Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

thelawlorfaithful

DOJ drops case against General Michael Flynn

Recommended Posts

There's a major trumpanzee circle jerk going on on this this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

It would have failed because the prosecution as a rule presents itself as an honest actor that moves based on facts of a crime it can prove. Of course a defense attorney would fail making this argument because everyone involved in our system, judge, jury, executioners; take this at face value as part of the process. That’s the only reason the entire thing doesn’t devolve into adjunct kangaroo military tribunals enforcer by the army. The prosecution recognizes the defendant has rights and should be presumed innocent, and therefore in order to convince everyone involved they present themselves as acting entirely on the up and up. I don’t think popehat is saying anything profound here, because the premise is something we all accept when the government acts in good faith.

The prosecution is admitting it didn’t act on the up and up. The facts that have come to light in the past few weeks clearly show that they weren’t at the time. And the surrounding facts relevant to the case that have been revealed in the past few years show that the FBI were almost never acting in good faith. The process only matters so long as people believe that they were, and they were not.

Michael Flynn is a grown up. He plead guilty (twice) to something he might have done, and if everyone was acting even reasonably in good faith should have been punished for it. But almost everyone wasn’t. The fact that this leaves a lot of egg on the faces of those at the FBI, Comey and his cohort, those in media that breathlessly pushed (and still push) the narrative, down to some people on this board; is completely besides the point. Because the prosecution was acting so reprehensibly underhanded in this instance, it didn’t matter even when the President’s friend had a defense attorney. Now it is no longer doing so, and that matters more than any political benefit or harm anyone incurs.

Of course the prosecution presents itself as an honest actor which recognizes the defendant has rights and should be presumed innocent. But the actual, real fact of the matter is that the prosecution in no sense ever does this - either in practice, or even by design. Popehat and every other defense attorney or civil liberties attorney will tell you this. Prosecutors prosecute. That's what they do. It's their job. They presume guilt, and they pursue guilt at all reasonable costs. To do this, they rely on police investigators who do the same - make assumptions about guilt based on gut instincts and both social and personal biases, with a nice mix of self interest, and some evidence at hand.  It's what they do with everyone, at all levels. And at the federal level, they do this by trapping you in a lie because it's usually hard to prosecute people for federal crimes outside of terrorism. The issue we're dealing with here is the very clear fact that a particular individual who happens to be friends with the boss of the AG is being spared the realities of prosecution without any real attempts to actually change those realities. And some people who otherwise seem to be reasonable people are suggesting that this is some victory over prosecutorial overreach and/or judicial corruption. Why they're doing it, I don't know. But it is nonsense. And it seems to betray the fact that those people actually care nothing about justice, and instead care more about their own internal rage at "the media" and democrats and whomever else won't let them shrug off the Trump administration that they are enabling despite their own qualms with it.

Here's the deal. Michal Flynn lied to the FBI in the midst of a federal investigation. That is a crime. If you look at the brief submitted, the DOJ does not dispute this. They dispute the material consequences of his lies and the validity of the investigation in the first place. They do not dispute the lies. Federal investigators who investigate white collar crimes use this as a tactic in their investigations all the +++++ing time. Because of the nature of federal investigations, they are able to gather the kind of information before questioning you that other criminal investigators just can't gather. So when they call you in to answer questions, they will ask you questions they already know the answer to that they know you'll lie about, and then when you lie about it they will charge you with the crime of lying to them. Then they will use that as leverage to get you to spill the beans on whomever they actually care about in their investigation. It is an entirely common tactic in federal, white-collar investigations. It's also not entrapment, and it is completely legal. It is not unique to this situation, and it is in no way, whatsoever, only utilized in instances of undermining democracy or forcing a coup or whatever else (dumb) people are saying this investigation was all about.

Is that which is described above good? No. Is it +++++ed up? Oooooh... sure. Welcome to the world of being the subject of an investigation, a world that is inhabited overwhelmingly by certain segments (poor people, people of color, etc) of society WAY more than other segments of society (friends of the president). I do have to say that I have a hard time feeling a ton of remorse for the Flynns of the world since white collar crimes are practically impossible to prosecute. Why do you think that no one after 2008 went to prison? Not because the banks rule the world, but because there are thresholds that have to be crossed in white collar crimes that don't have to be crossed in other, more plebeian areas of criminal law. Get caught with an ounce of crack? Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Get caught in insider trading? Well they need to prove intent. To do that often requires follow-up questions. And thus, every federal defense attorney worth giving money to will explicitly tell his or her client that when the feds come to talk to you, DO NOT TALK TO THEM UNLESS YOU ARE GOING TO TELL THE TRUTH AND YOU HAVE A LAWYER PRESENT. I've never been in the midst of a federal investigation. I've never been on a presidential campaign. I've never been friends with a president. And yet, I know THAT. So it's hard for me to take seriously the idea that a guy like Michael Flynn got railroaded. I wouldn't have got railroaded. I'd have called my lawyer and either told the truth or not said anything.  And I'm not a particularly savvy guy. 

Your premise that prosecutors and police investigators generally act in good faith is false. The idea that they acted in bad faith only in this particular instance, for whatever reason you think they did it, is false. This situation is completely normal in terms of the status quo for prosecutorial and investigative conduct. I think that the moral and correct response to that very clear and true evaluation of the situation is to create world with fewer laws, thus limit the points of intervention that those bad faith actors can take to try and ruin lives. Some here think the moral and correct response to that is to empower the Attorney General (a prosecutor) to act as a defense attorney for his boss' friend in this particular instance. Those people are full of shit. Pretty simple. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DoubleBlueGold said:

There's a major trumpanzee circle jerk going on on this this thread.

Fortunately, most standard-grade PPE will protect you from both COVID and flying orange gizz.

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

I was wrong to say Flynn lied. It had been my understanding before reading the filing in depth that Flynn’s answers were at odds with the transcripts he wasn’t shown. Having read the relevant parts today I don’t think he lied.

I just heard a blip on the news that there’s documents that show that Obama was to be updated regularly on the details of their progress. If I heard that right, holy chit. I’ll have to check the news in the morning. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, bornontheblue said:

Now it’s coming out that sack of shit Adam Schiff  knew a year and a half into the investigation that there was no collusion. What a complete waste of skin ! He should be expelled from the house. 

Most people knew there was no collusion and that this was all a political witch hunt except @retrofade.  This isn’t news.

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Rebelbacker said:

A lot of "liberals" are really upset that corrupt prosecutors and the law enforcement hid a deal not to prosecute Flynn's innocent son in order to coerce a guilty plea ended up not succeeding. 

If you followed this the last three years and especially the last 2 months you'd have seen what the FBI and DOJ did was frame this guy. And they do this to people all the time all around the country. Our system is broken. 

Instead of being happy justice finally prevailed all some of you see is partisan politics. It's sad and you should be embarrassed. 

Do you really think these weren’t standard FBI procedures used against tons of people?  Were they wrong absolutely, yes.  But many have been opposed to FISA courts and the DOJ running amuck for years and long before Trump.   
 

the anecdotal data on Russia warranted a probe.   Entrapment of anyone in any instance isn’t appropriate.   Nor does unwarranted entrapment of Flynn in anyway exonerate Trumps behavior in the Ukraine.   
 

when I see someone exonerated who isn’t within Trump’s inner circle, then I will believe it’s something more than team Trump exercising authoritarian powers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Rebelbacker said:

Because that's the way the FBI works. That's the way the DOJ works. It's corrupt and has been for a long time. There's a reason why the government very rarely ever loses a case. Don't take my word for it. There are plenty of articles and books written detailing the corruption on how the game is played. A simple search on You Tube will give you hundreds of interviews and docs on it. 

 

Yep and have we seen anyone not in Trumps inner circle exonerated...  sorry you just undercut your own arguments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

It's not unequivocally the case. The AG essentially has just functioned as the defense attorney for the president's friend. As Hero of the Universe Ken White has stated, it's transparently corrupt and would have failed if the defense had made the same argument (and will fail in the future when defense attorneys like White make it to the SAME Justice Department). Prosecutorial reform does not mean that the prosecution should function as the defense, because that will carry itself out as it did here - selectively, and to support the interests of the prosecutor or his boss. Is there an argument that this is ultimately good on balance because the outcome was one less crime prosecuted that ultimately didn't really harm anyone? Sure. You're making it. But that argument doesn't care anything about process... it's entirely ends based. And I always took you as a fan of process. 

Correct.  What’s the message here.  If you oppose the President doing illegal things like Ukraine you get fired and the President threatens to prosecute you.   If you support the President he will have the Justice department appoint a string of Special Prosecutors until he finds one to let you off.   

That’s a solid message for any wanna be authoritarian to deliver.  

I think the real question is why Mueller didn’t find this data in the first place?   Was data withheld and why?   I suspect we will never know as long as this President is in power.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner

To those who have followed this closely, what exactly is purpose of the Logan Act?

Wasn't Flynn prosecuted for violating the Logan Act, because he talked to the Russian ambassador to the United States?

Just wondering what he did to break the law on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
18 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Correct.  What’s the message here.  If you oppose the President doing illegal things like Ukraine you get fired and the President threatens to prosecute you.   If you support the President he will have the Justice department appoint a string of Special Prosecutors until he finds one to let you off.   

That’s a solid message for any wanna be authoritarian to deliver.  

I think the real question is why Mueller didn’t find this data in the first place?   Was data withheld and why?   I suspect we will never know as long as this President is in power.  

I'm just wonder what Flynn did that was illegal, though?

My understanding is that Democrats believe Flynn violated the Logan Act, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

To those who have followed this closely, what exactly is purpose of the Logan Act?

Wasn't Flynn prosecuted for violating the Logan Act, because he talked to the Russian ambassador to the United States?

Just wondering what he did to break the law on this?

No, Flynn was not prosecuted under the Logan act. He was prosecuted on the theory there was a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. The FBI already knew the theory was debunked at the time the interview took place, let alone when Mueller finally decided to put the screws to Flynn.

The Logan Act is a law from 18th century when the founders were still figuring out how to run a large republic. It has never been successfully prosecuted and hasn’t been charged since the antebellum period so it has never had the chance to be struck down. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Correct.  What’s the message here.  If you oppose the President doing illegal things like Ukraine you get fired and the President threatens to prosecute you.   If you support the President he will have the Justice department appoint a string of Special Prosecutors until he finds one to let you off.   

That’s a solid message for any wanna be authoritarian to deliver.  

I think the real question is why Mueller didn’t find this data in the first place?   Was data withheld and why?   I suspect we will never know as long as this President is in power.  

He did find it. Immediately. That’s part of the outrage here. His office knew there was no conspiracy, knew Flynn hadn’t lied, and still used the power of the federal government to prosecute him anyway.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
5 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

No, Flynn was not prosecuted under the Logan act. He was prosecuted on the theory there was a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. The FBI already knew the theory was debunked at the time the interview took place, let alone when Mueller finally decided to put the screws to Flynn.

The Logan Act is a law from 18th century when the founders were still figuring out how to run a large republic. It has never been successfully prosecuted and hasn’t been charged since the antebellum period so it has never had the chance to be struck down. 

Here is an old article from the Atlantic, claiming Flynn violated the Logan act.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/logan-act-michael-flynn-trump-russia/516774/

The Wall Street Journal is claiming the Logan Act needs to be repealed and that it invites abusive use of power by prosecutors.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/repeal-the-logan-act-11588629596

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...