Michael Flynn : soon to be completely exonerated

[Shalcker]

Try reading that statement again. Here I will even bold the important part you ignored to make your nonsensical "point"

Which evidence do you consider important enough to remain convinced even when Flynn reversed his course?

I prefer to change my opinion when new evidence emerges.

[Ripster42]

You mean that case where
Judge tosses conviction against Michael Flynn's ex-lobbying partner, Bijan Rafiekian
A jury convicted Bijan Rafiekian in July, but a judge said "the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law ... "
?

In july. After the lawyers who were on meuller's team left the case. The ones who didn't have flynn testify. The ones who instead ending up labeling him as a co-conspirator. All of this is after the recommendation.

[Shalcker]

In july. After the lawyers who were on meuller's team left the case. The ones who didn't have flynn testify. The ones who instead ending up labeling him as a co-conspirator. All of this is after the recommendation.

I'm not sure what your point is?

Judge decision i linked is from September; jury decision is from July. Flynn didn't testify on Rafiekian case because, by his claim, prosecutors wanted him to "compose" case for them and provide false statements. As we see without him this case had insufficient evidence to convict.

Case against Bijan Kian mentioned in your links was also thrown out.

[Ripster42]

Which evidence do you consider important enough to remain convinced even when Flynn reversed his course?

I prefer to change my opinion when new evidence emerges.

This is the wrong question. It's, "what evidence do you have the flynn was illegally pressured to plead guilty?" That's what's at hand, unless this new political appointee interferes. Which would just bring another impeachment charge.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure what your point is?

This judge decision is from September; jury decision is from July. Flynn didn't testify on that case because, by his claim, prosecutors wanted him to "compose" case for them and provide false statements. As we see without him this case had insufficient evidence to convict.

And what we're talking about isn't that judge's decision in that case, but why flynn got the recommendation, and the likelihood of winning an appeal. As he's brought no evidence of illegal pressure brought by prosecutors, the whole "when new evidence comes to light" really sounds like a bunch of horseshit coming from you.

[Shalcker]

And what we're talking about isn't that judge's decision in that case, but why flynn got the recommendation, and the likelihood of winning an appeal. As he's brought no evidence of illegal pressure brought by prosecutors, the whole "when new evidence comes to light" really sounds like a bunch of horseshit coming from you.

Look, people accuse Flynn of "selling out country" while his cooperation with FBI investigation is praised by FBI, and yet every case about people with whom he supposedly "sold out country" is getting thrown out.

Isn't that peculiar?

[Ripster42]

Look, people accuse Flynn of "selling out country" while his cooperation with FBI investigation is praised by FBI, and yet every case about people with whom he supposedly "sold out country" is getting thrown out.

Isn't that peculiar?

Why the deflections? That's what's peculiar.

Flynn was cooperating. That's when the FBI praised him. He stopped cooperating. That's when the cases that relied upon his testimony fell apart. Nothing about these statements makes me believe he didn't lie to the FBI. That he hasn't helped cover up these crimes. It's very weird that you frame it as if the FBI is still praising his cooperation.

[Ripster42]

That's silly. Should we assume all those who vote dem in the DOJ to be biased as well and need to recuse themselves? As long as no laws are broken we shouldn't complain. Besides, Flynn is an American citizen, why shouldn't Barr care about him and the process he faced? It's all absurd in my opinion, the AG has to be involved otherwise he should get fired for getting paid for a job he's not doing. I would be worried about impartiality when it comes to jury selection as these are the people who are handing out the verdict. Otherwise, as long as laws are followed it's all good.

Oh. So you've never imagined how not introducing evidence as a prosecutor could impact a jury's verdict? Or, how just choosing not to charge someone at all so it's not even in a jury's hands might be influenced by partisans? After barr's mishandling of the mueller report, he should have recused himself on any cases even tangentially related to trump's cabinet.

[Shalcker]

Why the deflections? That's what's peculiar.

Flynn was cooperating. That's when the FBI praised him. He stopped cooperating. That's when the cases that relied upon his testimony fell apart. Nothing about these statements makes me believe he didn't lie to the FBI. That he hasn't helped cover up these crimes. It's very weird that you frame it as if the FBI is still praising his cooperation.

Quoting "FLYNN’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA OF GUILTY", page 18-19

In the December 18, 2018, sentencing hearing, the government represented to this Court that Mr. Flynn should receive probation and confirmed his “substantial assistance.” The government based its decision on Mr. Flynn’s cooperation both with the SCO, which was, according to the government, “very largely complete, completed at this point,” and the extensive cooperation Mr. Flynn provided to the EDVA. Mr. Van Grack thoroughly praised Mr. Flynn, telling the Court: “I'd like to highlight that General Flynn has held nothing back, nothing in his extensive cooperation with the Special Counsel's Office. He's answered every question that's been asked. I believe they feel that he's answered them truthfully, and he has. He's complied with every request that's been made, as has his counsel. Nothing has been held back.” The government told the Court that Mr. Flynn “provided substantial assistance to the attorneys in the Eastern District of Virginia in obtaining th[e] charging document” for its prosecution of Bijan Rafiekian and Ekim Alptekin.
Mr.Flynn was ready, willing,and able to testify consistently with his grand jury testimony.
As late as June 2019, government prosecutors were still assuring current counsel that Mr. Flynn’s cooperation would not be affected by the outcome of the Rafiekian case. The government’s stunning and vindictive reversal of its earlier representations to this Court are incredible, vindictive, in bad faith, and breach the plea agreement.

Mr.Van Grack's obsession with attempting (and failing) to bully Mr.Flynn into testifying consistently with the government's fictional theory of the case in the Rafiekian matter—and admit guilt to “false statements” the government knows he did not make—is repugnant to the search for justice which cannot be found without first finding truth. His attempt to punish Mr. Flynn for standing firm for the truth is unlawful. See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S.181(1992) (review for an “unconstitutional motive”). The government’s tactics in retaliation for Mr.Flynn’s refusal to “compose” for the prosecution is also a due process violation that can and should be stopped dead in its tracks by this Court. See United States v. Paramo,998 F.2d 1212,1218-20 (3d Cir. 1993) (reversing a district court that refused to consider a prosecutorial vindictiveness claim when the prosecution withheld a 5K1.1 because the defendant decided to plead not guilty and proceed to trial). By attempting to punish Mr. Flynn for pushing back at Mr. Van Grack's attempts to coerce him into giving false testimony in the Rafiekian case, the prosecutor's retaliatory motive shows "actual vindictiveness." Id. at 1220.

[Xirrohon]

The length of time he's been trying to change his plea has no informative value on the merits of his case for being able to change his plea. The story you linked just says prosecutors aren't going along with his request, flynn gave up a bunch of evidence that his new lawyers are fighting over , and that flynn doesn't want to go to jail. And, to be clear, the evidence they're fighting over is inculpatory or flynn's new lawyers wouldn't be fighting over it, and the inculpatory evidence wasn't a lie, or he'd be facing charges for lying to prosecutors when he made those statements.

And judge sullivan doesn't think he's not guilty. He's the guy who said flynn had betrayed the US and sold out his country after seeing the evidence, then during the FIRST sentencing hearing, effectively told both prosecutors and flynn that he wasn't going to follow their recommended sentencing and was going to enforce much harsher punishment unless flynn was able to provide more cooperation. See if you can figure out his motivation for his attempts at changing his plea. He had stopped cooperation efforts. He's about to get jail time in excess of what he got the prosecutors to recommend with his plea deal because the judge who is presiding over the case, sullivan, thinks prosecutors cut him too good of a deal for his crimes.

I never said the amount of time has anything to do with it. Me mentioning the time was that they werent aware since it had been going on for over a month now.

Also, the Judge asking if he wanted to change his plea is because he saw the evidence. Judge Sullivan made it very clear that he was worried about the sentencing memorandum turned in by his Defense Attorneys (now fired), he was worried about the missing 302, he mentioned how no Attorney was present during the questioning, how McCabe/Strzok said that Flynn did not need one there. He asked him numerous times, do you want to change your plea? Do you want new defense attorneys? He also asks, youre still cooperating with Special Counsel? He says yes and the prosecution says, yes. And yes, during this time he mentioned Flynn betraying the country.

Then there was a 25-30m break and Judge Sullivan came back and withdrew what he said about Flynn betraying his country. But I guess that something easy to forget...

[Stormspellz]

No, you're repeating US right-wing propaganda, not what i actually wrote.

My opinion is that once accused, FBI apparatus acts as if accused is guilty of something. No conspiracy needed, just put prosecutor with right experience to the case and he'll do it as default mode of operations. With sufficiently grave accusations that involves night raids, threats to involve family members, media leaks, and various means of financial pressure.

Sometimes that uncovers other well-proven crimes (like in case of Manafort), and sometimes it doesn't (like in case of Flynn). (and "lying to FBI" is quite weak accusation by itself without any compounding factors)

And prosecutor obviously has no idea what exactly is behind particular man before intimidation plays out and he pleads guilty. If he would there would be no need for intimidation, he'll just align the facts and indict right there.

Whatever "conspiracy" could be there only has to start the train rolling, the rest will be done by institutional inertia. And Flynn's "starting point" is quite questionable.

Which what you just wrote is part of the right-wing propaganda, thanks for playing

[Ripster42]

I never said the amount of time has anything to do with it. Me mentioning the time was that they werent aware since it had been going on for over a month now.

Also, the Judge asking if he wanted to change his plea is because he saw the evidence. Judge Sullivan made it very clear that he was worried about the sentencing memorandum turned in by his Defense Attorneys (now fired), he was worried about the missing 302, he mentioned how no Attorney was present during the questioning, how McCabe/Strzok said that Flynn did not need one there. He asked him numerous times, do you want to change your plea? Do you want new defense attorneys? He also asks, youre still cooperating with Special Counsel? He says yes and the prosecution says, yes. And yes, during this time he mentioned Flynn betraying the country.

Then there was a 25-30m break and Judge Sullivan came back and withdrew what he said about Flynn betraying his country. But I guess that something easy to forget...

So there was no point in bringing up how long it's been going on. Him being aware of how long it's going on also has no bearing on the merits of his case.

He walked back the bit about treason (because, as previously mentioned, that's specifically defined in the constitution and carries a possible death sentence), not selling out his country and betraying what it stood for. Guess that's something easy to forget. The part of that hearing after he came back is the bit where he told flynn he should reconsider his plea, because he hadn't cooperated enough in the judge's eye to merit the recommendation of no jail time given his other crimes.

- - - Updated - - -

Quoting Flynne's nonsense

Okay, you know how you asked me what my point was? It was, again, the timeline. Notice how your quote about good cooperation is from june 2019. And how the timeline showed that after those comments were made, flynn stopped cooperating. Flynn's sentencing wouldn't be affected by the outcome of the case, but, of course, would be affected by his cooperation in that case.

[Shalcker]

Okay, you know how you asked me what my point was? It was, again, the timeline. Notice how your quote about good cooperation is from june 2019. And how the timeline showed that after those comments were made, flynn stopped cooperating. Flynn's sentencing wouldn't be affected by the outcome of the case, but, of course, would be affected by his cooperation in that case.

The documents provided by Flynn, and cooperation of other witnesses that followed Flynn's cooperation should have been sufficient regardless of his (potential) testimony.

If entire case hinged on him and was thrown out without him then it was inherently weak.

[Draco-Onis]

The documents provided by Flynn, and cooperation of other witnesses that followed Flynn's cooperation should have been sufficient regardless of his (potential) testimony.

If entire case hinged on him and was thrown out without him then it was inherently weak.

How do you know the entire case hinged on him? last I checked it wasn't on Flynn to get convictions but to play ball with the FBI which he did.

[Shalcker]

How do you know the entire case hinged on him? last I checked it wasn't on Flynn to get convictions but to play ball with the FBI which he did.

We're talking about his "co-conspirator" Bijan Rafie Kian. That's the case that fallen apart and was thrown out (in September) due to insufficient evidence despite jury verdict (in July, without Flynn testifying).

[Draco-Onis]

We're talking about his "co-conspirator" Bijan Rafie Kian. That's the case that fallen apart and was thrown out (in September) due to insufficient evidence despite jury verdict (in July, without Flynn testifying).

And your point is? you can't convict a person in a case like that with just one witness providing evidence this is not Russia.

[Shalcker]

And your point is? you can't convict a person in a case like that with just one witness providing evidence this is not Russia.

They actually did convict using jury trial though; it was only thrown out on, i guess, appeal two months later.

Happens with Russian cases too now and then.

The point is, if there was actual underlying crime, they should have got sufficient evidence of it from time Flynn cooperated with them, not draw it out to the point where it got to courts while still only hinging on his (potential) testimony.

Quoting NYT:
Judge Anthony J. Trenga of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia wrote in a lengthy opinion that there was no evidence of “any actual or implied agreement” between Mr. Flynn’s partner, Bijan Kian, and the government of Turkey. “The government has failed to offer substantial evidence from which any rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt” that Mr. Kian had acted as an agent of a foreign power without notifying the Justice Department as required by law, Judge Trenga said.

The judge’s decision, overturning a jury’s July verdict, delivered a potentially fatal blow to the government’s efforts to prosecute Mr. Kian in a case that had already suffered other setbacks.

Mr. Flynn, a central figure in the case, had abruptly changed his story before the trial, prompting prosecutors to scrap him as a witness. And after defense lawyers asked the court to toss the case before it went to the jury, Judge Trenga considered the motion, describing the case as speculative and circumstantial. But he let the trial move forward, and the jury quickly convicted Mr. Kian on two counts: conspiracy to violate lobbying laws and failure to register as a foreign agent.

[Draco-Onis]

They actually did convict using jury trial though; it was only thrown out on, i guess, appeal two months later.

The point is, if there was actual underlying crime, they should have got sufficient evidence of it from time Flynn cooperated with them, not draw it out to the point where it got to courts while still only hinging on his (potential) testimony.

I know it's hard to understand the concept of a justice system so different from yours but Michael Flynn is a self admitted liar and criminal his word is worth basically nothing unless you have more evidence.

[Shalcker]

I know it's hard to understand the concept of a justice system so different from yours but Michael Flynn is a self admitted liar and criminal his word is worth basically nothing unless you have more evidence.

FBI word is worth nothing without evidence too.

And the case for Flynn and his companions "selling out his country" to Turkey happened to be paper-thin.

All this intimidation and nothing to show for it in the end, with Flynn possibly getting away scot-free as well.

[Draco-Onis]

FBI word is worth nothing without evidence too.

And the case for Flynn and his companions "selling out his country" to Turkey happened to be paper-thin.

All this intimidation and nothing to show for it in the end, with Flynn possibly getting away scot-free as well.

Here you go again with the conspiracy theories my factual point remains his cooperation has nothing to do with cases getting conviction given he is a lying criminal. This happens all the time with mafia cases it's not Russia where a kangaroo trial can get anyone in jail.

[Shalcker]

Here you go again with the conspiracy theories my factual point remains his cooperation has nothing to do with cases getting conviction given he is a lying criminal. This happens all the time with mafia cases it's not Russia where a kangaroo trial can get anyone in jail.

Your perception of him as "lying criminal" is shaped primarily by media stories though, not facts.