Reply With Quote
You already got his answer.
For once you are honest. This is your white flag.
You already got his answer.
No, it's my saying I don't know.
It's up to TSA to prove his case that the reporting was illegal or ever unusual.
Flynn hasn’t been sentenced. You’ll have an answer when he gets his day in court.
Probably wondering why people still can't spell his name.
The FEC hasn’t ruled on the complaint. You’ll have your answer when they do.
He had his day in court when he pleaded guilty. That's the very definition of one's day in court.
do you agree that Sullivan's order to provide exculpatory evidence (and follow-up to that in february) is just standard operating procedure, and that on its own, does nothing to prove that flynn's plea withdrawal is in play?
All you have to do is show it's illegal or unusual. Since you are so certain it is at least one of those, you can't outsource your burden of proof.
In less than an hour your criteria for knowledge has gone from: "If you don't think they knew, you're stupid"
to
"Donald Trump Jr. accepted a meeting from a Russian oligarch promising sensitive info and do ents about the Clintons, but obviously he didn't know it was collected by illegitimate means."
I agree that it’s Sullivan’s standard operating procedure. That doesn’t take Flynn’s plea withdrawal out of play if McCarthy is correct in his assessment.
The dirt he was promised was never said to have been stolen.
In less than an hour your criteria for knowledge has gone from: "If you don't think they knew, you're stupid"
to
"Donald Trump Jr. accepted a meeting from a Russian oligarch promising sensitive info and do ents about the Clintons, but obviously he didn't know it was collected by illegitimate means."
And that's good enough for you.
But when the question is "How do you know Hillary Clinton knew Steele was working for the campaign?" your argument is "If you don't think she knew, you're stupid."
You're hopeless. Take a break.
Prove Donald Jr. didn't know it was stolen.
(See how that doesn't work?)
Comedy gold. TSA tripping on his never gets old.
correct as to what?
its a lot of speculation. he also thinks its noteworthy that this happened after the guilty plea, even though the court explains IN THE DOCKET that "the order is entered regardless of the posture of the case when it is assigned to the court"
he also acts like the postponed sentencing is significant when it comes to Flynn, even though papadopolous also had his postponed with no crazy conspiracy behind that one, and we've heard officials explain why postponing sentencing makes sense for cooperating witnesses
mccarthy's "assessment" has more questions than answers.
You gotta give him some small credit for working the talking points as best he can. Even he knows they are bull by now, but is too stubborn to admit it.
er would be proud.
and just from a common sense standpoint, if you plead guilty for lying to the FBI, what ing "exculpatory evidence" could there be to prove your innocence? that you never actually made those statements? that they weren't actually false?
i mean really... it just makes no sense to consider that angle. much more likely that this is all standard operating procedure, and all we've heard from the court confirms that
Everything makes sense when you read the New Yorker article. TSAdan prefers to wander around in the haze of his conspiracy fever dream.
No one said it proved the withdrawal was still in play but you.
"Could this provide General Flynn with factual grounds of which he was previously unaware to seek to have his plea vacated? Would he have a viable legal basis to undo the plea agreement that he and his lawyer signed on November 30?"
What do you mean when you say Flynn could have his day in court?
If 302's were changed after the interview that would be exculpatory evidence that would prove his innocence. You constantly need to be reminded that Comey told lawmakers that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe that Flynn had lied to them, or that any inaccuracies in his answers were intentional. What changed in the 9 months after his interview?and just from a common sense standpoint, if you plead guilty for lying to the FBI, what ing "exculpatory evidence" could there be to prove your innocence? that you never actually made those statements? that they weren't actually false?
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
