Whether pleading “not guilty” is perjury has been settled since the beginning of time. A “not guilty” plea is not a statement of fact, it is the announcement of a legal position. There is zero relevance between pleading not guilty and pleading guilty.
And people do not understand the legal meaning of the phrase “fruit of the poisonous tree.” People use it in the illogical sense of post hoc ergo propter hoc, but it does NOT mean a person is legally justified in committing a crime merely because the commission of the crime was preceded by the criminal activity of another party. If you want to argue duress, argue duress, but you have to define what constitutes duress, legally.
I am not assuming the supreme importance of a process crime. As I have said, I assume Flynn was framed and set up by sleazy operators. Being set up by sleazy operators does NOT justify lying to a judge to his face under oath in open court.
If you are claiming that Flynn was justified in lying when he took the plea to (allegedly) save his son, then Flynn’s decision was to man up, lie under oath, save his son, accept his probation, and move on. It happens every single day in every court in every place on America. In this respect Flynn was in no different position than average Americans, even Americans who were unfairly prosecuted.
Flynn did not have to lie. He could have maintained his innocence and gone to trial. And his son could have maintained HIS innocence and gone to trial, if that was what happened. Or are you saying Flynn Sr. lied because his son was guilty, and thus Flynn Sr. lied to cover up his son’s commission of a crime?
Powell has been a disaster for Flynn and for MAGA. IMO she is a grifter selling books, just like the many grifters who took advantage of the Tea Party, always to the cheers of tea party members, who were too sincere and genuine to even suspect that fellow “patriots” were manipulating them for gain.
Powell has now forced Trump into a pardon, which is the worst of all possible outcomes for MAGA. Barr tried to stop Powell’s gross incompetence before she made things even worse, but Sullivan is not having it. And in part (IMO) he is not having it because of Powell’s relentless campaign implicitly painting Sullivan as corrupt and stupid.
And BTW, what IS the legal argument that Flynn did not lie to Sullivan’s face and thus commit perjury?
Yeah, this isn't something to get upset about.
If the DOJ, after the fact, admits malfeasance and states that the basis for the hearings do not constitute a crime, does that not render the process of the hearings moot for the defendant?
Judge Sullivan is considering contempt of court for the defendant’s plea, despite the prosecutors having admitted to lying to the court for the whole reason for the court process to start with.
If “not guilty” is a statement of position, then “guilty” must also be. To place the defendant under oath and interrogate him as a perjury trap (as Sullivan did in this case) is unconscionable.
To my understanding, prosecutorial misconduct is one of the few instances where all subsequent actions in court are thrown out in favor of the defendant. The malfeasance on part of the prosecution is considered to have poisoned any value in the pursuit of the trial. If this understanding is incorrect, please explain why rather than simply dismissing the point. The DOJ itself, in its motion to withdraw with prejudice, has agreed that the whole court proceedings are moot, given the bad actions of the investigators, prosecutors, and original defense team.
The definition of perjury (from dictionary.com) is “the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry.” The DOJ has a motion which admits that the trial was not a legal inquiry. How can the statements be material to a non-legal inquiry?
I am not a lawyer. But the DOJ’s motion to dismiss states that there is no underlying crime to which Flynn’s supposed lies to the FBI can be material, so would not that same condition apply to the court proceedings?
“Being set up by sleazy operators does NOT justify lying to a judge to his face under oath in open court.”
It does if the sleazy operators are holding a gun to your child’s head in the next room.
L
I don't get it. What if he pled not guilty, and he WAS guilty. Isn't that also lying to the judge's face?