They were still FBI agents. And lying to them is a felony. You have to be a moron to lie to an FBI agent. The feds don't screw around. That's where the idiom "make a federal case out of it" came from.

The feds are as serious as a heart attack.
 
They were still FBI agents. And lying to them is a felony. You have to be a moron to lie to an FBI agent. The feds don't screw around. That's where the idiom "make a federal case out of it" came from.

The feds are as serious as a heart attack.

You can't lie to them in an investigation, but what you tell them off the record is protected by our US Constitution. You can tell them anything you want.
 
He was already cooperating. He had been cooperating for a year. The cooperation was a condition of the plea deal he had entered into a year prior.

The judge didn't want to sentence him because the DOJ was recommending probation and the Mueller probe was still ongoing. Sullivan was hoping Mueller would give him some excuse to refuse the plea deal and throw the book at Flynn.

You were arguing that Flynn was abusing the legal system by dragging out the case, but that is not what happened. It was the government and the court that dragged it out, with the Mueller investigation and not sentencing Flynn in a timely manner.

You have it completely backwards. The longer Flynn delays sentencing, the longer he stays out of jail (number one). And the longer he cooperates, the more reason the DOJ has to prove the defendant deserves a lenient sentence.

Think of it like tipping your waiter, either at the beginning, or at the end.

When at the point where all he did was serve an appetizer, your tip won't be very big, since you have no idea how good the service will be throughout dinner.
But if you wait until the end, and you got great service, the tip would be much bigger, than if judged after just the first course.
 

Forum List

Back
Top