Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Twitter)   Rudy last night: Blah Blah Blah Blah... And.... wellwe'rewaiting.gif   (twitter.com) divider line
    More: Strange, shot  
•       •       •

2884 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 May 2020 at 12:29 PM (2 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



47 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-05-15 9:15:18 AM  
Original Tweet:

 
2020-05-15 10:31:23 AM  
Rudy is no longer acting like a human being!
 
2020-05-15 10:58:29 AM  
They aren't pending charges. The accused pled guilty. Twice.
 
2020-05-15 11:50:29 AM  
Ideally, Trump loses, and a decent AG throws out the plea bargain and charges Flynn with the six known felonies he committed, five of which occurred before lying to the FBI.

1.  Submitted a false SF-86 that knowingly omitted income from a foreign government.
2.  Producing fabricated documents in support of his fraudulent SF-86 masking his foreign income as coming from an American company.
3. & 4.  Two counts  As a retired military officer in a  Retired Reserve status, failed to disclose he was receiving income from a foreign government.  One count for Russia, one count for Turkey.
5.  Failing to register as a foreign agent while lobbying on behalf of Turkey.
 
2020-05-15 11:54:45 AM  
pbs.twimg.comView Full Size
 
2020-05-15 11:58:40 AM  
So when one of their own pleads guilty they twist the law to find a way to make it go away. When a person of color is convicted it is acceptable to execute them even if they are shown to be innocent. Basically a court finding right or wrong stands.

Writing that "[t]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent," Justice Scalia opposed reviewing the innocence claim presented by Troy Davis (In re Davis) after 7 eyewitnesses had recanted their testimony. - Justice Antonin Scalia
 
2020-05-15 12:13:26 PM  
Even if the judge sentenced Flynn; DOJ would probably refuse to arrest Flynn.
 
2020-05-15 12:31:06 PM  
Thankfully our nation's cyber security is entrusted to this man. Yay!
 
2020-05-15 12:33:27 PM  

iheartscotch: Even if the judge sentenced Flynn; DOJ would probably refuse to arrest Flynn.


I think more likely the Bureau of Prisons would immediately decide Flynn should serve his time under house arrest because of coronatrumpfriendvirus concerns.
 
2020-05-15 12:35:38 PM  
Time to dust this one off again...

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-15 12:36:32 PM  
HE ALREADY PLEADED GUILTY!!! THE CASE IS OVER!!!

What's next? Are prosectors going to try to dismiss the charges against Timothy McVeigh?
 
2020-05-15 12:37:35 PM  

thorpe: [pbs.twimg.com image 640x846]


Our resident GED-in-laws will be here shortly to explain why that is not sufficient for "reasons".
 
2020-05-15 12:40:17 PM  
Has anybody tried unplugging him and plugging him back in?
 
2020-05-15 12:40:36 PM  

sdd2000: thorpe: [pbs.twimg.com image 640x846]

Our resident GED-in-laws will be here shortly to explain why that is not sufficient for "reasons".


Clearly he was tortured. Yes, that's it.
 
2020-05-15 12:41:27 PM  

sdd2000: thorpe: [pbs.twimg.com image 640x846]

Our resident GED-in-laws will be here shortly to explain why that is not sufficient for "reasons".


Fark user imageView Full Size


Obviously Mike Pence and Donald Trump are working for the Deep State.
 
2020-05-15 12:41:31 PM  
He really is the shiattiest Goebbels of all time.
 
2020-05-15 12:41:40 PM  
Trump injects anyone loyal to him with bleach.

Always has, always will.

That's why people get stupider after hanging out with him.
 
2020-05-15 12:41:58 PM  
OK, I'm not a legalese mumbling type dude, and honestly not even really too bright, but can someone explain to me this?
How can the prosecution withdraw charges after the defendant has pleaded guilty (twice, I believe) with the trial in the sentencing phase (I think)? Haven't the charges already been proven and the matter is far past "prosecution"?
*confused*
 
2020-05-15 12:43:57 PM  
Rudy Giuliani, winning his battle to stay irrelevant.
 
2020-05-15 12:44:52 PM  
He either lied to the FBI or he lied to the judge. At least one of these must be true.

/there is no such thing as a "perjury trap"
//there is the FBI asking criminals questions and then criminals lying... that's it
///the way to avoid this "trap" is to not lie
 
2020-05-15 12:45:28 PM  

Percise1: OK, I'm not a legalese mumbling type dude, and honestly not even really too bright, but can someone explain to me this?
How can the prosecution withdraw charges after the defendant has pleaded guilty (twice, I believe) with the trial in the sentencing phase (I think)? Haven't the charges already been proven and the matter is far past "prosecution"?
*confused*


Yup, yup and yup. Its extremely unusual - they're trying to go back and time.
 
2020-05-15 12:46:11 PM  
Just a hunch, I think Flynn threatened Bonespurs he would spill the beans if the DOJ didn't find a way to let him off the hook.
 
2020-05-15 12:55:33 PM  
Look, the FBI threatened to go after Michael Flynn's son for the crimes that his son had committed, which is obviously unconscionable. The FBI should never have threatened to hold Michael Flynn Jr. accountable for the crimes that he committed, and therefore the entire case against Michael Flynn Sr., including his guilty plea, is null and void.

This is what Trumpers actually argue.
 
2020-05-15 12:58:10 PM  

Giant Clown Shoe: He either lied to the FBI or he lied to the judge. At least one of these must be true.

/there is no such thing as a "perjury trap"
//there is the FBI asking criminals questions and then criminals lying... that's it
///the way to avoid this "trap" is to not lie


And any argument that he was not warned that a lie to the judge might be perjury is pretty well refuted by (although a warning is not necessary for a conviction either with statements to the FBI or testimony under oath, further despite some arguments that I have seen the FBI false statements do not need to be under oath at all)

" THE COURT: And that if you do not answer my questions truthfully, you could be prosecuted for perjury or making a false statement? Do you understand that?" (see page 4)
 
2020-05-15 1:00:33 PM  

Percise1: OK, I'm not a legalese mumbling type dude, and honestly not even really too bright, but can someone explain to me this?
How can the prosecution withdraw charges after the defendant has pleaded guilty (twice, I believe) with the trial in the sentencing phase (I think)? Haven't the charges already been proven and the matter is far past "prosecution"?
*confused*


The judge can certainly cancel the conviction. And the prosecution can request that they do that. Convictions being cancelled isn't unusual and if this were some random case, the prosecutor goes "hey we found this thinG that shows he was not guilty" the request would likely get approved instantly. The problem here is are the political motives and conflict of interest.

It is certainly not normal, but not unheard of. Now, all the prosecutors being pushed out and replaced by Trump cronies before this is a real issue.


/yes I am sure I am not using the right legal terms for any of this
 
2020-05-15 1:02:03 PM  

Giant Clown Shoe: He either lied to the FBI or he lied to the judge. At least one of these must be true.

/there is no such thing as a "perjury trap"
//there is the FBI asking criminals questions and then criminals lying... that's it
///the way to avoid this "trap" is to not lie


Not defending Flynn (fark him) but for legal background:

He wouldn't have been under oath when pleading guilty, or answering the judge's questions, so technically no law is broken if he later on says he didn't mean it - it just pisses off the judge.  Speaking to the FBI isn't under oath either, of course, but there's a separate law covering that situation (i.e., it's not perjury, but a separate offense).

When you plead guilty, judges need to "make sure" you know what you're doing, and you're doing so freely - you weren't tricked or coerced into it.  Saying you plead guilty, but also saying you believe you were entrapped (asserting a defense) invalidates the guilty plea - the judge won't accept it, and enters a "not guilty" on your behalf.  If your lawyer has already negotiated a plea deal for you that you're willing to accept, you say what you need to say so the judge accepts it.

There are other options, like no contest pleas or Alford pleas, which weren't used here.  No idea why - you'd need to ask an actual lawyer as to why Flynn wouldn't use them.  My guess - the prosecution specifically wanted a guilty plea to avoid him later on saying he never actually admitted to his crimes, etc.

The only difference with Flynn when he pleaded guilty, and when he withdrew the plea, is that he got a new lawyer who convinced him to fight it - evidence be damned - with the hope of Trump looking out for him.  Apparently, it's working.  Smart lawyer - not ethical, but he is a lawyer after all.
 
2020-05-15 1:03:54 PM  

tyyreaunn: He wouldn't have been under oath when pleading guilty, or answering the judge's questions, so technically no law is broken if he later on says he didn't mean it - it just pisses off the judge. Speaking to the FBI isn't under oath either, of course, but there's a separate law covering that situation (i.e., it's not perjury, but a separate offense).


AND while I was typing all that, someone else posted that Flynn was actually under oath, based on the court transcript.  Oops.  Disregard what I said :p
 
2020-05-15 1:09:00 PM  
Rudy Giuliani is no longer acting like a lawyer

As a lawyer his commentary on legal matters should respect the rule of law

The New York Bar Association must take action to sanction Mr Giuliani for his attempts to subvert the proceedings of a federal court
 
2020-05-15 1:13:54 PM  

dywed88: The judge can certainly cancel the conviction. And the prosecution can request that they do that. Convictions being cancelled isn't unusual and if this were some random case, the prosecutor goes "hey we found this thinG that shows he was not guilty" the request would likely get approved instantly. The problem here is are the political motives and conflict of interest.


Well, yeah.  If the prosecution goes "turns out he wasn't the guy," that's normal.  If the prosecution goes "DEEP STATE WHARRGARBL," after you've already struck down the defense arguing "DEEP STATE WHARRGARBL," that's a bit of an issue.
 
2020-05-15 1:14:26 PM  

tyyreaunn: Giant Clown Shoe: He either lied to the FBI or he lied to the judge. At least one of these must be true.

/there is no such thing as a "perjury trap"
//there is the FBI asking criminals questions and then criminals lying... that's it
///the way to avoid this "trap" is to not lie

Not defending Flynn (fark him) but for legal background:

He wouldn't have been under oath when pleading guilty, or answering the judge's questions, so technically no law is broken if he later on says he didn't mean it - it just pisses off the judge.  Speaking to the FBI isn't under oath either, of course, but there's a separate law covering that situation (i.e., it's not perjury, but a separate offense).

When you plead guilty, judges need to "make sure" you know what you're doing, and you're doing so freely - you weren't tricked or coerced into it.  Saying you plead guilty, but also saying you believe you were entrapped (asserting a defense) invalidates the guilty plea - the judge won't accept it, and enters a "not guilty" on your behalf.  If your lawyer has already negotiated a plea deal for you that you're willing to accept, you say what you need to say so the judge accepts it.

There are other options, like no contest pleas or Alford pleas, which weren't used here.  No idea why - you'd need to ask an actual lawyer as to why Flynn wouldn't use them.  My guess - the prosecution specifically wanted a guilty plea to avoid him later on saying he never actually admitted to his crimes, etc.

The only difference with Flynn when he pleaded guilty, and when he withdrew the plea, is that he got a new lawyer who convinced him to fight it - evidence be damned - with the hope of Trump looking out for him.  Apparently, it's working.  Smart lawyer - not ethical, but he is a lawyer after all.


That first part may not be correct.  In many courts, the plea colloquy includes having the defendant being put under oath before the judge begins the examination.  FRCP  11 includes the following:

(b) Considering and Accepting a Guilty or Nolo Contendere Plea.
(1) Advising and Questioning the Defendant. 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.


It would seem to make sense that if you are taking a plea of someone accused of lying, you would put them under oath before doing the plea colloquy
 
2020-05-15 1:15:08 PM  

quasimodem: They aren't pending charges. The accused pled guilty. Twice.


Not only that, but...as I understand it, the prosecutors are absolutely not in board with the decision by Barr to torpedo the case, so...what is meant by "prosecutorial discretion" in the decision quoted by Giuliani? Does it refer to the discretion of the actual prosecutors, or to the discretion of the political appointee who happens to be their boss at the moment?

In either case, it seems to me that you are correct - this case is no longer being prosecuted and is now in the sentencing phase, which I've always understood to be up to the judge's discretion, not the prosecutors.
 
2020-05-15 1:15:39 PM  

tyyreaunn: tyyreaunn: He wouldn't have been under oath when pleading guilty, or answering the judge's questions, so technically no law is broken if he later on says he didn't mean it - it just pisses off the judge. Speaking to the FBI isn't under oath either, of course, but there's a separate law covering that situation (i.e., it's not perjury, but a separate offense).

AND while I was typing all that, someone else posted that Flynn was actually under oath, based on the court transcript.  Oops.  Disregard what I said :p


Same here
 
2020-05-15 1:15:54 PM  

Original: Original Tweet:


Charges aren't pending, shiat for brains. He's convicted awaiting sentencing.

You farking ghoul.
 
2020-05-15 1:18:45 PM  
I'm glad to see Rudy back in the news cycle, he was laying low for a long time.

We really should just stick him in a room with a camera and pay a crew to listen to his nonsense until eventually he just starts spitting out confessions to crimes.
 
2020-05-15 1:19:22 PM  
It's probably true before the trial start but not once it has started.
 
2020-05-15 1:31:41 PM  

tyyreaunn: Giant Clown Shoe: He either lied to the FBI or he lied to the judge. At least one of these must be true.

/there is no such thing as a "perjury trap"
//there is the FBI asking criminals questions and then criminals lying... that's it
///the way to avoid this "trap" is to not lie

Not defending Flynn (fark him) but for legal background:

He wouldn't have been under oath when pleading guilty, or answering the judge's questions, so technically no law is broken if he later on says he didn't mean it - it just pisses off the judge.  Speaking to the FBI isn't under oath either, of course, but there's a separate law covering that situation (i.e., it's not perjury, but a separate offense).

When you plead guilty, judges need to "make sure" you know what you're doing, and you're doing so freely - you weren't tricked or coerced into it.  Saying you plead guilty, but also saying you believe you were entrapped (asserting a defense) invalidates the guilty plea - the judge won't accept it, and enters a "not guilty" on your behalf.  If your lawyer has already negotiated a plea deal for you that you're willing to accept, you say what you need to say so the judge accepts it.

There are other options, like no contest pleas or Alford pleas, which weren't used here.  No idea why - you'd need to ask an actual lawyer as to why Flynn wouldn't use them.  My guess - the prosecution specifically wanted a guilty plea to avoid him later on saying he never actually admitted to his crimes, etc.

The only difference with Flynn when he pleaded guilty, and when he withdrew the plea, is that he got a new lawyer who convinced him to fight it - evidence be damned - with the hope of Trump looking out for him.  Apparently, it's working.  Smart lawyer - not ethical, but he is a lawyer after all.


I wasn't implying the two issues I presented were linked. I've just seen "perjury trap" popping up in my timeline from folks I know who aren't burdened by an abundance of education.

Also, not sure about elsewhere but in Illinois they swear you in when you plead guilty for the allocution.
 
2020-05-15 1:32:11 PM  

Cheron: So when one of their own pleads guilty they twist the law to find a way to make it go away. When a person of color is convicted it is acceptable to execute them even if they are shown to be innocent. Basically a court finding right or wrong stands.

Writing that "[t]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent," Justice Scalia opposed reviewing the innocence claim presented by Troy Davis (In re Davis) after 7 eyewitnesses had recanted their testimony. - Justice Antonin Scalia


You fail to take into account Scalia was an evil little fark.
 
2020-05-15 1:34:50 PM  

quasimodem: They aren't pending charges. The accused pled guilty. Twice.



The only thing pending is sentencing.
 
2020-05-15 1:43:26 PM  
You know, that is the best picture Rudy could EVER want displayed at this time. It must be from 20 years ago or sumpin'.
 
2020-05-15 1:49:31 PM  

tyyreaunn: Giant Clown Shoe: He either lied to the FBI or he lied to the judge. At least one of these must be true.

/there is no such thing as a "perjury trap"
//there is the FBI asking criminals questions and then criminals lying... that's it
///the way to avoid this "trap" is to not lie

Not defending Flynn (fark him) but for legal background:

He wouldn't have been under oath when pleading guilty, or answering the judge's questions, so technically no law is broken if he later on says he didn't mean it - it just pisses off the judge.  Speaking to the FBI isn't under oath either, of course, but there's a separate law covering that situation (i.e., it's not perjury, but a separate offense).


Actually if you read the transcripts of his allocution you are very much incorrect. (the formal entry of the guilty plea) see for example on page 3 he was in fact sworn in. THE COURT: Okay. We're going to swear you in.(Defendant sworn)THE DEPUTY CLERK: Can you please state your name for the record.
 
2020-05-15 1:57:20 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-15 2:07:48 PM  
"And..."

... his nightly pass out, shirt soaked in vodka, diaper overflowing, snoring like a busted chainsaw on the cold hardwood floor.
 
2020-05-15 2:32:40 PM  
Judge Emmet Sullivan is no longer acting like a judge.

As a District Judge he must follow the rulings of the higher courts.

The DC Circuit has pronounced that the "decisions to dismiss pending charges ...lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion."


- Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) May 15, 2020

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-15 2:58:51 PM  

Trucker: Rudy Giuliani, winning his battle to stay irrelevant.


He's been so quietly recently I thought he'd died and been buried in one of those mass graves.
 
2020-05-15 3:33:36 PM  

dywed88: Percise1: OK, I'm not a legalese mumbling type dude, and honestly not even really too bright, but can someone explain to me this?
How can the prosecution withdraw charges after the defendant has pleaded guilty (twice, I believe) with the trial in the sentencing phase (I think)? Haven't the charges already been proven and the matter is far past "prosecution"?
*confused*

The judge can certainly cancel the conviction. And the prosecution can request that they do that. Convictions being cancelled isn't unusual and if this were some random case, the prosecutor goes "hey we found this thinG that shows he was not guilty" the request would likely get approved instantly. The problem here is are the political motives and conflict of interest.

It is certainly not normal, but not unheard of. Now, all the prosecutors being pushed out and replaced by Trump cronies before this is a real issue.


/yes I am sure I am not using the right legal terms for any of this


I'm going to assume (nothing personal) that you know what you are talking about.
All that tells me is how confused and confusing our judicial system is.
How could it get this far, with plain and obvious evidence/guilty pleas, and then let go because a prosecutor says "haha, just kidding"?
Case was made, guilt was established, sentence is the next step.

I'm not saying case reviews aren't warranted, and sometimes innocent people are put behind bars, but... I really don't think that is what is happening here.

Thank you for the explanation.
 
2020-05-15 6:21:20 PM  
Which is more likely:
A)  A General in the US Army was coerced into admitting he was guilty, and then admitting he was guilty again, and coerced into admitting he knew he was committing a crime as he was committing it, and also coerced into admitting that the FBI didn't entrap him, but really he's completely innocent.
--or--
B)  He's farking guilty and admitted it.
 
2020-05-15 9:49:43 PM  
District Judges are allowed to counter the Department of Justice when they believe the government is acting in bad faith or against the best interests of the people.

And that is a tall freaking order to prove. I guess that's why he is forcing both sides to put together amicus briefs. Because if he goes down this route and fights the government he needs it in black and white that their argument is bullshiat.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.