Flynn is off the hook.

What law? Please cite the law he broke. And if you can't just say so and quit wasting bandwidth on your bullshit.

BTW: This predator "broke the law" ....

Originally Posted by LexusLover

9500

I knew you were too dumb to answer the question. You just proved it.

BTW: People plead guilty to crimes/things they did not commit daily .... when the criminal courts are open and not closed due to the Covid19.

The Predator ADMITTED HE LIED! After his FAT HAGGY WIFE LIED ABOUT IT ALSO!

9500

The Predator ADMITTED HE LIED! After his FAT HAGGY WIFE LIED ABOUT IT ALSO! Originally Posted by LexusLover

IF . . . he broke the law,

What law? Please cite the law he broke. And if you can't just say so and quit wasting bandwidth on your bullshit. Originally Posted by LexusLover

why did you set in quotes?

Form is better. Substance still shit though.

18 U.S.C. § 1001 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a)  Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully--

(2)  makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism . . .,

Keep kissing it.

Still nothing worth reading from you.

IF . . . he broke the law,



why did you set in quotes?

Form is better. Substance still shit though.

18 U.S.C. § 1001 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1001. Statements or entries generally
Still nothing worth reading from you. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Ignorant grunts like you don't benefit from intellectual discussion .... It's apparent from your bullshit post.

Did you read what you posted (criminal statute) or did you not understand it?

What was the Government investigating when they talked to Flynn?

Hint: This discussion will not end well with you. You're too dumb!

Like this guy!


I will repeat: People daily plead guilty to shit they didn't do. But you wouldn't know about that, would you?

Ignorant grunts like you don't benefit from intellectual discussion .... It's apparent from your bullshit post.

Did you read what you posted (criminal statute) or did you not understand it?

What was the Government investigating when they talked to Flynn?


Now your changing the subject just to make yourself feel better. Like The Waco Kid. "Feel better now, man?"

I will repeat: People daily plead guilty to shit they didn't do. But you wouldn't know about that, would you? Originally Posted by LexusLover

I would. I'm personally grossly familiar with law enforcement and judicial proceedings. I'm even aware of a case in New York commonly known as the Central Park Five case. Are you?















Hide behind quotes and parentheses.

You think I don't know your type?

I think that if Flynn's book is written, it could easily outsell Bolton's

Deflection and denial - 9500 - the Centrla Park 5 has nothing to do with Fynn,
Again - you would not want to be coerced to plead guilty as was Flynn - it is the politicizedFBI protecting its underhanded Deep State Dealinigs - and trying to delay until Biden gets elected to protect the miscreants.



summary - it is a fine thing to do to republicans - but not to Me as a Lib-Dem. Hypocrisy
Rule of law is for everyone equally - the Lib Dem Mob and LSM are destroying that in favor of 'special carveouts " for themselves and their Plantation Politics groups.

Somebody was asking what the 3rd judge said in opposition to the 2 judges that ordered the case be dismissed. The judge disagreed and said that Sullivan should have been given more time to decide what he was going to do.

Obviously this third judge wasn't aware along with Sullivan, that the SC including Ginsburg had already set the precedent that if the DOJ wants to drop the case and the defendant agrees as Flynn did, that's it, case closed. Sullivan can not legally refuse though he may try and eventually get slapped down by the Supremes.

I called this months ago and posted the SC case in which Ginsburg said something to the effect that a judge can not be the prosecutor and bring his own charges. If the DOJ says they want to drop the case, you drop the case, period.

I'm constantly amazed that I know the law better than some of these judges. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

the 3rd judge with an opposing view is a democrat obama appointee.

Article in the waPo by Ann Marimow - 2-1 decision of he federal appeal court -"It is not within the judge's power to prolong a prosecution or examine the government's motives motives in the case. Panel majority ruled Sullivan overstepped his role and committed a "clear legal error" by refusing to immediately close the case. . This ruling may be reviewed

Sullivan can ask for a rehearing , or the full appeals court could decide to revisit the ruling.



Why is sullivan playing this game against Flynn - He is acting as a prosecutor and Judge.

A thought - If sullivan prolongs a final decision with legal maneuvering - until nov 3, 2020- hoping biden wins and a new DOJ would re-institute the case against Flynn - then sullivan wins.Sullivan might be able to keep the case alive until that point.

Sullivan's legal appointee Gleeson might then be able to introduce charges for Perjury against Flynn for pleading guilty Falsely to the charges.

Gleeson hs said"dropping the case is highly irregular conduct to benefit a political ally of the President. Don't tell me sullivan and co. are not clearly playing politics against flynn and Trump - If the accused was susan rice - sullivan would like not just drop the case - he would submit a directed verdict in favor of defendant.

The usual LibDem hypocrisy.

They won't give up the hate in trying to further ruin Gen Flynn and his family.

the 3rd judge with an opposing view is a democrat obama appointee. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Who apparently doesn't understand the precedent already set. Giving judge Sullivan the time to continue to flout the law is to not understand the basic premise that the other 2 judges understood. When the DOJ and the defendant both agree that a case should be dropped, there is no argument to be had. Just ask RBG.


While opponents can continue to argue till the cows come home that the DOJ's decision was political, that is not a judgement that Sullivan can make.


As to Flynn, what should have been done by the FBI who if interested in the truth as opposed to trying to find a reason to prosecute when they go into the interview not believing he had committed a crime ( if they did think that, what was the crime ) would be to say "General Flynn, we have this phone call between you and the Russian Amb. and we have concerns about it, could you explain your thinking"? Of course that would have been ridiculous since no law was broken. This leads any sane person to conclude as the DOJ obviously did, there was no predicate to send the FBI to interview Flynn. With no predicate, nothing Flynn said could be used against him using the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. If you don't have a legal reason, a warrant and you collect information, you may not use that information to prosecute.


There was nothing hard to understand about any of this but as Comey said "I thought I could get away with it".


I'm hoping Durham tells Comey "you didn't get away with it Mr. Comey".

Deflection and denial - 9500 - .. Originally Posted by oeb11

To a degree one must give 9500 a little slack, since he's NEVER dealt with the Feds on that level when they place the inverted pyramid of the United States of America on the top of one's head while at the same time threatening the victim's family members with persecution. Which is one reason there are so few Federal criminal trials in comparison to the State Courts. The mandatory minimums with stacked sentencing can be overpowering when negotiating for a plea. The only wild card is the Judge must approve the plea agreement, which includes the sentence.

When that pressure is based upon misrepresented and fraudulent allegations, then it infringes on due process and voids the agreement .... like any agreement it can be challenged on the basis that it was fraudulently induced.

One can see from the Judge's conduct recently he was (and is) not interested in assuring that Flynn's rights were protected and that the agreement fit the allegations of fact and the underlying and supporting evidence.

9500 is clueless.

“9500 is clueless.“

EccieClueless9500

“9500 is clueless.“

EccieClueless9500 Originally Posted by bambino

OH No no no .. he's far worse than that .. he's an idealist who's been told he's been "oppressed" by whitey from birth and he's bitter about it. throw in a Noam Chomsky/Saul Alinsky Molotov cocktail of radical socialism and anarchy and you get ecky9.5k



BAHHAHAAAA

“9500 is clueless.“

EccieClueless9500 Originally Posted by bambino

In another thread he posted a link to a 4th Circuit case that was nothing more than regurgitation of existing law applying the "qualified immunity" that has been in existence as long and that provides a guide at how it is applied and how it works.

Subjecting ANYONE to frivolous litigation is remarkably stupid.

It doesn't help the victim it will help the lawyers on both sides.

You won't find many cops that can pay a judgment over a $1,000 or have property to satisfy any judgment.

I would. I'm personally grossly familiar with law enforcement and judicial proceedings.

Are you?
Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Being a defendant in a case doesn't qualify you for shit!

Because ....

... if you had understood "the law" you wouldn't have been a defendant!

OH No no no .. he's far worse than that .. he's an idealist who's been told he's been "oppressed" by whitey from birth and he's bitter about it. throw in a Noam Chomsky/Saul Alinsky Molotov cocktail of radical socialism and anarchy and you get ecky9.5k Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

That's two GIFs. Be original.

Being a defendant in a case doesn't qualify you for shit!

Because ....

... if you had understood "the law" you wouldn't have been a defendant! Originally Posted by LexusLover

And there is the pus. Your glowing muddy-yellow racism is out. Like Tony Montana said: "You just know how to hide."











Very flattering Wacky.

I know your type Lexy.