Michael Flynn: judge pauses justice department effort to dismiss case

Not believe, it's factual. This is utterly political interference, so naked that you've conceded it(because there's nothing but to concede it). But not only is it political interference, it has no legal basis in law. Flynn pled guilty to a 1001 charge(making a false statement). Perjury is a different crime in the penal code.(Specifically 1621).

The main difference is under oath, Flynn wasn't under oath when ambushed by the agents who knew "this has so many ways to go off the rails."

 

I can name you a few, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Pientka, Lois Learner, the NY US Attorney, the member of the DOJ and ATF that was involved in the Operation Fast and Furious, the members of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that moved turtles from Las Vegas to land that was set for open grazing, the members of the BLM that attempted to rustle Bundy's cattle, members of the BLM that tried to confiscate the entire Red River Valley. They hang out in the IRS, EPA, AFT, INS, US Attorney's offices, State Department, BLM. Should I go on. They even sent out tweets when Trump got elected proclaiming that they will resist the Trump Administration every chance they get. But then the MSM probably didn't tell you that.

 

A coerced plea is not binding. The FBI threatened to go after Flynn's son. Additionally, Flynn's legal fees had caused him to have to sell his house. So the guilty plea is not relevant.

Further, as I have pointed out numerous times, the interview conducted by Strzok and Pientka was designed to entrap Flynn. There should have not been any charges for Flynn to plead to.

 

Playing loose with the facts, still makes them incorrect. Judge Sullivan's "concern" mirrored that of Rachel Maddow(IE: Sullivan was letting outside opinion into HIS court room). Not only that, but the special counsel REBUKED the Judge and had to course correct him.

https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/jud...g-crazy-idea-michael-flynn-committed-treason/

Also, as noted in this link, Flynn's lobbying efforts with the Turks ended within the days of the election and before taking the NSA role.

Barr didn't handicap Grack and the counsel, they did that themselves by failing to give all exculpatory evidence to Michael Flynn and making a private hush-hush deal with Covington. Here's the reality: One must act honorably and true to the law, regardless of who you prosecute.

The DOJ could no longer prosecute a case built on corruption, lies, intimidation and threats. Those continuing to prosecute that case, show their malicious and evil intent towards Michael Flynn.

 

You need to read the actual statute, and follow the facts of the case. The statute deals with statements made under oath. Such as a mirandized suspect. In Flynn's case, the FBI records shows that Flynn was not advised of his rights, nor told that the making false statements can be considered a crime. Further, because the FBI already had a transcript of the conversation, they knew no crime had been committed. There was not legal reason for them to conduct a second interview with him. Yet, Strzok stated the illegal reason to conduct the interview. It was to entrap Flynn to get him to lie or get him fired. The interview was a violation of Flynn's 4th Amendment rights.

 

The problem with that is that not even Flynn's DOJ Prosecutor says he was ambushed. In fact, that Prosecutor specifically told Judge Sullivan there was no ambush.

 

Just blokes doing their jobs.

 

Contrary to liberal belief, their job is not to resist the current Administration.

 

Sorry, not even his own Attorney claimed there was any coercion. See my link at Post # 340 up thread. Time to face facts, Marine.

 

It is also not their jobs to be rubber stamps to what is wrong. Nuremberg Defence does not work.

 

Rachel Ray on MSNBC. That is the best source that you could find? Hardly reliable. Try this one:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/othe...ced-by-a-threat-to-indict-his-son/vi-BB13i3oO

 

If they were ordered to kill Jews, then your statement would be correct. These deep staters also have the right to be whistleblowers in any case where the Administration orders them to do something the violates Federal Statute. But I have only heard of one whistleblower, and he had a political agenda in supporting Biden's campaign. So again, you've got nothing!!!!

 

Yes MSNBC. Did they misrepresent what happened that day? Did they make it up? I don't think so Marine.

 

Obviously, Rachel Maddow (I think I said Rachel Ray in the first post. My apology to Rachel Ray.) made the story up. It would not be the first time. You also have to understand that Flynn had fired his original defense team, and hired Susan Powers. As I posted in my previous post, Susan Powers stated that the General's plea was coerced by a threat to go after his son. Further, I can find no other article that backs Maddow's fake claim.

You might want to drop this. You are looking like a fool. I am sure there is another topic where your liberal false narrative would be more acceptable.

 

The law is all about anecdotal incidents. The Flynn interview was an anecdotal incident. Is that why you could not even pose an answer to my question? Now you are dodging by throwing in the word "investigation." It is illegal to lie to a federal investigator in the course of an investigation. And that the interview is part of a real investigation has to be stated and made clear, something akin to reading Miranda rights. The Flynn interview was billed as just an informal discussion. The fact that secretly it in fact was an official investigative interview -- which makes it a setup and an illegal entrapment -- lets Flynn off the hook for any untruths he might have said (as so the fact that the untruths might have been immaterial, but that's another story), and in fact means the only illegality in this situation was by the FBI.

To answer my own question, no, your FBI buddy could not have you prosecuted for your untruths.

 

Both Cox and Jaworski had political agendas, though probably not what might be called judicial activists.

 

Little noted and long forgotten is that Democrat operatives did purloin information and data from the GOP campaign headquarters. They just didn't blatantly do it with a felonious break and enter burglary.

 

Lying to the FBI is not perjury.

 

the Administrations job is to follow the law, if they can't do that, then you know the old saying... do the crime, do the time

 

his confession was under oath, that would be perjury if he lied there

so was he lying to the FBI, or to the courts?

course what he said in his confession is confirmed, so your right, no perjury there

 

If you are referring to his FBI interview, Flynn was not under oath, and since it was not an investigative interview (cough, cough) he couldn't be prosecuted for not telling the truth anyway. If you are referring to his guilty plea, it sometimes happens that a defendant pleads guilty under oath to something he did not do and the judge is often fully aware of the situation, but even if not it is never taken as perjury -- except possibly ot seems by the vindictive activist judge Sullivan. One example is the judge in US (with prosecutor Weissmann, Mueller's pit bull) v. Enron asking one defendant in open court why he was pleading guilty to a crime he didn't commit and maybe wasn't even a crime.

 

Also note that the conviction got reversed in Enron. This isn't the first time these scum tried this tactic, and every time, the law is against these coercive methods. Just like we believe it's better to let one guilty man go than to let 100 people suffer, we also believe that even if it helps us to catch a criminal, we're not going to stoop to the level OF a criminal to do it.

 

Maddow? Seriously?

 

Better example-

Strozk asks Lisa Page if she enjoyed the sex, and she says "Yes".

Boom.

Throw the book at that liar.

 

Go ahead and lie to a state investigator and see what happens