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.

(Independent)   Vindman's brother, who is a military prosecutor, would like to offer his services in prosecuting Flynn   (independent.co.uk) divider line
    More: Giggity, Uniform Code of Military Justice, Mr Flynn, Military, Army, Donald Trump, Armed forces, Michael Flynn, United States National Security Council  
•       •       •

1537 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jun 2021 at 8:48 AM (3 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



26 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-06-01 8:19:55 AM  
DO IT.
Recall his treasonous ass to active duty.
Court Martial the TreasonWeasel and hang him.
 
2021-06-01 8:31:55 AM  
Ooooooooooooooooooh that would be beautiful.

Probably too much conflict of interest, but beautiful.
 
2021-06-01 8:34:36 AM  
There's probably a line forming in the Pentagon already.
 
2021-06-01 8:37:33 AM  

Chariset: Ooooooooooooooooooh that would be beautiful.

Probably too much conflict of interest, but beautiful.


White House advisor Ivana "Ivanka" Trump issued a Try Something New Tweet that revoked all conflicts of interest.
 
2021-06-01 8:38:52 AM  

mofa: Chariset: Ooooooooooooooooooh that would be beautiful.

Probably too much conflict of interest, but beautiful.

White House advisor Ivana "Ivanka" Trump issued a Try Something New Tweet that revoked all conflicts of interest.


You're right.  Throw the book at them.  Spare no one, not even the children.

I think Ivanka's an "autumn," so she should look good in orange.
 
2021-06-01 9:03:09 AM  
Too bad there is nothing to prosecute. He said he would like to see a Myanmar coup here. That is protected speech. Still an asshole.
 
2021-06-01 9:04:48 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-06-01 9:13:27 AM  

Candy Colored Clown: Too bad there is nothing to prosecute. He said he would like to see a Myanmar coup here. That is protected speech. Still an asshole.


Inciting the violent overthrow of the government has never been protected speech.
 
2021-06-01 9:15:22 AM  

Candy Colored Clown: Too bad there is nothing to prosecute. He said he would like to see a Myanmar coup here. That is protected speech. Still an asshole.


USMJC might have a different wording about what is protected speech for military officers, retired, disgraced or otherwise.
 
2021-06-01 9:20:52 AM  

Candy Colored Clown: Too bad there is nothing to prosecute. He said he would like to see a Myanmar coup here. That is protected speech. Still an asshole.


This.

Some, even many, things are vile and repugnant and fundamentally unamerican without being illegal.

The man is garbage. Utter slime. To hear the former NSA head utter the hope that the US military should overthrow our elected government is shameful to us all.

I appreciate that he continues to show what he is to the public. Hell with him.
 
2021-06-01 9:27:17 AM  

Chariset: Ooooooooooooooooooh that would be beautiful.

Probably too much conflict of interest, but beautiful.


Still Confused as to how he ended up with a "walk" on his emoluments case.   Retired Military officers cannot accept money from  a foreign government without express permission from Congress, that's in the Constitution itself, and has been enforced since the days of John Paul Jones.  Flynn by his own admission took a boatload of cash from both Russia and Turkey.
 
2021-06-01 9:32:45 AM  
There are no consequences to the most egregious acts imaginable.

Life sentence for a lady selling pot? Hell yeah!
 
2021-06-01 9:35:05 AM  

Candy Colored Clown: Too bad there is nothing to prosecute. He said he would like to see a Myanmar coup here. That is protected speech. Still an asshole.


See also:  General Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

It should have been used when he first admitted his guilt in open court.  A flag officer admitting guilt to a felony was sufficient to pull *AT LEAST* 2 of his stars, which would have cost him $40K-50K a year in retirement pay.
 
2021-06-01 10:04:51 AM  
The thought struck me while watching Lt. Colonel Vindman testify -- immigrants make the best citizens.
 
2021-06-01 10:05:43 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size


tl;dr Flynn's speech is protected under the 1st Amendment but he is still subject to UCMJ. I can't see if Vladeck (who would be an expert ib such matters) thinks there's something in the UCMJ he can be prosecuted over
 
2021-06-01 12:17:50 PM  
"Vindman's brother?" Wouldn't that just be "Vindman?"
 
2021-06-01 1:35:31 PM  

Rambino: "Vindman's brother?" Wouldn't that just be "Vindman?"


Weirdly, each of them is both Vindman AND Vindman's brother.  It's a quantum thing.
 
2021-06-01 2:15:37 PM  

andrewagill: [Fark user image 425x316]
[Fark user image 425x489]

tl;dr Flynn's speech is protected under the 1st Amendment but he is still subject to UCMJ. I can't see if Vladeck (who would be an expert ib such matters) thinks there's something in the UCMJ he can be prosecuted over


A commission is for life (ask my grandfather who was yanked out of his retirement career as a lawyer to take up a Navy Captain's commission for WWII via a threat to simply "re-activate" the ensign's commission he retired from after WWI)  and even the Constitution itself imposes requirements on retired military officers (the emoluments clause forbids them from accepting money from foreign governments without congressional approval)   If that is IN the Constitution, how can it be unconstitutional?
 
2021-06-01 2:17:52 PM  

RasIanI: Candy Colored Clown: Too bad there is nothing to prosecute. He said he would like to see a Myanmar coup here. That is protected speech. Still an asshole.

USMJC might have a different wording about what is protected speech for military officers, retired, disgraced or otherwise.


THIS.  I thought that even if you are no longer an active part of the military, you still have to conform to their guidelines or else they can court martial you.

/not in the military, so I have no clue
 
2021-06-01 4:14:53 PM  

Magorn: andrewagill: [Fark user image 425x316]
[Fark user image 425x489]

tl;dr Flynn's speech is protected under the 1st Amendment but he is still subject to UCMJ. I can't see if Vladeck (who would be an expert ib such matters) thinks there's something in the UCMJ he can be prosecuted over

A commission is for life (ask my grandfather who was yanked out of his retirement career as a lawyer to take up a Navy Captain's commission for WWII via a threat to simply "re-activate" the ensign's commission he retired from after WWI)  and even the Constitution itself imposes requirements on retired military officers (the emoluments clause forbids them from accepting money from foreign governments without congressional approval)   If that is IN the Constitution, how can it be unconstitutional?


They can absolutely get him under UCMJ for saying things that would be protected by the 1st Amendment if he had not been an officer.

I'm not a military expert so I don't know if they can get him for saying *these* things. I've been trying to find a reputable lawyer who knows one way or the other.
 
2021-06-01 4:15:25 PM  

Magorn: Chariset: Ooooooooooooooooooh that would be beautiful.

Probably too much conflict of interest, but beautiful.

Still Confused as to how he ended up with a "walk" on his emoluments case.   Retired Military officers cannot accept money from  a foreign government without express permission from Congress, that's in the Constitution itself, and has been enforced since the days of John Paul Jones.  Flynn by his own admission took a boatload of cash from both Russia and Turkey.


Someone Barred his prosecution on that little matter.
 
2021-06-01 4:33:36 PM  

andrewagill: Magorn: andrewagill: [Fark user image 425x316]
[Fark user image 425x489]

tl;dr Flynn's speech is protected under the 1st Amendment but he is still subject to UCMJ. I can't see if Vladeck (who would be an expert ib such matters) thinks there's something in the UCMJ he can be prosecuted over

A commission is for life (ask my grandfather who was yanked out of his retirement career as a lawyer to take up a Navy Captain's commission for WWII via a threat to simply "re-activate" the ensign's commission he retired from after WWI)  and even the Constitution itself imposes requirements on retired military officers (the emoluments clause forbids them from accepting money from foreign governments without congressional approval)   If that is IN the Constitution, how can it be unconstitutional?

They can absolutely get him under UCMJ for saying things that would be protected by the 1st Amendment if he had not been an officer.

I'm not a military expert so I don't know if they can get him for saying *these* things. I've been trying to find a reputable lawyer who knows one way or the other.


I'm an extremely disreputable lawyer, and a very minor scholar of all things first amendment, and I honestly have no clue.  The UCMJ is a specialized thing and there are few experts in it that aren't ex-JAG officers
 
2021-06-01 5:48:12 PM  
Biden should have re-instated both Vindmans, the captain of that navy plague ship, and any other servicemembers screwed over by Trump.
 
2021-06-01 8:31:00 PM  

Magorn: Still Confused as to how he ended up with a "walk" on his emoluments case.


Yeah, it sure is amazing what you can get away with for just being a straight white man, innit?

If it makes you feel any better, I'm confident that he almost certainly would have been vigorously prosecuted if he'd done this same shiat while being black, female, or gay.

Y'know, like dirty cops who need to be made an example of.
 
2021-06-02 11:46:41 AM  

andrewagill: Flynn's speech is protected under the 1st Amendment


Not sure I agree with your assessment.

Read this: https://constitution.congress.g​ov/brow​se/essay/amdt1_2_3_1_1/

Which notes that "The Smith Act of 1940 made it a criminal offense to knowingly or willfully to advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing the government of the United States or of any state by force or violence, or to organize any association that teaches, advises, or encourages such an overthrow, or to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association."

A Constitutional challenge to the Smith Act followed in the case styled Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951). From the opinion (pp 510-11):

>If, then, this interest may be protected, the literal problem which is presented is what has been meant by the use of the phrase 'clear and present danger' of the utterances bringing about the evil within the power of Congress to punish. Obviously, the words cannot mean that before the government may act, it must wait until the putsch is about to be executed, the plans have been laid and the signal is awaited.

>If Government is aware that a group aiming at its overthrow is attempting to indoctrinate its members and to commit them to a course whereby they will strike when the leaders feel the circumstances permit, action by the government is required.

>The mere fact that from the period 1945 to 1948 petitioners' activities did not result in an attempt to overthrow the Government by force and violence is of course no answer to the fact that there was a group that was ready to make the attempt. The formation by petitioners of such a highly organized conspiracy, with rigidly disciplined members subject to call when the leaders, these petitioners, felt that the time had come for action, coupled with the inflammable nature of world conditions, similar uprisings in other countries, and the touch-and-go nature of our relations with countries with whom petitioners were in the very least ideologically attuned, convince us that their convictions were justified on this score.

[emphasis added]
 
2021-06-02 6:39:55 PM  

tekmo: andrewagill: Flynn's speech is protected under the 1st Amendment

Not sure I agree with your assessment.

Read this: https://constitution.congress.go​v/browse/essay/amdt1_2_3_1_1/

Which notes that "The Smith Act of 1940 made it a criminal offense to knowingly or willfully to advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing the government of the United States or of any state by force or violence, or to organize any association that teaches, advises, or encourages such an overthrow, or to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association."

A Constitutional challenge to the Smith Act followed in the case styled Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951). From the opinion (pp 510-11):

>If, then, this interest may be protected, the literal problem which is presented is what has been meant by the use of the phrase 'clear and present danger' of the utterances bringing about the evil within the power of Congress to punish. Obviously, the words cannot mean that before the government may act, it must wait until the putsch is about to be executed, the plans have been laid and the signal is awaited.

>If Government is aware that a group aiming at its overthrow is attempting to indoctrinate its members and to commit them to a course whereby they will strike when the leaders feel the circumstances permit, action by the government is required.

>The mere fact that from the period 1945 to 1948 petitioners' activities did not result in an attempt to overthrow the Government by force and violence is of course no answer to the fact that there was a group that was ready to make the attempt. The formation by petitioners of such a highly organized conspiracy, with rigidly disciplined members subject to call when the leaders, these petitioners, felt that the time had come for action, coupled with the inflammable nature of world conditions, similar uprisings in other countries, and the touch-and-go nature of our rela ...


I do not know enough about the Smith Act to say, but this lawyer probably does. (for the record I don't think you're an ignorant know-it-all)

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  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.