What is the future of the Republican Party?

[Archy1221]

2 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

The mental gymnastics are incredible. 

 

However, I'm in the minority when I say that the Republican party - the anti-Democratic crazy one it morphed into - is more than fine. I would say it has massive electoral advantages. 

 

Unless Americans reject their form of crazy, and Archy1221 is demonstrating that this will not happen, the United States is heading towards bleak future.

So you are saying you haven’t followed the case too?  It does take mental gymnastics to say the DOJ was fair to Flynn when they clearly were not early on in the case.  
 

People like yourself and knapp most likely followed the news stories up until the time he initially plead guilty and decided that was it, no need to follow what else has happened, and no matter what else came out since then you were not changing your mind.  All you have have to do is look at the documents from the court proceedings of when Flynn recanted his Plea.  
 

When folks continue believing false talking points like what Strangelove is demonstrating that doesn’t happen, it will continue to polarize and lead to a bleak future for the US. 

[RedDenver]

7 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

folks continue believing false talking points

Quoted for truth and lack of self-awareness

[Born N Bled Red]

6 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

So you are saying you haven’t followed the case too?  It does take mental gymnastics to say the DOJ was fair to Flynn when they clearly were not early on in the case.  
 

People like yourself and knapp most likely followed the news stories up until the time he initially plead guilty and decided that was it, no need to follow what else has happened, and no matter what else came out since then you were not changing your mind.  All you have have to do is look at the documents from the court proceedings of when Flynn recanted his Plea.  
 

When folks continue believing false talking points like what Strangelove is demonstrating that doesn’t happen, it will continue to polarize and lead to a bleak future for the US. 

 

Ugh... he plead guilty until it became apparent that Trump would pardon him. Then of course he recanted. You see, it goes like this. 

 

You can be a liar, you can be a crook

But if you got Trump's back, he'll let you off the hook

Flynn plead guilty to what we all know was true

But Trump said, if you keep your mouth shut, I've got a pardon for you

So Flynn recanted, and told another lie

He even made up some bs. alibi. 

Now he's out of the slammer free to do it all again

Because there is no accountability if you're a Trumpublican. 

[knapplc]

11 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

So you are saying you haven’t followed the case too?  It does take mental gymnastics to say the DOJ was fair to Flynn when they clearly were not early on in the case.  
 

People like yourself and knapp most likely followed the news stories up until the time he initially plead guilty and decided that was it, no need to follow what else has happened, and no matter what else came out since then you were not changing your mind.  All you have have to do is look at the documents from the court proceedings of when Flynn recanted his Plea.  
 

When folks continue believing false talking points like what Strangelove is demonstrating that doesn’t happen, it will continue to polarize and lead to a bleak future for the US. 

 

I'm aware of the facts of the Flynn case. I'm also aware of the right-wing spin about the Flynn case. Apparently several of us posting here are able to see through the BS and understand what actually happened. Apparently some just want to believe the party line.  

[Archy1221]

54 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So...let's look at what happened.

 

Flynn plead guilty.

 

Trump fired him.

 

Flynn recanted his plea.

 

So, you're saying Trump should have never fired him....before he knew he was going to recant his plea.

https://innocenceproject.org/guilty-plea-campaign-announcement/

 

https://www.guiltypleaproblem.org/
 

from The Hill:  Andrew McCarthy

 

Powell and other champions of Flynn's cause have long claimed he did not lie to investigators -- a claim supported by the interviewing FBI agents, who concluded that Flynn had not made intentional misstatements, just failures of recollection, which are common. Instead, they maintain that Flynn was coerced into pleading guilty nearly a year later by special counsel Robert Mueller's team of hyper-aggressive prosecutors. Prosecutors did this, Powell argues, by threatening that if he refused to plead, they would prosecute his son. The son, also named Michael Flynn, worked in Gen. Flynn's private intelligence firm, which Team Mueller was scrutinizing over its alleged failure to register with the government as a foreign agent - a dubious allegation that was rarely handled as a criminal offense before Mueller's probe.

After DOJ's revelations last Friday, Powell filed a submission with the court, asserting that the new disclosures demonstrate that Mueller's prosecutors not only pressured Flynn with the possibility of indicting his son; they also secretly assured Flynn's former counsel, the well-connected Washington firm of Covington & Burling (C&B), that Flynn's son would not be prosecuted if Flynn pleaded guilty. This "side deal" (a) was not explicitly memorialized in the formal plea agreement, (b) was not otherwise disclosed to the court as federal law requires, and (c) was designed to enable prosecutors to evade their due process obligations in future cases.

https://www.cato.org/blog/two-things-nearly-everyone-gets-wrong-about-michael-flynn-case

 

But Flynn continued to maintain his innocence, and his attorneys continued pressing for production of the 302 and other discovery—which the government continued to withhold.

It has been reported, credibly in my judgment, that the stalemate was brought to a head when the SCO leaked to certain reporters that a guilty plea from Flynn would ensure that Flynn's son, who was under investigation as Flynn senior's business partner (and also happened to be the father of Flynn senior's four-month-old grandchild) would not be prosecuted. This is the sort of despicable tactic one associates with tyrants and dictators; but to our infinite discredit, it appears to have become a routine feature of American prosecutions as well.

 

Last year, Flynn changed lawyers and filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, partly on the basis that SCO prosecutors improperly withheld from him evidence that should have been produced during the plea discussions in November 2017—including that 302 form. 

Why is the 302 such a big deal? Simply put, because it now appears the two FBI agents who conducted the interview with Flynn on which the subsequent false-statements charge was predicated at first reported to their superiors that they did not think Flynn had been deceitful during the interview and that any inaccurate responses to their questions were the result of a memory lapse, not a deliberate attempt to deceive. If that turns out to be true, then it seems plausible, indeed likely, that that sentiment is reflected in the still-missing original 302 that the SCO would have been obliged to produce during plea negotiations in November 2017. Among other things, the timely production of such a document to Flynn would not only have strengthened his resolve to continue fighting the charges against him, it would likely have made it all but impossible to convict him of those charges since intent to deceive is an element of the false-statements crime and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.

[knapplc]

Judge tosses criminal charge against Flynn following Trump pardon

 

 

 

A federal judge has closed the four-year-old criminal case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn, acknowledging the pardon that President Donald Trump issued last week to the only Trump administration official charged in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

 

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan — who’d been wrestling for months with a highly unusual request from Attorney General William Barr to drop the prosecution — said Tuesday that bid was rendered moot by Trump’s decision to grant Flynn a sweeping pardon for his alleged lies to the FBI and any other offenses he may have committed in connection with Mueller’s probe.

 

“The history of the Constitution, its structure, and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the pardon power make clear that President Trump’s decision to pardon Mr. Flynn is a political decision, not a legal one,” Sullivan wrote in a 43-page opinion. “Because the law recognizes the President’s political power to pardon, the appropriate course is to dismiss this case as moot.

 

Although Sullivan ultimately ended the case, he lambasted the Justice Department for what he said was a highly questionable, if not indefensible, decision to drop the charges against Flynn. Sullivan also asserted that judges have the power to reject the dismissal of charges in a criminal case when the government’s actions are called into question.

 

Sullivan declared that the explanations Barr offered through his deputies for the decision to abandon the case were “dubious to say the least” and would arguably overcome the long-held “presumption of regularity” that government officials are generally afforded by the courts.

 

Sullivan said many of the rationales offered by the government “appear pretextual, particularly in view of the surrounding circumstances.”

 

“For example, Mr. Flynn was serving as an adviser to President Trump’s transition team during the events that gave rise to the conviction here, and, as this case has progressed, President Trump has not hidden the extent of his interest in this case,” Sullivan said.

 

Sullivan also noted that Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, had acknowledged conferring with Trump about the status of the case in the weeks preceding a September hearing.

 

Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to the FBI about his pre-inauguration contacts with Russia’s U.S. ambassador, Sergey Kislyak. After initially cooperating with Mueller, Flynn came before Sullivan for sentencing in late 2018 at a hearing in which Sullivan excoriated the former national security adviser for his conduct. But Sullivan opted against sentencing Flynn immediately, instead giving him a chance to finish his cooperation with prosecutors.

 

Several months later, Flynn fired his legal team and hired Powell, a firebrand who has since become a key figure in Trump’s attempt to subvert the 2020 election results. With Powell as his attorney, Flynn accused prosecutors and the FBI of “egregious misconduct” and later moved to withdraw his guilty plea. That effort was aided earlier this year when Barr authorized DOJ to drop the case against Flynn, claiming that the initial January 2017 interview where he allegedly lied was not legally justified and that other evidence undermining Flynn’s guilt had just been unearthed.

 

But rather than quickly dismissing the case, Sullivan pushed back, appointing an outside adviser who urged him to reject DOJ’s motion as a thinly veiled effort to protect an ally of the president who was implicated in the same investigation that threatened Trump. Flynn’s lawyers asked a federal appeals court to step in and shut down the case, but that effort was ultimately unsuccessful.

 

Sullivan’s consideration of the government’s motion to dismiss the case it filed three years ago was still pending when Trump moved to pardon Flynn last month.

 

In his ruling Tuesday, Sullivan pointedly cited Supreme Court precedent declaring that accepting a pardon amounts to a “confession” of guilt. The judge also said it did not mean Flynn had committed no crime.

 

“The pardon ‘does not, standing alone, render [Mr. Flynn] innocent of the alleged violation,’” Sullivan added.

 

Sullivan noted questions some critics have raised about whether Trump’s pardon sought to rule out future charges against Flynn. While a president can block future charges for past conduct, the pardon power does not permit clemency for future actions.

 

But the judge said the intricacies of those issues would be left for another day, if they arise.

 

“The scope of the pardon is extraordinarily broad — it applies not only to the false statements offense to which Mr. Flynn twice pled guilty in this case, but also purports to apply to ‘any and all possible offenses’ that he might be charged with in the future in relation to this case and Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation,” the judge wrote. “However, the Court need only consider the pardon insofar as it applies to the offense to which Mr. Flynn twice pled guilty in this case.”

 

 

 

 

 

There's not enough lipstick in the world to pretty up this pig. 

 

It's comical that trump's pardon is enough to convince trumpets that Flynn is innocent. But the judge saw through all of that and made it very clear this was a political stunt by trump, and Flynn was not exonerated. 

 

Those are the facts. 

[Archy1221]

12 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Quoted for truth and lack of self-awareness

You gonna take the whole quote or nah?

[Archy1221]

Just now, knapplc said:

Judge tosses criminal charge against Flynn following Trump pardon

 

 

 

A federal judge has closed the four-year-old criminal case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn, acknowledging the pardon that President Donald Trump issued last week to the only Trump administration official charged in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

 

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan — who’d been wrestling for months with a highly unusual request from Attorney General William Barr to drop the prosecution — said Tuesday that bid was rendered moot by Trump’s decision to grant Flynn a sweeping pardon for his alleged lies to the FBI and any other offenses he may have committed in connection with Mueller’s probe.

 

“The history of the Constitution, its structure, and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the pardon power make clear that President Trump’s decision to pardon Mr. Flynn is a political decision, not a legal one,” Sullivan wrote in a 43-page opinion. “Because the law recognizes the President’s political power to pardon, the appropriate course is to dismiss this case as moot.

 

Although Sullivan ultimately ended the case, he lambasted the Justice Department for what he said was a highly questionable, if not indefensible, decision to drop the charges against Flynn. Sullivan also asserted that judges have the power to reject the dismissal of charges in a criminal case when the government’s actions are called into question.

 

Sullivan declared that the explanations Barr offered through his deputies for the decision to abandon the case were “dubious to say the least” and would arguably overcome the long-held “presumption of regularity” that government officials are generally afforded by the courts.

 

Sullivan said many of the rationales offered by the government “appear pretextual, particularly in view of the surrounding circumstances.”

 

“For example, Mr. Flynn was serving as an adviser to President Trump’s transition team during the events that gave rise to the conviction here, and, as this case has progressed, President Trump has not hidden the extent of his interest in this case,” Sullivan said.

 

Sullivan also noted that Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, had acknowledged conferring with Trump about the status of the case in the weeks preceding a September hearing.

 

Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to the FBI about his pre-inauguration contacts with Russia’s U.S. ambassador, Sergey Kislyak. After initially cooperating with Mueller, Flynn came before Sullivan for sentencing in late 2018 at a hearing in which Sullivan excoriated the former national security adviser for his conduct. But Sullivan opted against sentencing Flynn immediately, instead giving him a chance to finish his cooperation with prosecutors.

 

Several months later, Flynn fired his legal team and hired Powell, a firebrand who has since become a key figure in Trump’s attempt to subvert the 2020 election results. With Powell as his attorney, Flynn accused prosecutors and the FBI of “egregious misconduct” and later moved to withdraw his guilty plea. That effort was aided earlier this year when Barr authorized DOJ to drop the case against Flynn, claiming that the initial January 2017 interview where he allegedly lied was not legally justified and that other evidence undermining Flynn’s guilt had just been unearthed.

 

But rather than quickly dismissing the case, Sullivan pushed back, appointing an outside adviser who urged him to reject DOJ’s motion as a thinly veiled effort to protect an ally of the president who was implicated in the same investigation that threatened Trump. Flynn’s lawyers asked a federal appeals court to step in and shut down the case, but that effort was ultimately unsuccessful.

 

Sullivan’s consideration of the government’s motion to dismiss the case it filed three years ago was still pending when Trump moved to pardon Flynn last month.

 

In his ruling Tuesday, Sullivan pointedly cited Supreme Court precedent declaring that accepting a pardon amounts to a “confession” of guilt. The judge also said it did not mean Flynn had committed no crime.

 

“The pardon ‘does not, standing alone, render [Mr. Flynn] innocent of the alleged violation,’” Sullivan added.

 

Sullivan noted questions some critics have raised about whether Trump’s pardon sought to rule out future charges against Flynn. While a president can block future charges for past conduct, the pardon power does not permit clemency for future actions.

 

But the judge said the intricacies of those issues would be left for another day, if they arise.

 

“The scope of the pardon is extraordinarily broad — it applies not only to the false statements offense to which Mr. Flynn twice pled guilty in this case, but also purports to apply to ‘any and all possible offenses’ that he might be charged with in the future in relation to this case and Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation,” the judge wrote. “However, the Court need only consider the pardon insofar as it applies to the offense to which Mr. Flynn twice pled guilty in this case.”

 

 

 

 

 

There's not enough lipstick in the world to pretty up this pig. 

 

It's comical that trump's pardon is enough to convince trumpets that Flynn is innocent. But the judge saw through all of that and made it very clear this was a political stunt by trump, and Flynn was not exonerated. 

 

Those are the facts. 

LOL.   Not surprised you don’t understand the case whatsoever.   Maybe look up the Smackdown Sullivan took in previous litigation prior to the pardon.  Sullivan was going to lose this private jihad he had against Flynn.  It was only a matter of time.  Why don’t you find out why Sullivan delayed this case at every possible turn.  
 

It’s comical when people just pick the first google search to copy and paste in order to try and make a point not realizing they aren’t actually making that point.  
 

Care to share the 302 information?  Care to talk about some of the other Brady material that was withheld from Flynn?  Care to share that the FBI agents also believed Flynn to be telling the truth?   Or you just wanna continue with the False narrative?  

[Archy1221]

17 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

Ugh... he plead guilty until it became apparent that Trump would pardon him. Then of course he recanted. You see, it goes like this. 

 

You can be a liar, you can be a crook

But if you got Trump's back, he'll let you off the hook

Flynn plead guilty to what we all know was true

But Trump said, if you keep your mouth shut, I've got a pardon for you

So Flynn recanted, and told another lie

He even made up some bs. alibi. 

Now he's out of the slammer free to do it all again

Because there is no accountability if you're a Trumpublican. 

You will make a great fiction writer some day!  Look forward to reading.  BTW, how bout them 302’s?  

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Not surprised you don’t understand the case whatsoever.

 

It's sad that you continue to resort to these kinds of personal attacks when presented with the facts of the case. Unsurprising, but sad.

[Archy1221]

Just now, knapplc said:

 

It's sad that you continue to resort to these kinds of personal attacks when presented with the facts of the case. Unsurprising, but sad.

Personal attacks..LOL....that is your go to every time you are proven wrong yet don’t admit it.  It’s not an attack when it’s true that you don’t know much of anything about the case from 2019 on based on your posts on the case.  Setting the record straight is not a personal attack.......
 

Notice you don’t discuss any of the points of WHY he recanted his plea and how his case changed once he changed counsel and new counsel was able to get access to Brady material?    
 

 

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

every time you are proven wrong yet don’t admit it

 

You haven't proven anything. 

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

you don’t know much of anything about the case from 2019 on based on your posts on the case

 

I literally posted the end of the case analysis and Sullivan's dismissal. That you keep claiming this in spite of the posts put before you tells me you aren't reading anything other than what you post. Sad. 

 

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

Notice you don’t discuss any of the points of WHY he recanted his plea

 

I have. 

 

 

[Archy1221]

Just now, knapplc said:

 

You haven't proven anything. 

 

I literally posted the end of the case analysis and Sullivan's dismissal. That you keep claiming this in spite of the posts put before you tells me you aren't reading anything other than what you post. Sad. 

 

 

I have. 

 

 

You have no idea why Sullivan kept the case going and not accepting the DOJ dropping the case AFTER FINALLY giving the Brady material to the defendant which exonerated Flynn.    SAD but not unexpected! 

[knapplc]

9 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

You have no idea why Sullivan kept the case going and not accepting the DOJ dropping the case AFTER FINALLY giving the Brady material to the defendant which exonerated Flynn.

 

Why don't you explain it in simple terms instead of continuing to infer things.

[Archy1221]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

Why don't you explain it in simple terms instead of continuing to infer things.

Why don’t you acknowledge that the actual FBI agents (you know the experts with years of training) doing the investigation thought Flynn believed he was telling the truth.   Then acknowledge that the DOJ withheld those 302’s, and then acknowledge that Flynn was fighting the case the whole time until Mueller’s group decided to go after Flynn’s son for something unless Flynn plead guilty to a SINGLE count of lying.