Trump pardons Michael Flynn, former national security advisor who admitted lying to FBI

I reckon that does motivate Sullivan. It would motivate me. They tried to pull the wool over his judicial eyes in his Court. He was having none of it, and wants to expose it. I doubt he will let this tiger's tail go. He should see it to the bitter end, and more power to his elbow if he does. I will be disappointed if he washes.

 

Highlighted is what is untrue in the comment you made. Article 72 does not require that and never has.

Please cite the sources you used for this claim.

 

A pardon can be granted before a case even starts. And has been this way since before WW1.

A federal pardon can be issued prior to the start of a legal case or inquiry, prior to any indictments being issued, for unspecified offenses, and prior to or after a conviction for a federal crime

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_pardons_in_the_United_States#Modern_process

I suggest you do your research before spreading those false claims. No admission of guilt was ever required as you claimed.

 

Simple question... would it be wrong for Jake Sullivan to call the Prez of Iran on Friday (since there is no Iranian Ambassador in the US) and tell him to stop developing their nuclear materials ASAP so we can cleanly rejoin the JCPOA on January 20th?

You cool with that?

 

Sullivan has no authority in this matter any longer, sure he could "sentence" Flynn, but his sentence is defacto toothless. In my view, and in the view of the President, Flynn didn't violate the law(he didn't even "lie" either, but that's for a greater examination that as I said, is no longer necessary.)

His court was a mockery unto itself, and Trump ended the mockery. Some can have fun calling Flynn a "felon", but I see him as a victim of this charade.

 

A: Flynn at the time was designated as National Security Advisor.
B: With the cleanest of the transcripts, we see that Flynn didn't reference anything that could be relevant to the sanctions. The closest, a passing remark on the housing settlements, was just that. A passing remark.
C: Nothing that he said could be construed to interfere with the government, either the one he was appointed to serve or the one that was previous.

The unanswered question to Yates: Why did the Obama Administration in the passing days leading up to the transition set up a tripwire to the Trump Administration?

 

A. LOL... not up on your current events, are we?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Sullivan

B. LOL.... not up on your Flynn/Kislyak transcripts, are we?



C. LOL... See B

If by "tripwire", you are referring to the fact that top Russian personnel in the US have been routinely monitored for years, then the Obama Administration didn't do anything except read the transcript.

 

The use of 'LOL', doesn't take away that my argument is not only correct, but your post proves the point. If Jake Sullivan currently occupies what would be Flynn's post, and he were to tell the Iranians to stop developing nuclear weapons and they will sign the deal again, that would be swell. The whole reason for leaving the deal was that the Iranians(hint: To the surprise of NO ONE) went renegade on the agreement.

Iran and China are both geopolitical foes of America, not Trump, America. They will be sure to act against our interests in the future, and we have to hope that Joe Biden is prepared as President to defend our country's interests.

Now, to the point of the transcripts. Where's the interference? The Sanctions are not only in effect, he didn't even speak out against them. All he said, was that it should be an eye-for-an-eye. And not an escalation. So, it brings me back to my central accusation to Yates: Where's the policy? Was the policy an escalation on the part of the Russians? Or was the policy a tripwire of the Trump Administration?

And how do we know this? Right out of the kisser's mouth, they were STUNNED. STUNNED that there wasn't an escalation. So obviously said escalation was their policy.(and at wit large, a tripwire of an incoming administration.)

I'm accusing them of treason against America, and they got away with it.

 

But he can’t do much now

 

He wanted them to vote a certain way at the UN

 

Is that another conspiracy theory like the one you made about it being a requirement for someone to admit guilt in order to be pardoned?

Finding the truth isn't really on your side right now.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States#Later_use

 

Above is what you've cited. This source claims that the President suggested there was an implication of guilt. Then read the last sentence.

Now I ask again, where is guilt a requirement for a pardon? You have not cited that. lol

 

YOU claimed it was "required" to admit guilt for a Pardon. Where is that source?

 

Yes he can. He can force Flynn and the DOJ to explain in detail why he should do as they expect of him.

 

According to what article/statute? It's a federal pardon which doesn't require admission of guilt or even an indictment/trial. A pardon is a pardon.

 

No I just actually read the transcript

 

If I said it was required then I was mistaken. It’s just assumed.
that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt

 

You don't need to even speak to a judge, lawyer, or anyone to get a pardon. If you receive a federal Pardon, you are pardoned. There isn't a requirement for you to do anything. It's the President's choice.

 

A pardon doesn't need to carry an implication of guilt. It can be used as a protection from partisan witch hunts. Refer to the laws I cited prior. A pardon doesn't require anything other than a federal inquiry.

 

It wasn't among the Special Counsel's charges, but Democrats are upset that Flynn advocated for the Russians to veto on behalf of the Trump Administration(whereas the Obama Administration chose to abstain from the vote). It's a distinction without a difference, and the reason they're upset is the Trump-Israeli alliance.

I'm done pretending that any of this is the law for them, they opened this case on vendetta and they acted on vendetta.

 

Yes it is. So what? It has zero effect on what goes on in Sullivan's Court. Trump cannot injunct Sullivan from proceeding to conclusion. Sure, when Sullivan has finished with Flynn, he still walks, but, "We, the People" will know more about the chicanery of behind the scene activity including by the biggest arzehole of them all, Humpty Trumpty.

 

Ok I agree and that is a reason I am not playing their game. We debate here not play games.

 

None of the proceedings beat turning a judge with a bias'd opinion into a would-be prosecutor because he(Sullivan) was unable to make any rulings himself. In other words, between Barr and Sullivan, Barr is much more worthy of the law in my books.

 

Of course he walks no matter what. He's been pardoned. Which is exactly what I said. Your partisan nonsense means nothing at this point.