slug.com slug.com

4 3

Longtime Republican operative Roger Stone is begging President Donald Trump for either a pardon or a commutation of his 40-month criminal sentence.

[msn.com]

TyKC 7 July 7
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

4 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

I feel sorrier for Julian Assange who has been BADLY treated FOR years. Ooh, DON'T SAY anything about those crime syndicate stars, the Clinton's. Nevermind it's true. DO NOT say it!

Oh yes, the Clinton's. The most successful crime family in the history of the world. All those crimes and not one indictment. Even Bill Barr has failed to deliver. And poor squeaky clean Roger Stone. Such an injustice.

@TyKC Likely not slightly INNOCENT but speaking Comparatively? How does that go LEGALLY?
You likely know they STARTED off as newlyweds that way, and went from there. Was everyone sleeping, didn't care? I saw vids their body count, oh, suicide just before testifying??, was around 150. Not good for those brave people, would you agree? Didn't she start off with her lover?
Husband, wife teams do well at this.

@2FollowHim I saw vids their body count, oh, suicide just before testifying??, was around 150? Testifying to what? In what jurisdiction? Grand juries? I don't recall any grand juries being convened. Who were these people testifying to?

@TyKC These were listed, Haiti rings a bell, and one man, fit jumped in front of a train. This was a while back. Then, of course, we have Clinton drug running for the CIA, with I read again, some time ago, links to H. Bush. Then, there was the dirty blood scam at the beginning of their criminal career.
I read she was heavily implicated in the Jim J9nes situation.
Add it up.
There was a funny video of Hillary lying for 22 minutes. These vids don't stay up but it was there. Then there was an amazing insider book when Bill was presented.
Add.

@TyKC I don't refer to crime as success. Success is helping others.

1

Ask November 4th.

0

The Roger Stone and Michael Flynn cases were both assigned to swamp scum activist judges who engaged in judicial misconduct against the respective defendants. Justice finally came through for Flynn... what about Stone?

Amy Berman Jackson was appointed by the president of the administration that concocted the very Russia hoax that started the case! Big conflict of interest!

So, any judge appointed by Obama or Bush is by default swamp scum? Interesting logic.

@TyKC I never said that. For starters, my original comment didn't point out which president appointed Judge Sullivan, but in both cases my comment was specific to the individual judges.

@DaveO276 Why does the judge matter? Stone was convicted by a jury, not the judge. Flynn pled guilty. The judge was responsible for him pleading guilty? Sullivan asked Flynn at the time if he was coerced and Flynn said no. Mueller had agreed to drop charges against Flynn for his cooperation and only charge him with lying to the FBI, then the DOJ later dropped the charges. If there is anything stinky going on here, it's within the DOJ.

@TyKC yes, if you go WAY BACK for Barry to his birth IN KENYA, someone needs a long talk with Malik!
But facts just don't count, do they.

@TyKC Flynn did plead guilty… when the prosecutor threatened to go after his son if he didn’t. If someone kidnaps your son and holds a gun to his head while demanding you enter a false guilty plea, what do you do? Do you point out you are being coerced as the kidnapper pulls the trigger?

DOJ was right to drop charges. The FBI approached Flynn to question him about the content of a phone call, for which they had the transcript. They had no reason to question him about it other than to set a perjury trap. Furthermore, they told him he did not need a lawyer present.

In the redacted 302 report Strzok and Pientka said they “both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying.”

The prosecutors were legally required to disclose exculpatory evidence, which they did not do.

The charge Flynn pled guilty to requires a statement to be, not simply false but, materially false. Materiality requires probative weight (i.e. it is reasonably likely to influence the tribunal in making a decision required to be made.” United States v Weinstock, 231 F.2d 699, 701 (D.C. Cir. 1965)). Flynn’s statement had no probative weight because the FBI had the transcript. I highly recommend Viva Frei’s YouTube playlist for an explanation of issues with the Flynn case.

@DaveO276 I think you are confused. The FBI did not arrest Flynn at the time of this interview. He was being interviewed in connection with contacts made with the Russian ambassador. He did lie to the FBI agents at that time, but they did not act on it then. On January 4, 2017, Flynn informed transition team counsel Don McGahn, soon to become the White House Counsel, that he was under federal investigation for secret lobbying work he had done for Turkey during the campaign.

On November 5, 2017, NBC News reported that Robert Mueller had enough evidence for charges against Flynn and his son, Michael G. Flynn. On November 10, The Wall Street Journal reported that Flynn was under investigation by Mueller for allegedly planning a kidnapping and extrajudicial rendition of Turkish cleric Fethullah Gülen to Turkey. On November 22, NBC News reported that Flynn's business partner Bijan Kian was a subject of the Mueller probe. NBC reported that a Turkish businessman named Reza Zarrab, who was picked up in 2016 by US authorities in Miami on Iranian sanctions violations and money laundering charges, was offering evidence against Flynn. Flynn's firm was paid more than $500,000 by Inovo, a Netherlands firm owned by Turkish businessman Kamil Ekim Alptekin, for work which included investigating Gülen. In turn Alptekin received $80,000, said to be a kick-back in a report done by Reuters.

So, Mueller had originally planned on charging Flynn with being an unregistered foreign agent. This had nothing to do with his interview at the WH. But Flynn copped a plea deal agreeing to plead guilty to the crime of lying to the FBI. His son was also an unregistered foreign agent. BTW, the FBI asks questions they already have the answers to all the time. This is not unusual. The conservative media often conflates these two different events and misrepresents what really happened.

@TyKC So Flynn copped a plea deal agreeing to plead guilty to a "crime" that was not a crime, because his statement, even if simply false, was not materially false. Is it common for a plea deal to involve pleading criminally guilty to a non-crime?

Once the plea deal was found to be faulty, why not just withdraw it and go back to the original plan to charge him as an unregistered foreign agent? Would that have been too hard?

@DaveO276 Exactly, but DOJ is refusing to do so. If Flynn wants out of his plea deal that's no problem, but he should be charged with being an unregistered foreign agent, but the DOJ is refusing to do so for political reasons. It stinks. And yes, it is common in this country to plead guilty to a lesser crime that you didn't commit as part of a plea deal. The materiality is in the plea deal, not the original case. Flynn pleaded guilty to a lesser crime he didn't commit in exchange for not being charged for a crime he did commit.

@TyKC I get that it is common to plead guilty to a lesser charge... I guess it just makes my head spin a little that what he pled guilty to was not even a crime.

Regarding the original charge of being an unregistered foreign agent... would that happen to be the Logan Act?

@DaveO276 No. Has nothing to do with the Logan Act. The Logan Act is a United States federal law that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized American citizens with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States. The intent behind the Act is to prevent unauthorized negotiations from undermining the government's position.

@TyKC Ok, if he hasn't been tried on the original charge, I think I can agree that he should be. I'm still wary of Judge Sullivan.

@DaveO276 Well I think Sullivan sees the same thing I see - that the DOJ is dropping the plea deal, but then not moving ahead with the other charge. He sees it as politically motivated and so do I.

@TyKC I know it's been a while... I have come across some information I did not have readily in mind when we last communicated about this, and I'm not sure whether or not I had heard about this at the time. It took me a while to find this thread again too!

Do you have any knowledge of the Bijan Rafiekian case?

It is my current understanding that the "unregistered foreign agent" cases against Flynn and Rafiekian were identical (Rafiekian was basically Flynn's co-accused?). Apparently the judge dismissed Rafiekian's case, saying that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law. To me, that would mean that the evidence would also be insufficient to convict Flynn - unless I'm missing something... So wasn't the dropping of Flynn's case justified, with that in mind?

Besides, as a matter of separation of powers, the right of prosecution belongs exclusively to the executive. For a judge to try to keep a case open that the prosecution has moved to dismiss is unconstitutional judicial overreach, is it not?

@DaveO276 Here's what I know of the Rafiekian case: [upi.com]

Rafiekian was charged, pled not guilty, but was convicted by a jury. But the judge in the case threw it out. Very unusual, but it happens on occasion. Each case is tried separately. Just because one case gets thrown out doesn't mean the other case does, unless you are tried together in the same trial. It's true that prosecutors have broad discretion in when and if to prosecute. But it is not unlimited. Prosecutors are bound by the "equal protection" clause under the 14th Amendment. Rafiekian was charged and convicted. Flynn never was charged. Theoretically, just because you're politically connected doesn't permit special treatment under the law. Of course, this concept is violated on a regular basis in this country all the time. That Flynn was never charged seems a clear violation of the "equal protection" clause.

0

Idk, I think we'd all like to know what was in those files. 😁

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:111023
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.