If he hadn't already been under investigation, he would've been investigated for lying to Pence about foreign contacts. Flynn is a ing joke.
then the 302s are still accurate
Sentencing is in December you ing dimwit
That tends to get pushed back when cooperating
DJohn: "Look at how many responses this thread generated? It's a huge success"
Armchair lawyer vs real lawyer.
The armchair lawyer thinks he’s winning the argument.
You prefer a system that caters to the left. See? I summed up your thoughts much more elegantly than you did.
Could be accurate. Wouldn't know until we see the original 302 that Strzok edited is produced.then the 302s are still accurate
i mean the ones that we see now are accurate since he lied to them
He pleaded guilty to lying to them after they threatened to go after his son if he didn't plead guilty, that doesn't mean he actually lied to them.
Were you aware this is how the charge bargain works from the Special Counsel? Was an eye opener for me and opens the door wide open for the chance he was told he lied when he never did.
What further damage? What's your conspiracy theory here?
We’ve reached peak re ation in this country. Words that you say willingly to incriminate yourself are no longer enough to use against you. Whoopie.
so then he didnt lie on purpose to team up with mueller
Though it's okay when your people do it. & when that happens you have the audacity to believe that (we) won't copy you & use the same damn tact when it benefits us.
wtf is Qasim Rashid?
You're going in circles. There is still the possibility he lied on purpose, there is also the possibility he never lied and pleaded guilty to lying. And do I take your second no comment on the charge bargain as a you were not aware that was how it worked?
If it was that simple why did the prosecution consistently hide exculpatory evidence from Flynn?
plea deal...admit you did something bad or we're coming after your family (specifically your son)
Flynn, the patriot, had no other choice.
General Flynn.
im fully aware of how plea bargains work
what did his son do?
hard to exculpate him if he was charged with lying to the FBI and he lied to the FBI
keep up with the thread
Do you ever get tired of being dead wrong all the time?
In his new book, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe offers extensive new details of investigators' fateful January 2017 interview with former national security adviser Michael Flynn at the White House -- a breezy conversation which began, according to McCabe, with all the urgency of a "playdate."
McCabe wrote in “The Threat,” released Tuesday, that "one thing [Flynn] said stands out in my memory" -- namely that "when I told him that people were curious" about his conversations with the then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, Flynn replied, "You know what I said, because you guys were probably listening."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcc...all-with-flynn
you ing imbecile
the fbi were interviewing flynn and flynn was unsure whether to lie or come clean
so when asked this basic question - which was not even a question- it was the fbi gauging how honest or dishonest flynn would be
so they tossed him a softball- “people are curious...”
the ing liar- didnt even wait for a direct question - instead he volunteered that “you guys were PROBABLY listening- because that is what criminals do - they try to see what kind of evidence the cops really have...
so flynn was trying to weasel out - but he knew he was toast-
So mccabe never said flynn KNEW -
Read what you posted - flynn is inquiring “you guys were PROBABLY listening” - like a true weasel criminal - squirming under interrogation
he got busted and then agreed to cooperate because he knew what he had done
ing pizzagate moron
You're obviously not as this was never a plea bargain
Here is someone with a bit more experience than you on these matters, educate yourself
Understanding the Process Used to Coerce Gen. Flynn’s Guilty Plea Shows Why His “Admission” to the Crimes Is Practically Meaningless
General Flynn entered his guilty plea on Friday, December 1, 2017, to the charge that he knowingly and intentionally made false representations, and omitted material information, in responding to questions posed to him by FBI Agents who interviewed him on January 24, 2017.
Gen. Flynn pled guilty to an “Information” which is a charging do ent created and signed by a Department of Justice prosecutor – in this case, a member of Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office (SCO). Charging by way of Information is an alternative to seeking an “Indictment” from a federal grand jury, and can only be done with the consent of the defendant charged in that fashion.
Charging by way of “Information” happens almost exclusively when the prosecution and defense have agreed in advance to the specific crime(s) the defendant will plead guilty to having committed. The terms of the deal are set forth in another do ent called a “Plea Agreement,” which includes a “factual” section describing what it is the defendant admits to having done. The “factual basis” must establish each element of the offense charged. This “factual basis” is, for all practical purposes, a “confession” by the defendant.
This kind of outcome is not called a “plea bargain” – it’s called a “charge bargain.” A “plea bargain” is negotiated after an Indictment is filed, and the defense has been provided the discovery in the case. “Discovery” includes the do ents, witness statements, and physical evidence which the government believes will be used in a trial to establish the defendant’s guilt. The “plea bargain” process can involve a “give and take” negotiation between the two sides resulting in a written agreement wherein the defendant admits to one or more of the offenses charged in the Indictment, normally in exchange for the government’s agreement to dismiss the remaining charges. But the defendant, for the most part, understands the nature of the evidence the government possesses with regard to the crimes charged and can make a judgment for himself as to the “strength” of the government’s case against him when deciding to take the case to trial or accept the plea bargain offered.
A “charge bargain” – as happened in General Flynn’s case — comes before the government has filed an Indictment. The government only “threatens” the putative defendant with being charged with more serious offenses if the defendant doesn’t agree to plead guilty as suggested by the prosecutor. But what other charges the defendant might be facing — and the nature of the evidence supporting such potential charges – are commonly known only to the prosecutor. The defendant and his attorney know only what the prosecutor chooses to share with them.
When moving forward to a guilty plea pursuant to an Information, the prosecution has no obligation to provide “discovery” to a defendant. The right to discovery only arises when a defendant is charged by way of Indictment and makes an appearance in court to enter a “not guilty” plea. One significant category of evidence the government must produce after an Indictment is any relevant written or recorded statements made by the defendant which are in the government’s possession. In a case like Gen. Flynn’s where the allegations involve lying to investigators, the discovery would include all the memorandum of interview(s) conducted of the defendant. This means that a defendant pleading guilty to a “false statement” charge would have the Agent’s report of his interview, and he would know exactly what the Agents wrote in their report about what they claim a defendant said in the interview. But a defendant pleading guilty to an Information must make that decision without the right to see the FBI Agent’s report — unless it is given to him by the prosecution.
When Gen. Flynn and his attorneys began discussing a possible plea deal with the SCO, no Indictment had been filed, and no discovery rights/obligations existed. Since changing lawyers in June 2019, hiring attorney Sidney Powell, the subject of the defense getting access to all versions of the memorandum of interview from the January 24, 2017, interview – referred to FBI form “302” – has been extensively litigated. What seems clear now is that the 302 of the January 24 interview underwent several revisions from start to finish in the weeks and months following the interview. But it also seems that Gen. Flynn’s previous attorneys either never asked for – or they simply never received — either the final version of the 302 or any of the earlier versions of the draft 302 that are now known to have existed.
What that means is that when Gen. Flynn’s attorneys were negotiating the “factual basis” of his plea agreement – the “facts” of his confession — Gen. Flynn’s attorneys did not know what the Agents had written about what they claimed he said. If both sides had access to the do ents there would be little or no need for lengthy negotiations over the language in the plea agreement. Both sides could point to specific passages in the transcript, and the specific words of the Agents reporting what Gen. Flynn had told them, and the “factual basis” for his misrepresentations or omissions would be easily set forth. If Gen. Flynn disagreed with the Agents’ 302, his attorneys could point to their specific words, and characterize the nature of Gen. Flynn’s disagreement with what they wrote. Without knowing the specific words in the report, Gen. Flynn’s attorneys could only base their advice to Gen. Flynn on what the SCO prosecutor said the Agents had written.
The factual basis set forth in the plea agreement is drafted by the prosecutor. Ultimately the defendant must agree to a factual basis before each side signs the agreement. But, in the end, the facts say what the prosecutor wants them to say, and the defendant has a “take it or leave it” decision to make. This often comes down to a “risk/benefit” calculation about what is more important — the strict accuracy of the prosecutor’s language, or the outcome of the case that might ride on the willingness to accept less-than-perfect language. For Gen. Flynn the outcome of the case was as good as he could expect — a “no time” recommendation to a sentence of probation, and no exposure for people close to him.
With the benefit of hindsight, and having now had a bit of a window into the way the SCO operated, it does not seem unfair to consider the real likelihood that the SCO prosecutor was not upfront and “forthright” in communicating what the Agents wrote in their report. But the dynamic of the process, in this kind of cir stance, is that the prosecutor holds all the cards when it comes to what the defendant will be compelled to admit in the “factual basis” of the plea agreement.
The key point to understand – based on what’s been filed and reported — is that only the SCO had all the do ents to work with when hashing out the language of Gen. Flynn’s “confession.” He had a transcript of Gen. Flynn’s calls with the Russian Ambassador, and he had the Agents’ report of what they said Gen. Flynn said in response to their questions. With this “monopoly” on information, the SCO prosecutor could “characterize” what the Agents had written in a manner most optimal to his negotiating tactics. He did not have to fear being contradicted because Gen. Flynn’s attorneys did not have the same source do ents to work with. Given his track record, I have no confidence that SCO prosecutor Van Grack was “forthright” in characterizing what he expected the Agents would to testify to if Gen. Flynn refused to plead guilty. We saw for ourselves how the FARA prosecution of Gen. Flynn’s former business partner buckled and collapsed under scrutiny in a trial. We see how the “Troll Farm” case buckled and collapsed when the SCO’s “dream team” of prosecutors had to actually defend the Indictment they conned a grand jury into returning.
SCO prosecutor Van Grack demanded that General Flynn make a decision to plead guilty or face indictment on a very short time frame. Just 30 days earlier Manafort and Gates had been indicted. Papadopoulos had pled guilty only 45 days earlier.
When you see former federal prosecutors – or wannabe pretenders like Benjamin Wittes at Lawfareblog – repeatedly point to the fact that Gen. Flynn “admitted” to having committed the crimes with which he was charged, keep in mind that Gen. Flynn “admitted” to the characterization of events and statements that was fashioned by SCO prosecutor Van Grack, and Gen. Flynn had precious little leeway when having to decide whether to agree or not agree to the SCO’s characterization of the facts. His options were to accept what was presented, or to continue spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in his own defense, and possibly expose family members to criminal charges by the same prosecutors he was watching run roughshod over the lives of numerous individuals simply because they had the temerity to work for the Trump campaign, or in the Trump Administration.
I’ve been there, and I did this. I used the “process” to leverage guilty pleas on my terms. I raised the price of saying “no” so high that I knew the defendants couldn’t do anything but say “yes” to what I was demanding in terms of a guilty plea. I didn’t demand that anyone admit anything that was false, but I knew defendants would sign whatever I wrote in the end because they had nothing to bargain with.
It comes down to the integrity and motives of the prosecutor. The SCO staff hired by Mueller have revealed themselves over time to not warrant any favorable presumptions on either count.
https://www.redstate.com/shipwrecked...-meaningless./
House transcripts out. Heading out to golf, will let other people do the digging and post later
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
