Mueller Investigation pt 7

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Carter Page was offered money not to cooperate with authorities

Did you mean Rick Gates?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Did you mean Rick Gates?

I do. Thanks for the correction.

[Aridas]

Just because...

DOJ actually found strong anti-Hillary bias at the FBI

Certain right-wingers might be surprised at how the FBI was acting in almost exactly the opposite way that their conspiracy mongers keep trying to tell them it was acting. If they had ever actually paid attention to the obvious, of course, there would be no surprise.

[The Great Zaganza]

It's only biased if it isn't pro-Trump.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

I would call it Truthism rather than Truth.

We are now in a world where nothing we are told can be believed, it is almost impossible without knowing primary sources if what you are being told about is real or not.

JayUtah stated in my signature that It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality, but we are all fast getting there, where reality and truth will be nothing more that what we choose to believe from whom we choose to believe it, and no one's truth and reality will be allowed to be any more real than anyone else's chosen truth and reality.

Has it ever been different?

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Darat

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf;1291922I would call it Truthism rather than Truth.

We are now in a world where nothing we are told can be believed, it is almost impossible without knowing primary sources if what you are being told about is real or not.

JayUtah stated in my signature that [I

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality[/i], but we are all fast getting there, where reality and truth will be nothing more that what we choose to believe from whom we choose to believe it, and no one's truth and reality will be allowed to be any more real than anyone else's chosen truth and reality.

Has it ever been different?

Perhaps my recollections are rose-colored, but it seems to me that in the (even relatively recent, as in pre-Trump) past the lies and falsehoods were not so blatant. So easily, even trivially disproved.

So transparent that they were not even internally consistent.

Repugnican pols regularly make pronouncements that they contradict in the same paragraph. Not infrequently in the same sentence.

Yes, it is axiomatically true that politicians lie, and fabricate reality to their own convenience, but I think we have moved past earlier norms as far as that goes.

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Perhaps my recollections are rose-colored, but it seems to me that in the (even relatively recent, as in pre-Trump) past the lies and falsehoods were not so blatant. So easily, even trivially disproved.

So transparent that they were not even internally consistent.

Repugnican pols regularly make pronouncements that they contradict in the same paragraph. Not infrequently in the same sentence.

Yes, it is axiomatically true that politicians lie, and fabricate reality to their own convenience, but I think we have moved past earlier norms as far as that goes.

+1.

I think that's what irritates me even more. It's almost an insult, as if they're saying "you all are so stupid I don't even have to try to make sense and you'll swallow it".

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by Hellbound

+1.

I think that's what irritates me even more. It's almost an insult, as if they're saying "you all are so stupid I don't even have to try to make sense and you'll swallow it".

Stalin had to have other people taken out of photos and records to push his narrative.

The modern GOP has eliminated the need for the “memory hole,” their followers look at contradictory evidence and simply don’t see it.

Trump is more dangerous than Jim Jones ever could have hoped to be.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Perhaps my recollections are rose-colored, but it seems to me that in the (even relatively recent, as in pre-Trump) past the lies and falsehoods were not so blatant. So easily, even trivially disproved.

So transparent that they were not even internally consistent.

Repugnican pols regularly make pronouncements that they contradict in the same paragraph. Not infrequently in the same sentence.

Yes, it is axiomatically true that politicians lie, and fabricate reality to their own convenience, but I think we have moved past earlier norms as far as that goes.

At least in the olden days, now and then they'd qualify the bs... Not intended as a factual statement That was positively risible at the time. By today's GOP standards, it was forthright and honorable.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Hellbound

+1.

I think that's what irritates me even more. It's almost an insult, as if they're saying "you all are so stupid I don't even have to try to make sense and you'll swallow it".

It's not 'as if' they're saying it; they are saying it. Sadly, they're right when it comes to Trump supporters. They believe everything he tells them.

[IsThisTheLife]

Quote:

WASHINGTON — For more than two years, President Trump has repeatedly attacked the Russia investigation, portraying it as a hoax and illegal even months after the special counsel closed it. Now, Mr. Trump’s own Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into how it all began.

Justice Department officials have shifted an administrative review of the Russia investigation closely overseen by Attorney General William P. Barr to a criminal inquiry, according to two people familiar with the matter. The move gives the prosecutor running it, John H. Durham, the power to subpoena for witness testimony and documents, to convene a grand jury and to file criminal charges.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/u...stigation.html

So what gives here? Have none of you heard anything about this? Or are you all so sanguine in your ideological purity that you just choose to ignore it?

It's been suggested that indictments may be pending, to appear like a bolt from the blue.

ETA >> OK, reading back over the thread it appears to be the latter. Good luck with that.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

It's been suggested that indictments may be pending, to appear like a bolt from the blue.

Who has suggested that?

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/u...stigation.html

So what gives here? Have none of you heard anything about this? Or are you all so sanguine in your ideological purity that you just choose to ignore it?

It's been suggested that indictments may be pending, to appear like a bolt from the blue.

ETA >> OK, reading back over the thread it appears to be the latter. Good luck with that.

Ignore? Not quite. When the available evidence looks like it's just another Republican witch hunt that covers ground that's already been covered over and over and over with no success by them and reality denying basis on top of that, though, there's not much reason to treat it as anything other than a wild misuse of government resources for political gain. Yet again, because the Republicans just keep doing this crap to try to back up their claims that black is white and white is black.

No, the FBI that just kept doing big anti-Hillary things and pro-Trump things and did pretty much nothing that was actually anti-Trump did not have an overwhelming anti-Trump bias worth any note whatsoever, no matter how much right-wingers want to paint Trump as a victim because he got caught doing crap that would have them howling from the rooftop if a Democrat did it and would have led to a Democrat being impeached and removed nearly immediately - with the support of the Democrats.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

Re: Durham report...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/u...stigation.html

So what gives here? Have none of you heard anything about this? Or are you all so sanguine in your ideological purity that you just choose to ignore it?

It's been suggested that indictments may be pending, to appear like a bolt from the blue.

"Suggested" by whom? And "May" be pending? Just what is the probability associated with 'may'? 1%? 50%? 99%

Frankly we've seen this before... Lots of chest-beating by the republicans, claims that they are about to uncover some huge conspiracy or fraud. Then... nothing. Happened when the republicans attacked Clinton over Benghazi (when the big source of blame belonged to congress itself who cut funds that could have been used to improve security.) More recently it happened with Trump and his commission into voter fraud, which ended up getting disbanded after less than a year.

Perhaps before you begin having wet dreams about the Durham report somehow proving anti-Trump corruption you should actually wait for them to actually report something concrete. Its not outside the realm of possibility that they may find something, but the republicans don't exactly have a stellar track record. (And they have a long way to go before matching the number of indictments handed down as a result of the Mueller inquiry.)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/u...stigation.html

So what gives here? Have none of you heard anything about this? Or are you all so sanguine in your ideological purity that you just choose to ignore it?

It's been suggested that indictments may be pending, to appear like a bolt from the blue.

ETA >> OK, reading back over the thread it appears to be the latter. Good luck with that.

Indictments pending?

Did you notice this:

Quote:

Now, Mr. Trump’s own Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into how it all began.

That would be Trump's personal minions, the ones along with Nunes and Giuliani who are out there trying to prove Ukraine did it. Kind of like Trump claiming his people found something incredible in Hawaii when they went looking for Obama's birth certificate.

I wouldn't get your hopes up. I believe Durham is not coming up with key evidence and doesn't agree with everything Barr wants him to agree on.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

It's been suggested that indictments may be pending, to appear like a bolt from the blue.

.

You really should not be using QAnon as your source.

[IsThisTheLife]

None of you have watched Comey's recent, embarrassing attempt at damage limitation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vekox6iCwWg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yfXxeJn3Tc

You're not aware that Carter Page has tenaciously been pursuing legal redress against the the crooked officials who lied through their teeth ("made missteps") to obtain FISA warrants to spy on him? FFS, have you really managed to convince yourselves that this is some kind of "doubling down" on his part?

You're not aware that it's now as good as confirmed that the "evidence" presented to the DOJ to obtain the FISA warrants that Carter Page "colluding with Russia" consisted of nothing but the DNC-sponsered Steele Dossier?

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinio...mn/4383722002/

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

None of you have watched Comey's recent, embarrassing attempt at damage limitation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vekox6iCwWg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yfXxeJn3Tc

You're not aware that Carter Page has tenaciously been pursuing legal redress against the the crooked officials who lied through their teeth ("made missteps") to obtain FISA warrants to spy on him? FFS, have you really managed to convince yourselves that this is some kind of "doubling down" on his part?

You're not aware that it's now as good as confirmed that the "evidence" presented to the DOJ to obtain the FISA warrants that Carter Page "colluding with Russia" consisted of nothing but the DNC-sponsered Steele Dossier?

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinio...mn/4383722002/

So he claims. There is a quote of particular importance in that opinion article, though.

Quote:

Everything else is noise and spin:The FBI properly, legally investigated 2016 Trump campaign

Can you agree on that to start with?

[Fast Eddie B]

On the one hand, there is the concept of "fruit of the poisonous tree". If evidence is obtained illegally, it is not admissible in a court of law, nor is any evidence which was obtained as a result of said illegal search. I think such blanket dismissal of downstream evidence is fairly unique to US law, but is there as a protection against rogue law enforcement violating our constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure. In most other countries, I think the remedy is punishment of the parties conducting the illegal search, but the evidence still stands.

On the other hand, the exclusion of said tainted evidence says absolutely nothing about whether the subject at hand did or did not commit the offense involved. A bloody knife found in the trunk of a a subject's car via unlawful search and matching the DNA of the victim will be excluded from evidence of the person's guilt, while still establishing that the subject did, in fact, commit the murder.

I think this relates to all this concern over the beginning of the investigation. Even if parts of it are ultimately found to have been tainted, it says absolutely nothing about the crimes exposed by said evidence. That, plus the fact that impeachment is a political and not a criminal process, makes all this hubbub nothing but a huge distractor. Which is clearly the point.

[IsThisTheLife]

Originally Posted by Aridas

So he claims. There is a quote of particular importance in that opinion article, though.



Can you agree on that to start with?

There's my answer, I guess. How very foolish you're going to look not very long from now.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

On the one hand, there is the concept of "fruit of the poisonous tree". If evidence is obtained illegally, it is not admissible in a court of law, nor is any evidence which was obtained as a result of said illegal search. I think such blanket dismissal of downstream evidence is fairly unique to US law, but is there as a protection against rogue law enforcement violating our constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure. In most other countries, I think the remedy is punishment of the parties conducting the illegal search, but the evidence still stands.

On the other hand, the exclusion of said tainted evidence says absolutely nothing about whether the subject at hand did or did not commit the offense involved. A bloody knife found in the trunk of a a subject's car via unlawful search and matching the DNA of the victim will be excluded from evidence of the person's guilt, while still establishing that the subject did, in fact, commit the murder.

I think this relates to all this concern over the beginning of the investigation. Even if parts of it are ultimately found to have been tainted, it says absolutely nothing about the crimes exposed by said evidence. That, plus the fact that impeachment is a political and not a criminal process, makes all this hubbub nothing but a huge distractor. Which is clearly the point.

The initial FISA was awarded 1/2 based on the Steele report and 1/2 on Pages own comments. Remember he as much said he was talking to Russian Intelligence Agents. The NYFO of the FBI had an eye on him years before Trump announced his candidacy.

That said the FISA wiretap was renewed several times based on evidence they found. That evidence is heavily redacted so we have no way of judging it, but to renew a FISA you do have to show it is finding something (something relevant). You can't just renew it in hopes of a fruitful, long-term fishing expedition.

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

The initial FISA was awarded 1/2 based on the Steele report and 1/2 on Pages own comments. Remember he as much said he was talking to Russian Intelligence Agents. The NYFO of the FBI had an eye on him years before Trump announced his candidacy.

That said the FISA wiretap was renewed several times based on evidence they found. That evidence is heavily redacted so we have no way of judging it, but to renew a FISA you do have to show it is finding something (something relevant). You can't just renew it in hopes of a fruitful, long-term fishing expedition.

My point was even if one does stipulate to the facts presented as to the origins of the investigation, it says nothing about whether the parties did or did not do the acts revealed by the investigation. Those have been confirmed regardless.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

My point was even if one does stipulate to the facts presented as to the origins of the investigation, it says nothing about whether the parties did or did not do the acts revealed by the investigation. Those have been confirmed regardless.

Oh certainly, and that's the point the Trumpsters are trying to do a high speed run past.

But even the initial premise wasn't as weak as they are now claiming.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

None of you have watched Comey's recent, embarrassing attempt at damage limitation?

Here's a question.... why haven't you addressed anyone else's statements regarding your claim of 'pending indictments on the Durham investigation'?

You made a claim... several people challenged your claim as being based on shaky evidence and reasoning, yet instead of dealing with that you have ignored those postings to engage in yet more questionable rhetoric.

Why is that?

Is it because (as we suspect) you don't really have a real defense, and your only way to defend the racist individual running the country is to engage in some sort of 'Gish Gallop' where you toss out multiple allegations that hold no value, with the hope that the overwhelming weight of your bunk will somehow cause some people to realize you don't have a valid point?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

None of you have watched Comey's recent, embarrassing attempt at damage limitation?

What I see is Comey declaring (and rightly so) that he has been vindicated by the IG report.

Comey was fired for not doing Trump's bidding in killing the Russia investigation, and for (quite rightly) not declaring his loyalty to Der Trumpenführer.

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

You're not aware that Carter Page has tenaciously been pursuing legal redress against the the crooked officials who lied through their teeth ("made missteps") to obtain FISA warrants to spy on him? FFS, have you really managed to convince yourselves that this is some kind of "doubling down" on his part?

Carter Page is a crook and a Russian asset. Pure and simple.

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

You're not aware that it's now as good as confirmed that the "evidence" presented to the DOJ to obtain the FISA warrants that Carter Page "colluding with Russia" consisted of nothing but the DNC-sponsered Steele Dossier?

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinio...mn/4383722002/

In actual fact, it's now as good as confirmed that the Steele Dossier was nothing more than a bit part player in the predication for those FISA warrants. What really tipped the scales was America's allies in the Five Eyes seeing that members of the Trump campaign, (including Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Mike Flynn and, Rick Gates) as well as Trump's own family members, were continually appearing in their routine surveillance of Russian Government operatives. When your allies inform you that people like Carter Page, Paul Manafort and Donald Trump Jr have been seen dozens of times in the company of, talking to, and/or having covert communications with known members of the intelligence services of a hostile foreign power, failing to do anything about it would be sheer negligence.

Barr put the DoJ IG onto investigating the beginnings of the Russia investigation. What did the IG find? NADA! Crossfire Hurricane was correctly opened on valid predicates. Sure, the IG found a few procedural flaws, but they really are a nothingburger, and being blown up out of all proportion by he conservative media. If a highway patrolman follows you around for long enough, he will eventually find something to pull you over for.

Barr travelled around the world, trying to talk to NATO allies and members of the Five Eyes, looking for those governments to help him find nefarious stuff with regards to the beginnings of the Russia investigation. What has he come up with? - NADA! The Australian government more or less told him to **** off, and several European governments refused to meet him at all - they all know what their intelligence agencies saw, and they are not backing away from it. They support and trust their intelligence community . This is unlike POS currently squatting in the White House, who has screwed his intelligence community over, and instead, runs off to Russia to get his "intel". I think its worth stating again just how much Trump has supported Russia, pandered to its leader, and downright acted against the interests of the United States in regards to Russia.

- repeatedly praised Putin
- hiring Manafort to run his campaign
- making light of Russian hacking
- denied that Russia interfered in 2016
- undermined sanctions against Russia
- attempted to lift Russian sanctions
- dismissed credible allegations that Putin uses violence against his opponents.
- Suggested Russia should get its NY and Maryland spy compounds back
- wants to let Russia back into the G7
- removed sanctions on Kremlin connected Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska
- congratulated Putin on his sham election victory
- gave Russia classified intelligence
- outed a vital CIA source inside the Kremlin
- publicised classified surveillance that gives up sources and methods to Russia
- thanked Putin for expelling US diplomats
- criticized and alienated NATO allies
- defended the USSR invasion of Afghanistan
- praised pro-Russian leaders in Europe
- declined to publicly condemn a Russian attack against Ukrainian military vessels
- withdrew from Syria (which gave Putin exactly what he wanted)
- actively spreading Russian disinformation that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 US Election
- repeated Kremlin talking points on ISIS
- temporarily froze US aid for Ukraine
- asking Putin what he should do when visiting North Korea

This is what your Dear Leader has been doing to your country - conspiring with a hostile foreign power to weaken your country's national security while making it, and himself, a world wide laughing stock. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the world just points and laughs, not understanding the real consequences. Its only people like me who are interested in US politics, who see this and don't think its funny; who understand just how seriously the clown antics of the buffoon in Washington are affecting us, and how his actions will affect the futures of our children and grandchildren

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

None of you have watched Comey's recent, embarrassing attempt at damage limitation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vekox6iCwWg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yfXxeJn3Tc

You're not aware that Carter Page has tenaciously been pursuing legal redress against the the crooked officials who lied through their teeth ("made missteps") to obtain FISA warrants to spy on him? FFS, have you really managed to convince yourselves that this is some kind of "doubling down" on his part?

You're not aware that it's now as good as confirmed that the "evidence" presented to the DOJ to obtain the FISA warrants that Carter Page "colluding with Russia" consisted of nothing but the DNC-sponsered Steele Dossier?

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinio...mn/4383722002/

Translation: "But we're the real victims, here!"

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

On the one hand, there is the concept of "fruit of the poisonous tree". If evidence is obtained illegally, it is not admissible in a court of law, nor is any evidence which was obtained as a result of said illegal search. I think such blanket dismissal of downstream evidence is fairly unique to US law, but is there as a protection against rogue law enforcement violating our constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure. In most other countries, I think the remedy is punishment of the parties conducting the illegal search, but the evidence still stands.

On the other hand, the exclusion of said tainted evidence says absolutely nothing about whether the subject at hand did or did not commit the offense involved. A bloody knife found in the trunk of a a subject's car via unlawful search and matching the DNA of the victim will be excluded from evidence of the person's guilt, while still establishing that the subject did, in fact, commit the murder.

I think this relates to all this concern over the beginning of the investigation. Even if parts of it are ultimately found to have been tainted, it says absolutely nothing about the crimes exposed by said evidence. That, plus the fact that impeachment is a political and not a criminal process, makes all this hubbub nothing but a huge distractor. Which is clearly the point.

Not just a distraction. It's just one of the many, many, many grasping at straws attempts to try to find or create defenses for Trump, regardless of truth or principle. Being embarrassingly wrong 99 times in a row still means that there's a chance to happen to find something to work with on the 100th try, after all, and it's not like certain people actually apply critical thinking to those 99 attempts in the first place - and those people will try to spread it more. That is, of course, little more than a continuation of the right-wing grasping at straws attacks on everyone else and unprincipled defenses of "their" people that has pretty much become their modus operandi.

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

There's my answer, I guess. How very foolish you're going to look not very long from now.

I see. You're unable to even agree to that. Why should I treat you as having any credibility whatsoever when you can't even agree to so much as acknowledge the parts of even that assessment that don't confirm your preferred bias?

[Segnosaur]

Not sure where this should go, but since Manafort was possibly the most notable person caught by the Mueller investigation, here seems as good a place as any...

From: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...ry?id=67779837
President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort has been hospitalized for a cardiac event...

Gotta admit, kind of hard to find any sort of sympathy here.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Not sure where this should go, but since Manafort was possibly the most notable person caught by the Mueller investigation, here seems as good a place as any...

From: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...ry?id=67779837
President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort has been hospitalized for a cardiac event...

Gotta admit, kind of hard to find any sort of sympathy here.

I have no sympathy for him at all. There about 100 Ukrainians who were killed in 2014 because if him.

He is a piece of **** who got fat living the high life on the bloody money he made from the people he destroyed. Even his kids (at least his oldest daughter) think he's a scumbag.

If he pays the ultimate price for his perfidy, I will not lose a moment's sleep.

[The Great Zaganza]

Would it hurt Trump politically if he used this as an excuse to Pardon Manafort?
Compared to everything else, I fear it will hardly make a difference.

[thaiboxerken]

I hope Manafort has a speedy recovery so he can continue to rot in prison. In a perfect world, he would then get sick after his prison sentence expires.

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Would it hurt Trump politically if he used this as an excuse to Pardon Manafort?
Compared to everything else, I fear it will hardly make a difference.

I think it is hard for most of us to truly appreciate the malignant narcissism that grips Trump.

Things are solely viewed through the prism of how they might affect him personally. Beyond that, there is literally zero compassion for, nor loyalty towards others. I doubt he spends even one moment thinking about Manafort or Cohen or their predicaments.

From what I know of Manafort, he’s fairly receiving his just desserts. No need to heap wishes of suffering on top of that.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Would it hurt Trump politically if he used this as an excuse to Pardon Manafort?
Compared to everything else, I fear it will hardly make a difference.

Certainly not with Trump's base.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Would it hurt Trump politically if he used this as an excuse to Pardon Manafort?
Compared to everything else, I fear it will hardly make a difference.

True, whatever political damage for pardoning Manafort would be minimal (although in a potentially very tight election race, even a few lost votes could make a difference.)

I was going to point out that pardoning Manafort wouldn't be useful because he's also been indicted by New York on state level charges (which the president's pardon would not affect.). Unfortunately, a judge in New York has dismissed those charges...

From: https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/18/polit...rdy/index.html
A New York state judge on Wednesday dismissed a 16-count indictment against President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort on double jeopardy grounds.

The state does plan to appeal. (I wonder what would have happened if Trump would have pardoned Manafort earlier... would they still consider it 'double jeopardy' if he had been granted a pardon at the federal level?)

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

A new batch of interview memos has been released

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

A new batch of interview memos has been released

Thanks!

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/stat...02923201748993

Quote:

JUST IN: Prosecutors recommend 0-6 months of incarceration for FLYNN, say he no longe raccepts responsibility for his criminal conduct and that he sought to undermine prosecutors.

They say Flynn shouldn't get credit for accepting responsibility that he might have gotten had he been sentenced earlier, before switching legal teams and accusing the government of misconduct.

Prosecutors say Flynn's new posture shows he believes "the law does not apply to him," which they say should impact the judge's sentencing calculation when it comes to deterrence.

Documents embedded in tweets.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Flynn has withdrawn his guilty plea

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Flynn has withdrawn his guilty plea

least surprising thing I've ever heard.

[Darat]

You have to have some sympathy for the bloke, who hasn't accidentally pleaded guilty when you meant innocent.

Serious question, can the prosecution bring up his change of plea to the judge or jury?