Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Von Spakovsky & Malcolm: Flynn judge disagrees with own rulings by letting outsiders fight dropping charges [Good read]
Fox News ^ | May 13, 2020 | Hans A. von Spakovsky, John Malcolm

Posted on 05/13/2020 5:47:41 PM PDT by jazusamo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-24 last
To: euclid216
This “Damned if you do and Damned if you don't” shit has gotta go!

The Founding Fathers would themselves personally tar and feather your ass!

Hi! We're from the Government and we'd like to ask you some questions.
Please be advised that if you answer these questions you will be charged with lying to Federal Authorities or perjury.
If you don't want to answer our questions you will be charged with Obstruction of Justice.
Your Choice.

21 posted on 05/13/2020 8:04:33 PM PDT by 1FreeAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

You have to have been charged with the crimes to accept a lesser plea. To threaten a family member with arrest to get a plea is simply extortion.


22 posted on 05/13/2020 8:09:51 PM PDT by pierrem15 ("Massacrez-les, car le seigneur connait les siens")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
To my ear, Judge Sullivan is focused on the guilty plea, and not on the DOJ’s request for dismissal.

I brought this same issue up on Free Republic a couple weeks ago.

I got soundly mocked for my efforts, but my argument was sound.

Flynn's guilty plea was a sworn statement.

In addition, a judge accepting a guilty plea goes through a long prepared list of supporting questions...

Do you understand that you can have your case heard by a jury? Are you satisfied with your legal representation? Can you afford an attorney? Has the prosecution given you every document you asked for? Do you feel the court has been fair in its rulings? On and on...

Flynn probably told a half dozen brazen lies under oath.

Why is that a problem?

Because if Flynn can just say - “Never mind” - and walk away from his sworn plea, that will undermine the validity of every previous and future guilty plea ever made.

Since 96% of federal inmates plead guilty, I think we can expect thousands of petitions for discovery or for the submission of new evidence if Flynn pulls this off.

My prediction - Flynn will still be litigating this on election day, six months from now.

23 posted on 05/14/2020 4:21:19 AM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen
Collusion between Flynn's original defense team and the prosecutors to hide exculpatory evidence should negate the fact that Flynn is seeking to change his plea. Flynn only lied if he KNOWINGLY answered questions with falsehoods. The only one time I see that he can definitively have known he stated a falsehood was in the plea itself. Consider:

Do you understand that you can have your case heard by a jury? Yes, although my legal team (whom I do not know are working for the prosecution) advise me that the government has an iron clad case to prove I lied whether I really agree or not.

Are you satisfied with your legal representation? I do not know my legal team is working for the prosecution, so I would have to say "yes", not being myself an attorney.

Can you afford an attorney? I have attorneys, although I can't afford to pay them any more, so I have to answer yes.

Has the prosecution given you every document you asked for? My attorneys tell me yes, but I do not know they are working for the prosecution, so I have to say yes.

Do you feel the court has been fair in its rulings? What happens if I answer no and insult you and your court, your honor?

Prosecutor malfeasance, compounded by the defense team colluding with the prosecutors, plausibly change any "lie" in that string of questions into an honest answer - except perhaps the original pleading. However, that pleading itself is subject to undue influence because of the collusion between prosecutor and defense attorneys.

Not knowing, at the time, that his own lawyers had sandbagged him in favor of their own agreement with the corrupt prosecutors means he could easily have answered honestly, without having deliberately made a false statement.

24 posted on 05/14/2020 8:51:33 AM PDT by MortMan (Shouldn't "palindrome" read the same forward and backward?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-24 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson