Posted on 01/14/2020 5:50:18 PM PST by Cold War Veteran - Submarines
“Isn’t this the same judge that presided over the Ted Stevens lynching?”
Yes, Judge Sullivan was brought on to the case after Judge Contreras was discovered to have a relationship (as seen in the Strzok-Page emails) with Peter Strzok.
Judge Sullivan in the fall asked Gen. Flynn under previous counsel if he wanted to withdraw his plea. Several times he asked. At that time, Gen. Flynn declined.
New counsel, new ballgame. Prayers up for Gen. Flynn & counsel Sidney Powell.
“He was either guilty as charged, or he wasn’t.”
AC, you’re too smart not to know the difference between being guilty and pleading to guilt against the might of crooked federal prosecutors
"My lawyers screwed me!" is a pathetic excuse in this particular situation ... especially for a guy who was supposed to be a top national security expert.
This reads like an extremely naive statement. There are many, many people who sign sworn plea agreements with guilty statements, simply because the risk of conviction, and or the cost of the process, is so great that the plea agreement looks good or makes sense. Many of them do so on the advise of counsel.
To believe that every innocent person should never sign a plea agreement is to believe in the inherent righteousness of the prosecution and judicial system.
The system works, most of the time, but in numerous exceptional circumstances, it can fail badly.
1. Before he made his plea deal in 2017, his lawyers informed Trump's lawyers that they would no longer be sharing information between the legal teams. This was seen back then as a major threat to Trump. With the Mueller investigation going full bore, Flynn may have assumed that Trump wouldn't be in office for very long.
2. After Jeff Sessions was fired in late 2018 and William Barr was named as the new AG in early 2019, Flynn changed his tune and didn't have much involvement in the Mueller case at all.
3. When the Mueller report was released in the spring of 2019, Flynn was already working as a security consultant in the Beltway again.
4. After Mueller made a complete ass of himself in front of Congress and exposed himself as a doddering old fool, Flynn changed his tune completely. By this time he knew he had made an egregious error back in 2017, so he fired his lawyers, hired new ones, and began fighting a legal battle in the latter half of 2019 that he really should have been fighting in 2017 if he truly WAS not guilty.
HOWEVER, let's keep in mind that this is a bizarre case where a person goes through that whole process and signs a plea agreement ... but then turns around and proclaims his innocence before the same judge who pressed him hard at his sentencing hearing because he seemed to believe Flynn was innocent of the charges.
None of this makes any sense, no matter how you look at it.
Flynn is no more a moron for taking a plea to save his son and his son’s family from mental torture and bankruptcy than the guy who takes a bullet during a robbery to save his wife.
Flynn is a hero for sacrificing his own welfare for that of his family.
Have you seen even a single media report where Flynn actually says this is why he took the plea deal?
Everything I've read about that subject here on FR has come from speculative reports from notoriously unreliable websites like Gateway Pundit.
Trivial charges from “FB-Staz-I” lies.
The FBI reinforced they are losers.
“Have you seen even a single media report where Flynn actually says this is why he took the plea deal?”
I don’t think I’ve seen any interview of Flynn since the SHTF for him. Has he done any?
According to the prosecution, he failed. The law, if it is not an ass, should evaluate the evidence from both sides.
But the law is often an ass.
You're making my point.
Have you seen a single quote attributed to ANYONE confirming the rationale for Flynn's guilty plea?
I haven't.
And I know this website is littered with links to "conservative" news sites that post as much fake sh!t as CNN and MSNBC.
Well, he was supposed to testify at the trial of his former business associates last summer, but when his new lawyers filed the motion to have the charges against him thrown out they also announced that he wouldn't be doing that.
It's kind of hard to make the case that he DID meet the terms of his plea deal.
The problem is finding one who is really as good as he thinks he is. In short, the legal profession has more than its share of quacks.
Very true! Interestingly, the quacks in the Flynn case all seemed to be on Mueller's team.
Hallelujah!!
Unless his testimony was supposed to be less than truthful.
In this whole ordeal - the last three to five years, not just Flynn’s ordeal - the FBI and DOJ have been so stunningly mendacious that I cannot take any statement from them as truthful without independent verification. Even if the required testimony from Flynn was arguably true, but only in light of a singular interpretation pushed by DOJ, the testimony would be perjurious, if Flynn did not ascribe to the interpretation.
The FBI and DOJ clearly do not warrant any benefit of the doubt. When almost every statement in political cases over the last four to five years has proven false, I refuse to trust a single word of theirs. The prosecutors in this case have little or nothing to lose, yet it is easy to see (or surmise) where they have cheated the system, and pushed Flynn into a situation with no positive outcome.
It is said that Flynn pled to avoid his son being prosecuted for an unrelated crime. I have seen speculative information that said the son’s supposed crime was also a farcical interpretation of justice. I would do much to protect my children from malicious acts (consequences of their own acts are not to be avoided, but minimized where possible, IMO).
There is a lot in this saga that is hidden. The truth, sadly, appears to be only one of those things.
But I still cannot trust the government to be truthful, given their recent history.
I would add something to your last point, though. I still don't trust Flynn entirely, either. And I suspect President Trump has this in the back of his mind, too.
I cannot argue your point. I do not know Flynn other than by his reputation and acts during this saga.
I know President Trump by his acts in the presidency.
I trust President Trump.
I think I trust General Flynn, but I have doubts due to not understanding some of his decisions.
I would add something to your last point, though. I still don’t trust Flynn entirely, either. And I suspect President Trump has this in the back of his mind, too.
That remark mystifies me.
Flynn has been investigated for several years now. It is obvious that obummer would like to see him in prison.
It is obvious that the FBI could not get anything on him or they would have built the plea deal on a more significant crime. In other words for want of a bigger club they used a smaller club.
So the man was a war hero, an appointee to the president, clean in every test put to him.
And you think he is not an honest man?
Why?
As for President Trump, he can’t do one thing to help Flynn right now. without creating a firestorm from the crazies who would accuse him of obstructing justice and start another impeachment circus.
Once the judge makes his final decision, I expect the president to make his move.
Great news, but I thought the judge wasn’t going to allow that?
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.