- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What exactly was Flynn’s supposed lie?
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:09 am to BeefDawg
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:09 am to BeefDawg
quote:
He said he and Kislyak didn't discuss sanctions. But he sorta did (but really didn't)... in passing. Something along the lines of: (I'm paraphrasing here with some logical guesswork as we don't have the exact transcript, only media reports) Kislyak: "If we do as you ask with regards to Israel at the UN counsel, what can you do for us about the new sanctions Obama just imposed?" Flynn (from the beach with a few cocktails in him): "Just don't vote for that thing at the UN counsel and we'll talk more about sanctions after the inauguration." And don't forget, McCabe/Strzok/Comey/lord knows who else, already had a printout of the exact entire transcript of this conversation, with Flynn illegally unmasked. So they knew the answers to all these questions already. They knew he had done nothing wrong in the discussion. Even asking for the favor Re: Israel wasn't illegal (maybe unethical, but not illegal). And then after it was reported in the media just days later that he supposedly lied to the FBI about discussing sanctions (clearly this was leaked by Strozk or McCabe), VP Pence supposedly asked Flynn if he and Kislyak discussed sanctions and he told Pence, "No, absolutely not." And this when it gets fuzzy. Either Pence was given a copy of the transcript or Comey told him he did discuss sanctions and they were going to charge him with lying to the FBI. Because out of the blue about 2 weeks later, Trump fires Flynn, and the media claims it was because they confirmed he lied to Pence. But I'm not sure that's the truth. I think Rinse Penis just told Trump to cut bait and get rid of the headache/baggage, and Trump reluctantly did so. Because Pence never formally admitted Flynn lied to him. This was just a media rumor, as far as I can tell. The prevailing theory at this point is that the FBI insisted they discussed sanctions while Flynn disagreed. Flynn then stupidly hires a law firm directly linked to Eric Holder (still don't get why he did this), and they apparently tell him the FBI has him dead to rights. This is when the FBI also supposedly threatens to go after Flynn's son on some bogus "didn't file as an agent of a foreign country" bullshite. And shortly after, Flynn plea's guilty to lying to the FBI. Needless to say, they clearly didn't REALLY discuss sanctions. They certainly didn't discuss particulars. And it certainly wasn't a worse discussion than Obama himself had on camera caught hot-mic'd with the then Russian Ambassador back in 2008. Flynn got entrapped and railroaded, and all these dirty cops deserve to be sued for millions and then put in jail.
Thank you!
This is what I was looking for!
This post was edited on 5/22/20 at 10:10 am
0
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:09 am to therick711
quote:
I see. Let me clarify, Van Grack wanted it hidden from the Court and the public so it had to be done off the books, which seems to be a theme here.
Simply put, if Flynn did flip on Trump, Van Grack wanted it to look like he was not being pressured, therefore making him seem to be a more credible witness.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:10 am to GumboPot
Don’t forget his old lawyers had Eric Holder as a partner. Poor choice but shouldn’t he expect them to have his best interest at heart since the accepted his money. LOL
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:10 am to therick711
i admit i don't do federal stuff much, but even then
the court will just appoint an attorney to prosecute the matter on its behalf, even if the AUSA doesn't want to
that's what the court is doing, actually
quote:
(2) Appointing a Prosecutor. The court must request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government, unless the interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney. If the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.
the court will just appoint an attorney to prosecute the matter on its behalf, even if the AUSA doesn't want to
that's what the court is doing, actually
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:14 am to Baron
quote:
1. Whenever you agree to plea, it is standard that you sign an extensive plea agreement. In the plea agreement, you are swearing to the court in writing that a certain statement of “facts” is true and correct, as well as that you have not been threatened or coerced to plea.
2. If a defendant signs the plea agreement, and enters a plea before a judge, the defendant is put under oath and asked multiple questions including whether they are knowingly entering a guilty plea, whether they are being coerced or threatened in any way, whether the written plea agreement contains the entirety of the agreement between the defense and prosecution, and whether the statement of facts presented to the court is true and correct.
yeah and this is where i think some people have disconnect with what i'm saying
people, under oath, lie to the court ALL THE TIME in plea deals. at that point, the reality of the underlying facts become irrelevant. the elements of the crime and the facts surrounding them are admitted to, whether they are true or not.
the reality of the situation becomes irrelevant at that point
quote:
3. Once the defendant goes through all of that, it is difficult to withdraw the guilty plea before sentencing. It’s hard to argue that the defendant was now coerced, threatened, or did not actually commit the alleged acts because that means he lied to the court at the guilty plea (which is what I assume Sullivan refers to whenever he mentions “perjury”).
4. Although it is extremely rare for a defendant to successfully withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing, it has happened in cases where prosecutorial misconduct has later been revealed. It is my understanding that this is the basis that the DOJ has agreed to drop charges, although not all of the misconduct has come to light.
yeah these are the main Flynn issues
i don't think he'd have his plea withdrawn without Brady violations. i think there were some, and that's why the DOJ wants to dismiss. if they don't dismiss, they will have to reveal a lot more than what they are comfortable admitting, which will be a circus that ultimately results in the dismissal of the case anyway.
that's why this dog and pony show from the judge is so stupid, it's hard to imagine it's not partisan
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:14 am to Jimbeaux
This is the modern day version of "beating" a confession out of someone.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:15 am to GumboPot
quote:
Flynn's plea was self preservation. It came after 9 months of federal government harassment that drove him to sell his house to pay legal fees and the threat of the federal government going after his son. He apparently weighed his options and decided a guilty plea with a sentence of 2 weeks was worth the price to get the federal government off his back.
But you knew he was coerced into a plea.
are you calling the first paragraph coercion?
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the court will just appoint an attorney to prosecute the matter on its behalf, even if the AUSA doesn't want to
that's what the court is doing, actually
That's not true. The Court appointed an amicus to oppose the motion to dismiss and to provide a "nonbinding opinion" on whether criminal contempt should be charged. You really should look more into this before opining. People are assuming that you know what's being done given you are an attorney.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:16 am to oogabooga68
quote:
This is the modern day version of "beating" a confession out of someone.
i hope none of y'all making these posts ever "backed the blue" or openly supported "law and order" policies and candidates
Flynn's "beating" was super light compared to what tens of thousands of people go through EVERY WEEK across the US
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:17 am to therick711
quote:
The Court appointed an amicus to oppose the motion to dismiss and to provide a "nonbinding opinion" on whether criminal contempt should be charged. You really should look more into this before opining.
i'm not giving legal advice and i'm simplifying the process for people who believe that threat of prosecution is "coercion" worthy enough to withdraw a plea
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
hope none of y'all making these posts ever "backed the blue" or openly supported "law and order" policies and candidates
That's a complete non sequitur. I'm certainly not a friend of overreaching prosecution or police misconduct, but I also have a healthy respect for the law and think it should be applied fairly and consistently.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:19 am to Jimbeaux
Flynn was having conversations with the Chief Russian spy in the US, lied
To the FBI and Pence about these conversations to conceal his actions and then pleaded guilty to the crime. Flynn is a
Security loose cannon.
To the FBI and Pence about these conversations to conceal his actions and then pleaded guilty to the crime. Flynn is a
Security loose cannon.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i'm not giving legal advice and i'm simplifying the process for people who believe that threat of prosecution is "coercion" worthy enough to withdraw a plea
No offense to you intended, but when you say "that is what they are doing," people may believe that Gleeson was appointed under Rule 42, especially given what you were responding to. That's a pretty big issue and Gleeson is not doing that. I also think you'd be interested in the particulars of this thing. The targeting of Flynn goes back to at least 2014. Amazing.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:21 am to therick711
quote:
That's a complete non sequitur
no it's fricking not. this is how LEO and prosecutors across the country work
you get charges stacked and plea to shite to avoid the whole hammer of the state
Flynn wasn't "coerced" anymore than 90%+ of people convicted of crimes are
now did Flynn have other issues, like the prosecution withholding potential Brady material? yes, which isn't as common, but isn't "coercion". THAT is a separate argument that has NOTHING to do with the alleged "lie" at the issue of this thread
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:22 am to therick711
quote:
I also think you'd be interested in the particulars of this thing. The targeting of Flynn goes back to at least 2014. Amazing.
flynn got railroaded
like pretty much all criminal defendants
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Flynn's "beating" was super light compared to what tens of thousands of people go through EVERY WEEK across the US
A 3 star general with years of dedicated service to this country took a beating from the very govt he served and did so because of his opposition to the Iran deal. They tried to bankrupt him which is of course the same thing they were doing to Michael Cohen. They were also holding his son as leverage. This was a purely political assault on not only his 4th amendment rights but done so using tools that are not allowed on American citizens - of course Obama spying and politicizing of the 3 letter agencies knew no bounds they wouldn't cross to leverage outcomes they wanted because they have the media in their pocket. Certainly, people do get railroaded by the govt and forced into false confessions. Doing it to a 3 star general is going to raise some serious red flags. This is soviet justice at it's finest and should never happen to another human being. The govt has ran amuck.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Flynn wasn't "coerced" anymore than 90%+ of people convicted of crimes are
So he was unmasked, his conversations were illegally leaked to the media. He was informed he did not need a lawyer. He was not warned about 1001. The FBI leaked that they had found no crimes before his interview. The FBI tried to close his case because no derogatory evidence was found. He was unmasked contrary to law, he was spied on contrary to law. What happened here is not typical. Further, just because you don't like the pleas exacted from 90% of people doesn't make this ok. It just means they are abusive and they should be reined in.
Brady stuff is unconscionable, I agree with you.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:just take your L and sit down. You've been soundly beaten. clearly therick is a better lawyer than you are. the other poster probably too.
i'm not giving legal advice and i'm simplifying the process for people who believe that threat of prosecution is "coercion" worthy enough to withdraw a plea
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:28 am to Geauxst Writer
quote:
Flynn was having conversations with the Chief Russian spy in the US, lied
To the FBI and Pence about these conversations to conceal his actions and then pleaded guilty to the crime. Flynn is a
Security loose cannon.
Flynn was having discussions with the ambassador of Russia. Pefectly legal conversations might I add as the incoming National Security Advisor.
If lying to the FBI is such a crime why is Andy Mccabe not in prison?
Keep in mind - in order to prove he lied - the govt is required to produce evidence / Brady Material - evidence to this day they have yet to produce.
Then to top it all off - it's essentially 2 agents in the interview with no recording providing a recollection of the conversation. That's a flimsy bridge to hang someone up on a lie. I would hope that you , me or anyone else would have an issue with that because that's not enough evidence and it relies not only on recollection - considering the transcript - edited version of the 302 was produced what - 3 months after the fact. That's fricking criminal. If you can't produce an original then there is frickery afoot.
Then we have notes and interviews from Comey about the motives of why they went after Flynn in the first place and the motive of the agents. Laying a perjury trap on someone and admitting to it on paper is a real problem.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:29 am to therick711
quote:
So he was unmasked, his conversations were illegally leaked to the media. He was informed he did not need a lawyer.
you're taking different arguments and blending them into one
Flynn entered a plea because of his exposure (and his son's potential exposure). he pled because of the potential risk of a trial, in terms of years. that was not "coercion" anymore than 90%+ of people convicted of crimes are.
now, what i quoted above is another issue entirely. that part was different, certainly. but that isn't what "coerced him". the investigation was highly unusual and likely illegal. he conviction could have been thrown out if it did rise to illegality (along with Brady violations).
quote:
Further, just because you don't like the pleas exacted from 90% of people doesn't make this ok. It just means they are abusive and they should be reined in.
all LEO and prosecutors should be reigned in
anyone who is freaking out over Flynn, but doesn't freak out over Jamal or Jaxtyn, needs to get their head out of their arse
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News