If i were to accept your viewpoint, it would mean that US justice system allows criminals and liars to get away scot-free.
I'm not sure that is necessarily much better, though i guess it might be easier for some to stomach then repressive state machines.
- - - Updated - - -
And, on topic, Flynn's team filed another court document:
https://scribd.com/document/44763768...ovt-Misconduct
The us justice system does allow criminals and liars to get away scot-free. It's literally the default stance. We prefer that to happen rather than more innocent people go to jail.
I don't know what the other guy is talking about, but cases do sometimes have "key witnesses," without whose testimony the case falls apart. That doesn't make anyone involved less or more guilty. Flynn refusing to cooperate mid trial doesn't mean his co-conspirator didn't do what he was accused of. It means flynn is refusing to cooperate, and participated, essentially, in a scheme to get his co-conspirator off on all charges as I'm fairly certain double jeopardy is attached.
Judge to proceed with Roger Stone's sentencing, will consider motion for new trial
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/jus...n-new-n1137921
The judge said that she will delay the legal effect of the sentence so that Stone's attorneys have time to pursue a new trial.
So yes, "convicts" sometimes do remain free while their case is being appealed. I would expect similar treatment with Flynn assuming his request to change his plea is denied.
Last edited by DocSavageFan; 2020-02-19 at 03:54 PM.
"Never get on the bad side of small minded people who have a little power." - Evelyn (Gifted)
Again, that only applies if the judge who originally presided over the case (jackson, who thinks flynn sold out his country, and believes he's guilty) believes they'll win the case and won't serve jail time. That's it. There's no juror who was possibly biased in flynn's case (it didn't go to trial). The evidence is what it is.