Flynn reverses guilty plea!

Well then if Comey is now the Judge and Jury....Trump is the one in trouble!
Originally Posted by WTF

Also of note -- and of more legal import -- is that the prosecution didn't inform Flynn or Flynn's lawyers that Comey had testified under oath that he didn't think Flynn had lied.

Also of note -- and of more legal import -- is that the prosecution didn't inform Flynn or Flynn's lawyers that Comey had testified under oath that he didn't think Flynn had lied. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Is it really important?

We shall see but Comey is not the judge. Evidently Flynn's attorney thought he was guilty enough as that is what Flynn plead.

Is it against the law for a DA to charge a person even if the investigating LE do not agree? Is the opinion of an investigator subject to disclosure? Let's ask know it all LL.

Also of note -- and of more legal import -- is that the prosecution didn't inform Flynn or Flynn's lawyers that Comey had testified under oath that he didn't think Flynn had lied. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Actually, the "issue" for Flynn is, and will be, if the statement he made was inconsistent with a recording that was captured by an illegal interception of a communication in which Flynn is supposed to have said or done the "thing" he is accused of lying about.

If the underlying activity or statement was illegally obtained it is suppressible pursuant to Federal Criminal Rules applying the 4th amendment principles .... and therefore the Government lacks sufficient evidence to bring a complaint against him. His plea, if based on evidence obtained in violation of the 4th amendment, may be withdrawn and the suppression of the evidence will result in the Government's case being dismissed for "lack of evidence"!

The new Judge on the case was reminding the Government of the Government's CONTINUING obligation to provide to Flynn's attorney all evidence of "exculpatory" matters, which the documentation supporting the search warrant application to the FISA COURT would be such information to review to determine if there was fraud that induced the Judge to sign the interception order.

Of course Munchie and WTF won't have a legitimate response to that proposition, so they will resort to grade school playground antics. NAME CALLING!

Is it really important?

#1: Is it against the law for a DA to charge a person even if the investigating LE do not agree? #2: Is the opinion of an investigator subject to disclosure? Let's ask know it all LL.
Originally Posted by WTF

You did ask, right? Those are EASY QUESTIONS!!!

Answer #1: No!

Answer #1: Yes!

If you want an explanation, that'll cost you!

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...don_power.html


You boys act as if this is Mullers first rodeo. . .

You boys act as if this is Mullers first rodeo. . . Originally Posted by WTF

Who is Mullers?

It wasn't Comey's "first rodeo," but he was absolutely wrong on the character of proof needed to charge and prosecute HillariousNoMore.

And based on recent revelations that decision was cooked up in the Spring of 2016 .... before they ever chatted with HillariousNoMore ... and BEFORE their boss chatted with HillariousNoMore's LOYAL HUBBY! He stated they had no "CLEAR" or "DIRECT" evidence.

Comey on July 5, 2016:

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

Also of note -- and of more legal import -- is that the prosecution didn't inform Flynn or Flynn's lawyers that Comey had testified under oath that he didn't think Flynn had lied. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You did ask, right? Those are EASY QUESTIONS!!!


Answer #1: Yes!

If you want an explanation, that'll cost you! Originally Posted by LexusLover

We shall see . . . I have not heard of Mike Flynn changing his guilty plea. Only bambino is privy to that news so far!

I think Flynn is cooperative with Muller and will not change his plea.

I've tried to get anyone who disagrees with me to bet but have found no takers as of yet.

Is it really important?

We shall see but Comey is not the judge. Evidently Flynn's attorney thought he was guilty enough as that is what Flynn plead.

Is it against the law for a DA to charge a person even if the investigating LE do not agree? Is the opinion of an investigator subject to disclosure? Let's ask know it all LL.

Originally Posted by WTF

It's against the law for the prosecution to withhold evidence that would benefit the defendant ... evidence that might have a direct impact on the defendant's decision to plea or go to trial.

Actually, the "issue" for Flynn is, and will be, if the statement he made was inconsistent with a recording that was captured by an illegal interception of a communication in which Flynn is supposed to have said or done the "thing" he is accused of lying about.

If the underlying activity or statement was illegally obtained it is suppressible pursuant to Federal Criminal Rules applying the 4th amendment principles .... and therefore the Government lacks sufficient evidence to bring a complaint against him. His plea, if based on evidence obtained in violation of the 4th amendment, may be withdrawn and the suppression of the evidence will result in the Government's case being dismissed for "lack of evidence"!

The new Judge on the case was reminding the Government of the Government's CONTINUING obligation to provide to Flynn's attorney all evidence of "exculpatory" matters, which the documentation supporting the search warrant application to the FISA COURT would be such information to review to determine if there was fraud that induced the Judge to sign the interception order.
Originally Posted by LexusLover

Exactly!

It's against the law for the prosecution to withhold evidence that would benefit the defendant ... evidence that might have a direct impact on the defendant's decision to plea or go to trial.

Exactly! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So you think Comey opinion of Flynn's guilt or innocence would have a direct impact on Flynn's decesion to plead guilty?

Because it sure as fuck sounds to me like Flynn lied to the FBI. Trump said he lied to the VP about the exact same thing and fired him for doing so. Is Trump lying?

I wonder why Flynn has not changed his plea then?

Either you two are incorrect or Flynn is pleading guilty to something Flynn thinks he is guilty of and Comey does not.

We shall see . . . I have not heard of Mike Flynn changing his guilty plea. Only bambino is privy to that news so far!

I think Flynn is cooperative with Muller and will not change his plea.

I've tried to get anyone who disagrees with me to bet but have found no takers as of yet. Originally Posted by WTF

No one in their right mind would bet on a decision that is made by an unknown lawyer discussing the matter in private with this client based upon evidence presented to the attorney on a nondisclosure basis to protect the security aspects of the information .... not even you!

There are rumors that MUELLER has not "debriefed' Flynn. Flynn doesn't have to say shit until he's asked. If he is asked and answers then his cooperation may be a small factor in a sentence determination. If he has a legitimate 4th amendment complaint he can withdraw his plea, file a motion to suppress and dismiss, hear it, and then appeal the trial Judge's decision.

Somewhere along that process the FISA application and order will become public domain and available for all to see. The cases against him can be dismissed to avoid public disclosure of a royal FBI fuck up! See Las Vegas rancher case! It's a bitter pill for Anti-Trumpers, but ....!

.. having an affirmative finding that the FBI/DOJ violated Federal law with perjury as icing would not be a pretty sight, particularly if it is confirmed that Obaminable was aware of the activities and took no action! And believe it or not, I don't think Trump would do that.

No one in their right mind would bet on a decision that is made by an unknown lawyer discussing the matter in private with this client based upon evidence presented to the attorney on a nondisclosure basis to protect the security aspects of the information .... not even you!

There are rumors that MUELLER has not "debriefed' Flynn. Flynn doesn't have to say shit until he's asked. If he is asked and answers then his cooperation may be a small factor in a sentence determination. If he has a legitimate 4th amendment complaint he can withdraw his plea, file a motion to suppress and dismiss, hear it, and then appeal the trial Judge's decision.

Somewhere along that process the FISA application and order will become public domain and available for all to see. The cases against him can be dismissed to avoid public disclosure of a royal FBI fuck up! See Las Vegas rancher case! It's a bitter pill for Anti-Trumpers, but ....!

.. having an affirmative finding that the FBI/DOJ violated Federal law with perjury as icing would not be a pretty sight, particularly if it is confirmed that Obaminable was aware of the activities and took no action! Originally Posted by LexusLover

May I suggest you read the link supplied on post 320 if you think Flynn is walking anytime soon.


May I add that the midterms will have an effect on all of this. If the House is lost and Trump damaged, he could lose key support and he will turn onto a. RHINO or spend the next two years fighting congress and Muller.

May I suggest you read the link supplied on post 320 if you think Flynn is walking anytime soon. Originally Posted by WTF

#1: Where did I post I "think Flynn is walking anytime soon"?

#2: No, but why do I need to "read the link"!

I examined his electronic case file. Did you?

I'll address your propensity to quote or pretend to quote people out of context. It's lame to say the least. It may sound good, but it's a waste of bandwidth and extraordinarily immature.

Like calling people "liars" and "faggots," as you do.

#1: Where did I post I "think Flynn is walking anytime soon"?

#2: No, but why do I need to "read the link"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Because it states the many charges that Muller has in his back pocket to charge Flynn with should this one go south.

Also of note -- and of more legal import -- is that the prosecution didn't inform Flynn or Flynn's lawyers that Comey had testified under oath that he didn't think Flynn had lied. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That would be admissible at a trial to exonerate Flynn.

That statement is one of those that the AUSA would HAVE TO EXPLORE in front of the jury before the defense did ... if the Government could ask it ... just to take the wind out of the defense's sails.

And coming from Comey, who was a former U.S. prosecutor, that is meaningful and material.

It's in effect: An admission by the Government through an employee/agent!

And coming from Comey, who was a former U.S. prosecutor, that is meaningful and material.

It's in effect: An admission by the Government through an employee/agent! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Well how meaningful and material would Comey's opinion be as to Trump's guilt on obstruction of justice?

No more so than this one I would assume and you seem to think Comey's opinion towards that is immaterial.

Jesus, we have divided Supreme Court decisions....just because another does not agree with one's analysis does not mean that analysis is invalid.

You seem to think it a slam dunk that Flynn will change his plea....yet you will not bet because of all the unknowns? Damn, that makes little sense.