U.S. judge asks if ex-Trump aide Flynn should be held in contempt

[cmarshall]

20 minutes ago, J Town said:

It will happen. It's received too much light of day.

It might happen.  I think it is more likely that Judge Sullivan after a hearing and reviewing the amicus briefs,  which will support his option to dismiss, will dismiss the government's motion and proceed to sentencing on the original charges.  The reason is that while the Judge could summarily hold Flynn in contempt for perjury and could imprison him, he cannot impose a term of imprisonment, such as five to ten years, for example.  Imprisonments for contempt intended to compel compliance rather than as punishment and so are normally temporary until the person in contempt corrects his offending action.  For example, judges have imprisoned journalists for refusing to reveal sources to the court, but such imprisonment continues only until the journalist furnishes the information or until the case is resolved in some other way, not indefinitely and not for a specified term.  By contrast if Sullivan proceeds to sentencing on the original charges he can impose a sentence of imprisonment for a specific term of up to five years for each offense, as I understand it.

 

 

[Misty]

2 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

No need to come back to it. The wording makes it clear:

 

"The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

 

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

 

Of course, it is your right to cling to..... I'm not sure what you can cling to, given how definitive the report is.

 

But that summary isn't accurate.  It is not what Mueller reported (sounds more like Barr's 4 page white wash).

 

Mueller's report says he could not bring charges due to lying and deleting of evidence - NOT that he found it didn't happen.

 

An accurate source is Mueller's Executive Summary of his report:  https://www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TKDfella]

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

You mention the two kinds of contempt, but you misconstrue the differences.  Direct contempt applies to actions that take place in court in front of the judge, such as a defendant's committing perjury in the courtroom.  Indirect contempt covers action that takes place outside of the physical purview of the court, such as a refusal to obey an injunction.  In the current case we are clearly concerned with direct contempt, which does not require a separate trial.

 

There has been no adjournment of any kind in Flynn's case.  Once Flynn pleaded guilty he became convicted at which point the case is under control of the judiciary, not the DoJ.  The motion by the DoJ to drop the prosecution is pending and requires a decision from the judge.  Judge Sullivan can simply decide on his own, he can schedule a hearing to question the prosecution on the reasons for their decision, and the basis for it, and he can consider any amicus brief from a relevant party.  He has called for amicus briefs and appointed Judge Gleeson to produce one.  I think he will certainly schedule a hearing at which he will grill the prosecution.  He could also call for the previous prosecutor in the case, who resigned from the case just prior to DoJ's submitting its motion, and ask him his opinion.  Legal opinions vary as to how much leeway Judge Sullivan has to deny the motion, but at least some opinion holds that he could do so if he were to decide, for instance, that the DoJ decision was not made in good faith. 

 

Judge Sullivan could issue a summary judgment on Flynn's perjury and impose a penalty for that crime which could include imprisonment.  Or he could dismiss the DoJ motion and proceed to sentencing on the two charges to which Flynn has already pleaded guilty.  Or he could do both or he could accept the motion at which point the proceedings would cease.  If he were to sentence Flynn he could remand him into custody on the spot rather than release him on bail pending appeal.

 

At any time, including right now, the President could pardon Flynn for any or all past actions, but not future ones.  If Judge Sullivan were to deny the motion and sentence Flynn I expect that Trump would indeed pardon Flynn, but he might wait until after the election to do so to mitigate the odor of corruption.  So, Flynn could face at least a relatively short time in prison.  

Okay, I am not knowledgeable enough on US contempt of court issues to continue that argument so I accept what you have said. And yes I have just read the news that Judge Gleeson has been appointed to argue the case against/with the DOJ.

But surely a judge has to announce an adjournment when any party in the court request more time for this & that. Hasn't that happened here? The Judge finds himself in a position where he needs to delay procedures for further considerations and in this case to make an appointment. Or is the judge exempt from this?

[cmarshall]

3 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

But surely a judge has to announce an adjournment when any party in the court request more time for this & that. Hasn't that happened here? The Judge finds himself in a position where he needs to delay procedures for further considerations and in this case to make an appointment. Or is the judge exempt from this?

Nothing like that has happened.  The government has made a motion before the judge.  The ball is now solely in the judge's court.  He can take whatever reasonable amount of time he wants to decide how to proceed from here since the court is waiting on him not the prosecution or the defense.  He controls the clock completely at this point.  There are no procedures that need to be delayed, because the next step depends solely on the judge, i.e. calling a hearing on the matter, calling for amicus briefs, reviewing the briefs, announcing his decision on the pending motion, or possibly, scheduling a sentencing hearing.  Neither the prosecution nor the defense has any request pending beyond the government's motion to drop.  If he schedules a hearing for a certain date, either side can petition to delay it for some reason, but we aren't at that point yet.  

 

Since the government submitted a request to dismiss the charges last week both sides are waiting on the judge's decision on the next step.  

 

Judge Gleeson will submit a "friend of the court" brief to Judge Sullivan at the latter's request, which, we expect, will argue against accepting the government's pending motion to dismiss charges and outline options available to Judge Sullivan.  Judge Gleeson is advising Judge Sullivan.  He has no other role in the case.  He will not be presenting any argument against the government or otherwise, will not appear in court himself, and cannot be questioned by the prosecution. At the hearing that we expect Judge Sullivan to call, but which he is not strictly obliged to call, the government will answer questions from Judge Sullivan and presumably will have the opportunity to argue its case for dropping the prosecution.  Judge Sullivan will decide, although if he decides against the government, the DoJ can presumably appeal it to the DC Court of Appeals which can overrule Judge Sullivan, let his decision stand, or provide instructions of some kind and send it back to Judge Sullivan to reconsider.  If the government loses the appeal, they can appeal it up to the Supreme Court. 

[Misty]

2 hours ago, cmarshall said:

Nothing like that has happened.  The government has made a motion before the judge.  The ball is now solely in the judge's court.  He can take whatever reasonable amount of time he wants to decide how to proceed from here since the court is waiting on him not the prosecution or the defense.  He controls the clock completely at this point.  There are no procedures that need to be delayed, because the next step depends solely on the judge, i.e. calling a hearing on the matter, calling for amicus briefs, reviewing the briefs, announcing his decision on the pending motion, or possibly, scheduling a sentencing hearing.  Neither the prosecution nor the defense has any request pending beyond the government's motion to drop.  If he schedules a hearing for a certain date, either side can petition to delay it for some reason, but we aren't at that point yet.  

 

Since the government submitted a request to dismiss the charges last week both sides are waiting on the judge's decision on the next step.  

 

Judge Gleeson will submit a "friend of the court" brief to Judge Sullivan at the latter's request, which, we expect, will argue against accepting the government's pending motion to dismiss charges and outline options available to Judge Sullivan.  Judge Gleeson is advising Judge Sullivan.  He has no other role in the case.  He will not be presenting any argument against the government or otherwise, will not appear in court himself, and cannot be questioned by the prosecution. At the hearing that we expect Judge Sullivan to call, but which he is not strictly obliged to call, the government will answer questions from Judge Sullivan and presumably will have the opportunity to argue its case for dropping the prosecution.  Judge Sullivan will decide, although if he decides against the government, the DoJ can presumably appeal it to the DC Court of Appeals which can overrule Judge Sullivan, let his decision stand, or provide instructions of some kind and send it back to Judge Sullivan to reconsider.  If the government loses the appeal, they can appeal it up to the Supreme Court. 

Time is not on Flynn's side

[TKDfella]

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

Nothing like that has happened.  The government has made a motion before the judge.  The ball is now solely in the judge's court.  He can take whatever reasonable amount of time he wants to decide how to proceed from here since the court is waiting on him not the prosecution or the defense.  He controls the clock completely at this point.  There are no procedures that need to be delayed, because the next step depends solely on the judge, i.e. calling a hearing on the matter, calling for amicus briefs, reviewing the briefs, announcing his decision on the pending motion, or possibly, scheduling a sentencing hearing.  Neither the prosecution nor the defense has any request pending beyond the government's motion to drop.  If he schedules a hearing for a certain date, either side can petition to delay it for some reason, but we aren't at that point yet.  

 

Since the government submitted a request to dismiss the charges last week both sides are waiting on the judge's decision on the next step.  

 

Judge Gleeson will submit a "friend of the court" brief to Judge Sullivan at the latter's request, which, we expect, will argue against accepting the government's pending motion to dismiss charges and outline options available to Judge Sullivan.  Judge Gleeson is advising Judge Sullivan.  He has no other role in the case.  He will not be presenting any argument against the government or otherwise, will not appear in court himself, and cannot be questioned by the prosecution. At the hearing that we expect Judge Sullivan to call, but which he is not strictly obliged to call, the government will answer questions from Judge Sullivan and presumably will have the opportunity to argue its case for dropping the prosecution.  Judge Sullivan will decide, although if he decides against the government, the DoJ can presumably appeal it to the DC Court of Appeals which can overrule Judge Sullivan, let his decision stand, or provide instructions of some kind and send it back to Judge Sullivan to reconsider.  If the government loses the appeal, they can appeal it up to the Supreme Court. 

Well, thanks for that detailed reply. I have read several pieces today on this case and none of them mention any type of 'adjournment' and are a repeat of what you have said. However, the definitions do give me doubts. The definitions basically say the same thing that an adjournment is any delay in proceedings, or announcement of a Judges ruling, for the purpose further consideration or advice via an external device.

But they also say that with an adjournment, a 're-enter time or date' is given and, that, I have to admit, has not happened in this case. It seems no adjournment was called and no date was set for a re-enter of business. So I concede.

Thanks for the chat, anyway.

[cmarshall]

40 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

Well, thanks for that detailed reply. I have read several pieces today on this case and none of them mention any type of 'adjournment' and are a repeat of what you have said. However, the definitions do give me doubts. The definitions basically say the same thing that an adjournment is any delay in proceedings, or announcement of a Judges ruling, for the purpose further consideration or advice via an external device.

But they also say that with an adjournment, a 're-enter time or date' is given and, that, I have to admit, has not happened in this case. It seems no adjournment was called and no date was set for a re-enter of business. So I concede.

Thanks for the chat, anyway.

Think of it this way: an adjournment is declared by the judge and stops the forward movement of the trial process.  For instance, the trial is ready to start, but an important witness has a sudden medical emergency, so the judge adjourns the case until the witness becomes available.  In the present circumstance the normal procedure of the case is continuing without interruption.  The judge has been preparing to make a date for the sentencing hearing, Flynn having already been convicted via his guilty plea, and then government makes an unexpected motion, which it is fully entitled to make.  The normal course after one side makes a motion is for the judge to review the motion and either decide to rule on it or call a hearing or call for amicus briefs to advise him or something else.  That's the phase of the process in which we find ourselves right now.  Although the motion itself is unusual the process by which the court prepares to rule on the motion is completely normal.  So, the forward motion of the case has not stopped.  There is nothing to adjourn at this point.  The judge need not adjourn any proceeding because the process has not stopped.  The judge is preparing his response to the pending motion for which he has all the time he needs.

 

Your question implies that unless the court is actually in session the forward movement of the case must have been stopped in some way, but there are many stages in the preparation for or conduct of a trial that are carried out "offstage" as it were.  The course of the trial is ongoing at this very minute even if it does not mean that lawyers are in the courtroom wrangling.

[riclag]

6 hours ago, Misty said:

 

But that summary isn't accurate.  It is not what Mueller reported (sounds more like Barr's 4 page white wash).

 

Mueller's report says he could not bring charges due to lying and deleting of evidence - NOT that he found it didn't happen.

 

An accurate source is Mueller's Executive Summary of his report:  https://www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a blog full of opinions  isn't it! I went through their report, the summary looking for your statement  that the report said , 'could not bring charges due to lying and deleting of evidence"! in reference to he couldn't find evidence to Russian coordination or conspiracy with the campaign I can't find that !

 

 

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, riclag said:

This is a blog full of opinions  isn't it! I went through their report, the summary looking for your statement  that the report said , 'could not bring charges due to lying and deleting of evidence"! in reference to he couldn't find evidence to Russian coordination or conspiracy with the campaign I can't find that !

 

 

An opinion site's summary of a report is not a summary of the report. Using the opinion site's summary as a summary of the report is dishonest.

[riclag]

Just now, stevenl said:

An opinion site's summary of a report is not a summary of the report. Using the opinion site's summary as a summary of the report is dishonest.

I'm not following you my friend

 

[riclag]

Is a blog site(lawfare) a legitimate,accurate  source for news on here or is it similar to late night talk shows with opinions,such as twitter and facebook 

[Sujo]

9 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

No, you have it wrong. The DOJ found the jack-booted government agents involved in the original prosecution so corrupt, the DOJ had to drop the case.

 

As for Judge Sullivan: sour grapes. He's already had to apologize for bias against the defendant. He's considering holding Flynn in contempt of court because.... because what? Because the DOJ dropped the case?

No. Because when he pleaded guilty that was lying.

[Crazy Alex]

6 hours ago, Sujo said:

No. Because when he pleaded guilty that was lying.

He was extorted by government hacks.

[impulse]

53 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

He was extorted by government hacks.

 

There's a huge controversy brewing nowadays about plea bargaining.  Somewhere over 90% of criminal cases never make it to court because they're plea bargained.  Even innocent people plead guilty because, if they don't, the prosecutors tack on half a dozen other charges to take a relatively mild case and turn it into a decades long prison sentence.  Plead guilty to misdemeanor theft and serve 6 months (maybe even suspended), or we'll tack on felony theft charges, wire fraud, money laundering and you risk 20 years behind bars.

 

A typical example is the recent and ongoing college entrance scandal.  The ones who pleaded guilty got a slap on the wrist.  The ones fighting the charges are looking at significant prison time for a long list of charges, even though they did pretty much the same dastardly deeds.

 

But nobody should take my word for it.  Do some research on the topic if you're interested.  Here's just one to start with. 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocence-is-irrelevant/534171/

 

I don't know what they threatened Flynn with to get him to plead out.  But I don't dismiss the possibility he was railroaded.

[Crazy Alex]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

There's a huge controversy brewing nowadays about plea bargaining.  Somewhere over 90% of criminal cases never make it to court because they're plea bargained.  Even innocent people plead guilty because, if they don't, the prosecutors tack on half a dozen other charges to take a relatively mild case and turn it into a decades long prison sentence.  Plead guilty to misdemeanor theft and serve 6 months (maybe even suspended), or we'll tack on felony theft charges, wire fraud, money laundering and you risk 20 years behind bars.

 

A typical example is the recent and ongoing college entrance scandal.  The ones who pleaded guilty got a slap on the wrist.  The ones fighting the charges are looking at significant prison time for a long list of charges, even though they did pretty much the same dastardly deeds.

 

But nobody should take my word for it.  Do some research on the topic if you're interested.  Here's just one to start with. 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocence-is-irrelevant/534171/

 

I don't know what they threatened Flynn with to get him to plead out.  But I don't dismiss the possibility he was railroaded.

I've read similar stories. I also have a friend who pled out on a federal case. His attorney said the federal government in particular punishes defendants severely if they opt to go to trial. I don't claim to be an expert on the law or this case in particular. But I have read enough about this case to strongly suspect Flynn was railroaded for political expediency. The feds threatening to go after his family alone is enough to make one wonder...

[lannarebirth]

2 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

I've read similar stories. I also have a friend who pled out on a federal case. His attorney said the federal government in particular punishes defendants severely if they opt to go to trial. I don't claim to be an expert on the law or this case in particular. But I have read enough about this case to strongly suspect Flynn was railroaded for political expediency. The feds threatening to go after his family alone is enough to make one wonder...

 

They can do whatever they want, to anyone, at anytime.

 

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/democrats-have-abandoned-civil-liberties?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxOTk4NDc5LCJwb3N0X2lkIjo0NTk4ODUsIl8iOiJ5SWhFYyIsImlhdCI6MTU4OTU3OTYyMCwiZXhwIjoxNTg5NTgzMjIwLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTA0MiIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.fuXDGjquepw7hXUoZ7bOzPiRbJqmPi3whUNnmN88PAY

[thaibeachlovers]

On 5/14/2020 at 12:39 PM, webfact said:

Since then, Barr has met with staunch criticism by Democrats as well as former career prosecutors, who said his actions amount to improper political meddling and harm the integrity of the Justice Department.

staunch criticism by Democrats

As if Dems would do otherwise. Trump hatred runs deep within the Democrats. Means little of significance.

 

former career prosecutors,

Perhaps that should be qualified as "Trump hating former career prosecutors"

 

IMO and that of others, the integrity of the justice department was harmed long ago by choosing to prosecute Flynn in this, IMO, travesty of justice.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 5/14/2020 at 2:45 PM, Walker88 said:

Ah, no. Read my response to the Noodle guy.

 

When decency and normalcy return to the US, and when rule of law is re-instated, the facts will come out regarding Russiagate, and there will be a lot of dining on crow.

 

Mueller and his team were prohibited from 'following the money'. I was not, as a private citizen I was free to pursue contacts I had built up in two very distinct but useful careers. I will leave that part aside.

 

Even with a limited mandate, this is what Mueller uncovered:

 

-Wikileaks kept Roger Stone informed of what the GRU had hacked from the DNC, and together with the 45 Campaign they coordinated the slow release of emails both from the DNC and John Podesta.

 

-The FSB concocted a false narrative about the death of Seth Rich in order to deflect attention from Russia's hacking of the DNC and Podesta, and that narrative was trumpeted by 45's Campaign and via surrogates like hannity

 

-Detailed internal polling data collected by Brad Pascale was given to Manafort, who then traveled to Spain to meet with Russian Agent Kilimnik and gave the data to Kilimnik, who passed it on to the GRU and its "Internet Research Agency" (IRA) in St Pete. The IRA then microtargeted voters in swing States like MI, WI, PA and OH with fabricated stories about HRC's health, the Clinton Foundation, the absolutely ridiculous "Uranium One" tale, and other things in an attempt to drive those swing States toward 45.

 

-Investigation also found that Putin had funded and supported the campaign of Green party candidate Jill Stein---who coincidentally sat with flynn and Putin at that infamous dinner in Moscow. Putin had learned from Perot '92 and Nader 2000 that a 3rd Party candidate could take enough votes from a main Party candidate to swing an election. As it turns out Putin was correct. Stein's votes in both MI and WI exceed 45's margin over HRC, and it is highly unlikely Stein stole a single vote from 45. The margin in PA was within a few thousand votes.

 

There is much more intel, but most of it remains classified. All of what I wrote is public. Some of it is in the redacted parts of the Mueller report, the one whitewashed by barr as he withheld it for weeks after his obfuscation-riddled presser that controlled the initial narrative.

and we know you are telling the truth because................................?

 

 

[simple1]

On 5/14/2020 at 10:22 PM, Crazy Alex said:

Are we still going on about Russia collusion???? That issue has been settled:

 

"The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

 

Obviously, that means that not only did the Trump campaign NOT collude or conspire with Russia, it means the Trump campaign resisted efforts from Russians to do so.

 

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

The Senate Intelligence review did find Russia extensively interfered in the 2016 election. Even after the report trump continues to deny Russian interference. Why does trump continually, by his denials, support the Russian campaign. Personally I believe trump Jnr was very fortunate not to be charged after arranging a meeting with the Russian lawyer in an attempt to collude with Russia to gain dirt on Clinton. I can only assume intent cause is insufficient for charges to be laid which is rather odd to me.

[cmarshall]

5 hours ago, impulse said:

 

There's a huge controversy brewing nowadays about plea bargaining.  Somewhere over 90% of criminal cases never make it to court because they're plea bargained.  Even innocent people plead guilty because, if they don't, the prosecutors tack on half a dozen other charges to take a relatively mild case and turn it into a decades long prison sentence.  Plead guilty to misdemeanor theft and serve 6 months (maybe even suspended), or we'll tack on felony theft charges, wire fraud, money laundering and you risk 20 years behind bars.

 

A typical example is the recent and ongoing college entrance scandal.  The ones who pleaded guilty got a slap on the wrist.  The ones fighting the charges are looking at significant prison time for a long list of charges, even though they did pretty much the same dastardly deeds.

 

But nobody should take my word for it.  Do some research on the topic if you're interested.  Here's just one to start with. 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocence-is-irrelevant/534171/

 

I don't know what they threatened Flynn with to get him to plead out.  But I don't dismiss the possibility he was railroaded.

All true, maybe except for the part about Flynn.  Americans think the criminal justice system is based on jury trials like in the movies, but those are the rare exception.  97% of criminal cases are resolved by plea bargaining.  Prosecutorial abuse of that process is one of the big reasons for the excessive incarceration rates in the US.

 

But there is no evidence that any of that occurred with Flynn.  Flynn's plea bargain gave extraordinary concessions to Flynn himself.  He was not charged on the underlying crimes about which he lied to the FBI, but only for a single count of the felonious lying itself.  The recommendation of the prosecution was that he be jailed for up to six months, a pretty mild punishment for someone who sold out a position of high trust.  Originally, the prosecution was open to a sentence of probation, but then Flynn abandoned his show of remorse in favor of attacking the government and his former counsel.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 minutes ago, simple1 said:

The Senate Intelligence review did find Russia extensively interfered in the 2016 election. Even after the report trump continues to deny Russian interference. Why does trump continually, by his denials, support the Russian campaign. Personally I believe trump Jnr was very fortunate not to be charged after arranging a meeting with the Russian lawyer in an attempt to collude with Russia to gain dirt on Clinton. I can only assume intent cause is insufficient for charges to be laid which is rather odd to me.

Can we give the Russia Russia Russia thing a rest, please. If the US voters give a monkey's bottom about it they vote for a different old white man in a few months.

Honestly it's just not that important when millions are losing their jobs and facing ruin.

[simple1]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Can we give the Russia Russia Russia thing a rest, please. If the US voters give a monkey's bottom about it they vote for a different old white man in a few months.

Honestly it's just not that important when millions are losing their jobs and facing ruin.

take up your complaint with poster/s who originally raise the subject. 

[thaibeachlovers]

9 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

All true, maybe except for the part about Flynn.  Americans think the criminal justice system is based on jury trials like in the movies, but those are the rare exception.  97% of criminal cases are resolved by plea bargaining.  Prosecutorial abuse of that process is one of the big reasons for the excessive incarceration rates in the US.

 

But there is no evidence that any of that occurred with Flynn.  Flynn's plea bargain gave extraordinary concessions to Flynn himself.  He was not charged on the underlying crimes about which he lied to the FBI, but only for a single count of the felonious lying itself.  The recommendation of the prosecution was that he be jailed for up to six months, a pretty mild punishment for someone who sold out a position of high trust.  Originally, the prosecution was open to a sentence of probation, but then Flynn abandoned his show of remorse in favor of attacking the government and his former counsel.

Flynn was a highly respected man that gave his life to the service of his country. Yet he should accept being jailed like some common criminal?

Yes, he made a mistake LIKE ALL OF US DO, and he was crucified because he supported Trump. Had it not been for working for Trump likely nothing would have happened. This is, IMO entirely due to the Trump hatred that infests the US body politic.

Shame on them.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, simple1 said:

take up your complaint with posters who originally raise the subject

Nobody forced you to respond, and I hope everyone reads that and gives it a rest.

[simple1]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Flynn was a highly respected man that gave his life to the service of his country. Yet he should accept being jailed like some common criminal?

Yes, he made a mistake LIKE ALL OF US DO, and he was crucified because he supported Trump. Had it not been for working for Trump likely nothing would have happened. This is, IMO entirely due to the Trump hatred that infests the US body politic.

Shame on them.

Wrong. Nobody should be above the law, including trump.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Flynn was a highly respected man that gave his life to the service of his country. Yet he should accept being jailed like some common criminal?

Yes, he made a mistake LIKE ALL OF US DO, and he was crucified because he supported Trump. Had it not been for working for Trump likely nothing would have happened. This is, IMO entirely due to the Trump hatred that infests the US body politic.

Shame on them.

We all make mistakes, but we don’t all conspire with foreign governments.

 

Being highly respected is not unusual, loosing one’s position of respect after committing crimes is also not unusual.

[simple1]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Nobody forced you to respond, and I hope everyone reads that and gives it a rest.

OP has nothing to do with Covid - suggest you move along

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Nobody forced you to respond, and I hope everyone reads that and gives it a rest.

Russia interference to help Trump

win the 2016 election isn’t going to go away until  we see the full un-redacted Mueller report.

 

Flynn’s crimes are an integral part of Russia’s interference.

 

Flynn’s crimes and Russia’s interference in the election are inseparable.

 

[Mama Noodle]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Russia interference to help Trump win the 2016 election isn’t going to go away until  we see the full un-redacted Mueller report.

This again ????

 

 

[Crazy Alex]

2 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

They can do whatever they want, to anyone, at anytime.

 

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/democrats-have-abandoned-civil-liberties?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxOTk4NDc5LCJwb3N0X2lkIjo0NTk4ODUsIl8iOiJ5SWhFYyIsImlhdCI6MTU4OTU3OTYyMCwiZXhwIjoxNTg5NTgzMjIwLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTA0MiIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.fuXDGjquepw7hXUoZ7bOzPiRbJqmPi3whUNnmN88PAY

Excellent article. Even before near the end where they mention Dick Cheney, I started thinking to myself that post-9/11 Patriot Act and probably a lot of other "precautions" and other actions to fight "the war on terror" only accelerated the erosion of civil rights. All in the name of national security, of course.