What's the matter with Donald Trump.

[bcredliner]

Originally Posted by EODguy

On the Flynn issue only I want to say that Trump has not pardoned nor reduced Flynn's sentence. At this point what has happened is that Flynn has withdrawn his plea and the DoJ has dismissed the case.

But the judge has said he doesn't care that the case is dismissed, he wants to charge Flynn with perjury for (pleading guilty previously and withdrawing that plea)

This is the issue.

A judge is the referee only, not a player. Yet in this case the referee has said even if the game isn't played because neither team is going to show he will still punish the one (Flynn) who the judge has made disparaging remarks about/to in court that normally gets a member of the court recused if not disbarred.

Also as a side note a pardon is issued after a conviction and Flynn has NOT been convicted yet.

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

Oopsie, wrong case. My mistake. Flynn confessed twice to wrong doing and plead guilty. A guilty plea is viewed as the same think as a conviction.The last step was sentencing based on his plea bargain. Barr didn't want to risk allowing it to go back to court to evaluate the new evidence so with a very unusual interference by an Attorney general he set up a process that would justify his intent to dismiss the case. IMO of course.

I can't get past Flynn's 2 confessions. I am aware his defense team is claiming he was pressured based on threats of prosecution of his son but he knows the ropes and has representation that does even if per chance he does not. Rule one-never admit guilt to something you didn't do. Same usually applies if one is guilty. He pleaded guilty against his defense team recommendation. IMO he believed he would be convicted and he plea bargained to get his son off the hook who was probably also guilty. That sounds like the behavior of a general and a father.

Just a non political opinion based on what happened rather than the people involved.

[EODguy]

Originally Posted by bcredliner

Oopsie, wrong case. My mistake. Flynn confessed twice to wrong doing and plead guilty. A guilty plea is viewed as the same think as a conviction.The last step was sentencing based on his plea bargain. Barr didn't want to risk allowing it to go back to court to evaluate the new evidence so with a very unusual interference by an Attorney general he set up a process that would justify his intent to dismiss the case. IMO of course.



I can't get past Flynn's 2 confessions. I am aware his defense team is claiming he was pressured based on threats of prosecution of his son but he knows the ropes and has representation that does even if per chance he does not. Rule one-never admit guilt to something you didn't do. Same usually applies if one is guilty. He pleaded guilty against his defense team recommendation. IMO he believed he would be convicted and he plea bargained to get his son off the hook who was probably also guilty. That sounds like the behavior of a general and a father.



Just a non political opinion based on what happened rather than the people involved.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sally-y...ary-committee/

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

[bcredliner]

Originally Posted by EODguy

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sally-y...ary-committee/

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

What is the reason for the link? Is it that you agree with Trump's statement?

[EODguy]

Originally Posted by bcredliner

What is the reason for the link? Is it that you agree with Trump's statement?

That was the hearing where Sally Yates said that Comey went rogue and that Flynn prosecution was based on Comey's use of false information to open the investigation in the first place.

I'm not sure where the question of if I agree with Trump's statement is from since the link originally showed to the hearing. Try Cspan on YouTube if it's been changed.

Also remember that Yates was and is not from Trump's administration, so pretty telling when you get to see the actual hearing.

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

[Maruzo]

Problem with the use of Tweeter, Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, etc as a political platform is the inability for proper vetting of information.

Normally whenever something happens in the world, credible media companies send out investigative journalists to properly identify the source of the event, the validity of the claims, etc.

After careful information gathering, the results are then reported back to the public for consumption.

Nowadays, most people get their news through social media. And social media influencers commands the eyes and ears of their followers.

So anyone with enough followers can theretically push his/her own agenda by twisting the facts of a particular event to suit his/her needs.

That's the real danger of today's digital information. There's plenty of sources, plenty of news, but very little fact checking and vetting of said news.

Trump's rise through Tweeter is a glaring example of what could happen when somebody with an agenda of his own can manipulate the masses effortlessly by a few stroke of the keypads on his smartphone.