Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The buzz on the wires is, Mueller is in trouble and Flynn is set to withdraw his plea.
Rosenstein has been subpoenaed and the oversight has caught up to what Mueller has gone to, for intimidation of a witness.
I would imagine that the 'buzz on the wires' is the twitter hashtag #clearflynnnow.
Let us say, for the moment, that Mr. Flynn did not lie to the FBI investigators. Why did he plead guilty to the charge?
Plus, as has been widely speculated, if Mr. Flynn has been cooperating with the Mueller investigation, will his withdrawal of his guilty plea mean that any testimony he has sworn to would be invalidated? Of course, the answer to that is "No".
Of course, it may be that Mr. Flynn has not yet been interviewed by Mr. Mueller or, more importantly, a grand jury. If so, then he may safely withdraw his guilty plea.
For those that have forgotten, Mr. Flynn had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI investigators about his contact (two contacts) with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016, while Mr. Flynn was a private citizen.
So, for those that say Mr. Flynn did not lie, that necessarily means that they believe that Mr. Flynn did NOT have contact with said Ambassador.
From what I have read: Mr. Flynn initially denied to the FBI that he engaged in such contact, involving a meeting with said Russian on December 22, 2016, and another on December 29th.
Subsequently, he admitted that he did indeed meet twice with the Russian: at the first meeting to ask the Ambassador to delay or defeat an upcoming UN Security Council resolution condemning the building, by Israel, of new settlements (the resolution passed; Israel was upset that Obama would not stop the resolution, which he could have, hence Russia, another permanent member of the Security Council, was approached).
The second meeting, on the 29th, was on the same day that President Obama announced new sanctions on Russia, asking Russia (apparently on behalf of Trump) to hold off on responding on the new sanctions until Mr. Trump assumed office.
Russia, as we all know, complied. Some had wondered, at the time, about the lack of response by Mr. Putin.
So, when people talk about how the FBI railroaded Mr. Flynn, keep in mind the foregoing.
I would imagine that the 'buzz on the wires' is the twitter hashtag #clearflynnnow.
Let us say, for the moment, that Mr. Flynn did not lie to the FBI investigators. Why did he plead guilty to the charge?
Plus, as has been widely speculated, if Mr. Flynn has been cooperating with the Mueller investigation, will his withdrawal of his guilty plea mean that any testimony he has sworn to would be invalidated? Of course, the answer to that is "No".
Of course, it may be that Mr. Flynn has not yet been interviewed by Mr. Mueller or, more importantly, a grand jury. If so, then he may safely withdraw his guilty plea.
For those that have forgotten, Mr. Flynn had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI investigators about his contact (two contacts) with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016, while Mr. Flynn was a private citizen.
So, for those that say Mr. Flynn did not lie, that necessarily means that they believe that Mr. Flynn did NOT have contact with said Ambassador.
From what I have read: Mr. Flynn initially denied to the FBI that he engaged in such contact, involving a meeting with said Russian on December 22, 2016, and another on December 29th.
Subsequently, he admitted that he did indeed meet twice with the Russian: at the first meeting to ask the Ambassador to delay or defeat an upcoming UN Security Council resolution condemning the building, by Israel, of new settlements (the resolution passed; Israel was upset that Obama would not stop the resolution, which he could have, hence Russia, another permanent member of the Security Council, was approached).
The second meeting, on the 29th, was on the same day that President Obama announced new sanctions on Russia, asking Russia (apparently on behalf of Trump) to hold off on responding on the new sanctions until Mr. Trump assumed office.
Russia, as we all know, complied. Some had wondered, at the time, about the lack of response by Mr. Putin.
So, when people talk about how the FBI railroaded Mr. Flynn, keep in mind the foregoing.
BB did raise a question that I wonder about.
When a person cops a plea, at what point can that person no longer withdraw the plea? There must be a point of no return.
When a person cops a plea, at what point can that person no longer withdraw the plea? There must be a point of no return.
Until said person is in prison.
Actually, up to the time of sentencing (at least, under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure) the defendant may request that the presiding judge allow the guilty plea to be withdrawn.
It is not automatic: the defendant must show a 'fair and just' reason to withdraw the plea.
I will note that the rules (see link) make a distinction between a defendant withdrawing a plea of guilty BEFORE the judge 'accepts' the plea, and the motion to withdraw the plea AFTER the judge accepts the plea, but before sentencing.
Interested readers should read this rule, including what the Court must inform the defendant during the plea hearing.
Part B begins:
"Before the court accepts a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the defendant may be placed under oath, and the court must address the defendant personally in open court. During this address, the court must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the following: "
Then it lists what the Court must inform the defendant.
The reason is simple: a defendant must be thoroughly informed of the ramifications of his entering a plea of guilty or nolo contender. It is why a defendant's subsequent motion to withdraw the plea does have conditions (if the judge accepted the plea).
Actually, up to the time of sentencing (at least, under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure) the defendant may request that the presiding judge allow the guilty plea to be withdrawn.
It is not automatic: the defendant must show a 'fair and just' reason to withdraw the plea.
I will note that the rules (see link) make a distinction between a defendant withdrawing a plea of guilty BEFORE the judge 'accepts' the plea, and the motion to withdraw the plea AFTER the judge accepts the plea, but before sentencing.
Interested readers should read this rule, including what the Court must inform the defendant during the plea hearing.
Part B begins:
"Before the court accepts a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the defendant may be placed under oath, and the court must address the defendant personally in open court. During this address, the court must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the following: "
Then it lists what the Court must inform the defendant.
The reason is simple: a defendant must be thoroughly informed of the ramifications of his entering a plea of guilty or nolo contender. It is why a defendant's subsequent motion to withdraw the plea does have conditions (if the judge accepted the plea).
Interesting.
So it seems that maybe Flynn might have more to deliver, which could change his plea deal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
