Posted on 12/01/2017 11:09:45 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
....The FBI’s evidence against the former general could put him in prison for 60 years, but making a plea deal could reduce his sentence to six to twelve months, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News senior judicial analyst, told FOX Business’ Stuart Varney.
Napolitano said Flynn may have shortened his sentence by offering federal prosecutors some kind of link to Trump or someone within the administration.
“Sometime between Monday and today, they reduced that deal to writing. [Flynn] has real evidence that we can really use to prosecute someone, perhaps the president, we don’t know, and in order to lock the general in they got him to plead guilty this morning,” Napolitano said on “Varney & Co.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foxbusiness.com ...
As much as I like the Judge, he has no idea what that evidence is........If he does then I haven't heard it.
Nothing to see here, folks. To even mention the Logan Act is laughable. The plea itself mentions a Trump transition team official, and FOX is now saying that could be KT McFarland. There is nothing here except another attempt by the media to keep the flagging Russia-collusion fantasy going. Greg Jarrett game a very good analysis. As for Napolitano, he was speaking before the plea deal even came out. As usual, he is clueless.
Both of them were short timers just passing through.
He always paints the absolute worst outcome when anyone asks him a legal question. Alan Derswitch, who might be a liberal, but who’s a hell of a lot smarter on legal matters says President Trump has done nothing and it’s nothing in the world but a witch hunt. I agree with him.
The Logal Act is unconstitutional and that why no one has been convicted of it.
You’re probably right, I was giving my most positive analysis.
I challenge anyone to post a single prediction that Judge Napolitano got right on Fox News within the last 5 years.
Napolitano is a FAUX puppet and a genuine douche
Kushner will take one for the team.
Or contemporaneous notes of conversations, I believe.
Correct, the Constitution is supreme.
But it is only - finally - interpreted by the Supreme Court. Lower Courts can hold in abeyance any law until the Supreme Court rules on it or lets the lower court ruling stand.
If the Logan Act is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court, only they, can rule it so, in finality.
FR can huff and puff all it wants, the Logan Act for now is still the law of the land.
So what? Flynn lied to the FBI. How do you feel about that issue of real substance?
How is that a “conspiracy”?
If any two people agree to break any law, even one as unused as the Logan Act, even if they don’t actually carry out their law-breaking, it is criminally known as conspiracy.
If they then lie to law enforcement, that is illegal under many statutes.
If they then lie in open court, it is perjury.
Your previous posts indicate that what transpired was illegal.
Nothing you have posted backs that claim from what I see.
Claiming it is a conspiracy in this situation does not make sense. Flynn making such a request of the Russians at the request of the transition team is not breaking any law due to the status of the parties involved from what I gather, so I still cannot fathom your insistence that this could be considered a conspiracy.
You simply don’t understand how remedies or the law works. The Supreme Court “letting a lower court ruling stand” only works if there is an appeal. Many cases are not appealed at all.
The Constitutionality of a particular law is not exclusively in the realm of the Supreme Court. A law either is constitutional or it is unconstitutional on its merits, and a court only expresses its judgment on the matter when it is presented with a particular case. That judgment detects unconstitutionality—it does not create it. The Sedition Act of 1798 was unconstitutional notwithstanding that the Supreme Court never said so—and President Jefferson was right to decline to enforce it.
Jefferson was also right when he said that the Courts do not have the exclusive authority to find Unconstitutionality in any given law.
A specific law doesn’t have to be held unconstitutional for a doctrinal development to show that a law is unconstitutional.
I will say this. Your comment about “FR huffing and puffing” is quite telling and it betrays more than a little about you.
Do you support President Trump and his policies?
Do you believe that the President committed a crime?
Do you want the President to continue to hold office and MAGA?
Napolitano is a he, he’s a favorite on FOX and an IDIOT SWAMP CREATURE.
Napolitano has been sooo wrong on soooo many things
Urging the Russians to do or not do something is not itself a violation of the Logan Act.
“You can’t talk to any foreign power unless you are authorized. That means, sworn in, period.”
What?!?! You are clueless. That is not the law. Why are you spouting off about this - you clearly do not understand the Logan Act.
Wow...good stuff.
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.