What's new
By:

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

sirkickyass said:
1. Barr can't dismiss the charges. Emmett Sullivan has to do that. Barr has filed a motion.

2. Do you understand how plea bargains work?

They can charge the perp with X number of crimes. In exchange for a guilty plea, they agree to only charge him with some of those crimes. This is a deal for both people as they don't have to go through the whole trial and the perp is sentenced only on some of the crimes.

Flynn plead guilty to the false statements case. Part of that deal is that he wasn't charged with FARA, Logan Act etc. AT the time this was widely perceived as generous to Flynn because he was cooperating with the Mueller probe.

Flynn is trying to undo the deal he made. To pretend as if the other offenses never existed or dont' exist is, frankly, indicative that you have no clue what happened.

I don't know why I even come round these parts. The conservatives on here are so low information and so insistent that they understand everything perfectly.
Click to expand...
I don't know why I even come round these parts either. The liberals on here are so full of themselves and holier than thou that I want to vomit. It is likely that you have followed this case more closely than I have, and I apologize if you are completely wigged out that I said "dismiss" rather than "filed a motion," but the reality is that there are legal experts who vehemently disagree with much of what you are saying in regard to this case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJF
Trump just being trump and doing his quid pro quo schtick again


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I don't know why I even come round these parts either. The liberals on here are so full of themselves and holier than thou that I want to vomit. It is likely that you have followed this case more closely than I have, and I apologize if you are completely wigged out that I said "dismiss" rather than "filed a motion," but the reality is that there are legal experts who vehemently disagree with much of what you are saying in regard to this case.
Click to expand...

I acknowledge they are vehement. I don't acknowledge that they are anything more than hacks.

Part of the reason I linked to Lawfare is that it's a traditionally conservative national security law policy center. They actually came out with an article (which they've stated they regret) that everyone should give Bill Barr a chance. They have a ton of expertise, and in any other political circumstances they are clearly right of center. And it's beyond obvious to them that the entire circus around Flynn is plain administration corruption and in total bad faith.

But I follow both sides. I know that Fox News is giving air time to random tax law attorneys in Texas who will go on for twenty minutes about "unmasking" and be treated with reverential respect because they are saying the thing the hosts want to believe.

Look man. I followed all of this stuff very closely for years. It's obvious there's whole dimensions to this that you're totally unfamiliar with (the Gulen thing for example, or what the circumstances were of Flynn's charges). Why do you believe that you're capable of discerning who's an expert in this area and who isn't? Can you tell a good legal argument from a bad one?

Tell you what - the administration is very into selectively declassifying things these days in an attempt to make Flynn look good. Why don't they declassify the transcript of what Flynn said to Kislyak? It's not as if it's a national security secret: the Russians already know what he said and it's already public knowledge that the conversation happened. Do you think if that conversation looked good or exonerating that it would already be declassified?
 
sirkickyass said:
I acknowledge they are vehement. I don't acknowledge that they are anything more than hacks.

Part of the reason I linked to Lawfare is that it's a traditionally conservative national security law policy center. They actually came out with an article (which they've stated they regret) that everyone should give Bill Barr a chance. They have a ton of expertise, and in any other political circumstances they are clearly right of center. And it's beyond obvious to them that the entire circus around Flynn is plain administration corruption and in total bad faith.

But I follow both sides. I know that Fox News is giving air time to random tax law attorneys in Texas who will go on for twenty minutes about "unmasking" and be treated with reverential respect because they are saying the thing the hosts want to believe.

Look man. I followed all of this stuff very closely for years. It's obvious there's whole dimensions to this that you're totally unfamiliar with (the Gulen thing for example, or what the circumstances were of Flynn's charges). Why do you believe that you're capable of discerning who's an expert in this area and who isn't? Can you tell a good legal argument from a bad one?

Tell you what - the administration is very into selectively declassifying things these days in an attempt to make Flynn look good. Why don't they declassify the transcript of what Flynn said to Kislyak? It's not as if it's a national security secret: the Russians already know what he said and it's already public knowledge that the conversation happened. Do you think if that conversation looked good or exonerating that it would already be declassified?
Click to expand...
This is one of many examples of a lawyer who I do not believe is a hack who does not agree with you on this particular case.
https://thehill.com/opinion/crimina...-case-should-be-dismissed-to-preserve-justice
Your political bias is obvious, so it does not surprise me that you only respect lawyers and others who agree with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJF
Joe Bagadonuts said:
This is one of many examples of a lawyer who I do not believe is a hack who does not agree with you on this particular case.
https://thehill.com/opinion/crimina...-case-should-be-dismissed-to-preserve-justice
Your political bias is obvious, so it does not surprise me that you only respect lawyers and others who agree with you.
Click to expand...


The one law professor they could find to testify on Trump's behalf on impeachment. Shocker that he also takes the administration position on this one. Nope, def not a hack.

Not discussed in this article:

1. Flynn was an unregistered agent of Russia.

2. Flynn was an unregistered agent of Turkey

3. Flynn did the crime (Call with Kislyak)

4. Flynn lied when asked about it.

5. Flynn lied to the Vice President and Sean Spicer about the call.

What part of the evidence discussed in this article disproves any of the fundamental features of the case? What part of the legal argument in this article transforms Flynn's statements into truths? Did he lie when he plead guilty twice?

The article is hacky because it doesn't even engage major portions of the case. It's just a laundry list recitation of Flynn's defense attorneys' filings.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top