Comments posted organically
A Trump supporter is allowed to testify...watch what happens.

By Curt_Anderson
June 29, 2022 3:53 pm
Category: Law

(0.0 from 0 votes)
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Share
Rules of the Post
Rate this article
(5=best, 0=poor)
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars

This character is doing what other Trump allies are doing in their testimony. The other preferred response by Trump supporters is to ignore and/or fight the subpoenas.

(Yahoo)As a former Army general, Michael Flynn would have sworn an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution, but based on the responses he gave in March to the House select committee investigating the events of Jan. 6, 2021, there is much he’d rather not swear to now.

The select committee revealed on Tuesday that the former national security adviser, who was fired by Donald Trump 22 days into his presidency but remained an ally, pleaded the Fifth Amendment when asked whether he thought the violence at the U.S. Capitol was justified.

Flynn also invoked his right against self-incrimination when asked whether he believed in the peaceful transfer of presidential power.


Cited and related links:

  1. news.yahoo.com



Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "A Trump supporter is allowed to testify...watch what happens.":

  1. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 3:57 pm

    Burn im at the effin stake, eh?


  2. by Curt_Anderson on June 29, 2022 4:06 pm
    No, HtS.

    I am just saying that Flynn and others who plead the Fifth in painstakingly slow responses to basic questions should not expect to appear on live TV. The hearings are not a trial, but they are a show.


  3. by Donna on June 29, 2022 4:09 pm
    Cipollone has been subpoenaed by the J6 committee.


  4. by oldedude on June 29, 2022 5:15 pm
    And as much as Flynn has been buddyfukked that hard by the US government and the NAZI cliton FBI, I wouldn't say sht either. Fuk them and the horse they rode in on.

    At least he exercised his rights correctly, unlike Lerner, who read a statement and THEN chose to plead the 5th. It doesn't work that way.
    I'm shocked that you would think that was an issue at all? A basic right in the US courtrooms.


  5. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 10:44 pm
    If you're asked "Do you believe in the peaceful transfer of power?" the answer should be an automatic "yes", right? Unless you don't. Which is pretty revealing.

    The J6 insurrection was absolutely a planned coup. It's just a matter of time before the curtain falls. Shit's gonna fly. Trump and his sorry mob of unAmerican scum will take a unique place in the U.S. Hall of Shame.

    Trump could have been a great president, but he pissed it all away.


  6. by Donna on June 29, 2022 10:45 pm
    Oops, I posted that.


  7. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 3:41 am

    Donna,

    I'm trying to imagine what I'd do were I in Flynn's place. At the very, very best...the VERY best...I'd think that this is an illegitimate Committee of highly motivated, Trump hating political hacks.

    The Bill of Rights allows me to refuse to testify. Were I Flynn, I'd, at least, consider taking the Fifth.


  8. by islander on June 30, 2022 4:40 am

    Pondy wrote:"If you're asked "Do you believe in the peaceful transfer of power?" the answer should be an automatic "yes", right? Unless you don't. Which is pretty revealing".

    You are absolutely right! Nobody is arguing that Flynn doesn't have the "right" to use the fifth. In a courtroom the jury is instructed not to make any inferences when a defendant uses the fifth.

    However...Flynn was not a defendant in a courtroom and the American people have every right to, and they will make inferences from Flynn's refusal to say that he believes in the peaceful transfer of power. This is after all, about Trump and his cohorts attempting to interrupt and stop the peaceful transfer of power.


  9. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 5:18 am

    Considering the nature of the hearings, as pb said, he'd consider taking the Fifth, too. Considering the nature of the hearings, pb thinks everyone from Trump's team should do that...until the Committee makes itself legitimately bipartisan and reflects our representative republic.

    The Committee isn't seeking the truth, it's hoping to crucify Trump.


  10. by Ponderer on June 30, 2022 7:34 am

    "Considering the nature of the hearings, pb thinks everyone from Trump's team should do that..." -Hate

    If none of them have committed any crimes, why on Earth would they want to do that when simply telling the truth would exonerate them? Why are you being so protective of people who have committed crimes against the United States of America?


    "[...] until the Committee makes itself legitimately bipartisan and reflects our representative republic." -Hate

    Again, you can knock it off with that flaming bullshit. It's the sole fault of the Republicans' that there aren't more Republicans on the committee, so you can stop trying to hang it on Pelosi and the Democrats. Are you really so desperate and out of material that you have to keep using totally debunked bullshit as a defense?


  11. by oldedude on June 30, 2022 7:44 am
    Agree.
    Isle- I find it funny that you sheeple absolutely ruined a man's life after he worked 50 years of honor to build it. And then, you have the audacity to demand anything from him? He's been conditioned that if he says anything, this dictatorship will take him in to a closed room and lie about what he said and withhold evidence against themselves again. If you want people to work with you, you can't do that to them expect them to help.

    If it were me? Fuk you. And your mother. And your skirt wearing cuckold "father." What would you do if they charged you with being complicit with murdering patients? Then keep you in jail. And keeping the interrogation going so you have to sell all your assets that you worked for all your adult life. Then you're left penniless. And the media thinks you were complicit. So do your neighbors, and anyone else that "may" hire you.

    If the public "deserves to know the 'truth,' you should have thought of that before the dictatorship you love ruined this man.


  12. by Ponderer on June 30, 2022 7:55 am

    "If it were me? Fuk you. And your mother. And your skirt wearing cuckold "father."" -olde dude

    Wow! Thanks, olde dude!

    Thanks for giving everyone the green light to get as personally insulting to you and your disgusting family as we care to be.

    I look forward to the next time I want to tell you what I really think of you and yours.

    Don't worry though. I'll use this freedom you've given us sparingly. I won't wear it out. But it's going to be quite rewarding to finally feel free to go into complex detail about the horrifically brain damaged and immoral parents that were responsible for creating such a sociopathic piece of work as you.






  13. by Ponderer on June 30, 2022 8:03 am

    Getting back to the topic though...

    od, do you think that his 50 years of service should exonerate and insulate him from any or all of the actual crimes he has committed?

    Do you feel that your military service indemnifies you from prosecution for any laws you break? Is that how you think this is all supposed to work?


  14. by oldedude on June 30, 2022 8:04 am
    That train has already left the station with you. Along time ago. Unbelievably, that wasn't a personal attack on you. It was really for the people you support. Shiftless, the illegal information gathering by the FBI, and all the other tyrants you support. So don't be so egotistical to think I would single you out. He's already learned his lesson taught by those you support. (the collective) You've ruined a man's life and you (all) don't care. Then you expect him to play your little charade and expect him to be a willing participant. After what they did to him, I absolutely stand by what I said.


  15. by oldedude on June 30, 2022 8:12 am
    What crimes to you have absolute proof that he has committed?


  16. by oldedude on June 30, 2022 8:21 am
    And to answer your question. No. As a mater of fact, I'm held to a higher standard because of my clearance.

    My point is the FBI illegally obtained a confession. Then they did not disclose information that would exonerate him. That is a crime and the lawyers should have been disbarred and criminally charged.

    So what are the vast number of crimes he's guilty of? Just wondering.

    Had it been done to one of cliton's people, you'd be enraged.


  17. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 8:29 am

    OD:

    What crimes to you have absolute proof that he has committed?

    Exactly!

    The crime of being an SOB. That's it!


  18. by islander on June 30, 2022 8:57 am

    So what are the vast number of crimes he's guilty of?"

    It's irrelevant and pointless to debate that now since President Donald Trump’s pardon of his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, includes an extremely broad reprieve from any possible crimes he might have committed.

    It pays to have friends in high places.


  19. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 9:10 am

    Nice dodge, isle.

    Well, no. A fair dodge.

    As much as I don't want it, I think you'd better flex your vocal chords to start sayin President OrangeMan in 025.

    Bahahahahahahahahahaha!


  20. by oldedude on June 30, 2022 1:00 pm
    It was also found that DOJ agents seriously violated his constitutional rights and Rule 16 regarding discovery and inspection. This is a cornerstone of the American judicial system. He would have won on appeal, but the FBI made him penniless with almost 2 years of "questioning." Evidence points to the FBI plan to do that in order to get him to confess, and keep his children from being involved in the same illegal tactics.


  21. by Ponderer on June 30, 2022 1:16 pm

    It's kinda funny how you hypocrites only support and rush to the defense of criminals on your side of the aisle.

    Why are you so supportive only of Republican criminals? Shouldn't the care, concern, and knee-jerk defense you lavish on them encompass not just them but all criminals? Republican and Democrat, rich and poor? I mean if you're going to be fair about it?


  22. by islander on June 30, 2022 2:42 pm
    OD wrote: .

    The court found that the DOJ did NOT violate Flynn's constitutional rights and Rule 16 regarding discovery and inspection.

    V. CONCLUSION

    For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Mr. Flynn's Motion to Compel the Production of Brady Material and for an Order to Show Cause, ECF Nos. 109 & 111; Mr. Flynn's Sealed Motion to Compel the Production of Brady Material, ECF No. 112; Mr. Flynn's Sealed Motion for an Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 113; and Mr. Flynn's Motion to Compel the Production of Newly Discovered Brady Evidence, ECF No. 124. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

    SO ORDERED.

    casetext.com


  23. by islander on June 30, 2022 2:56 pm
    In the last post I Left off what OD wrote:"It was also found that DOJ agents seriously violated his constitutional rights and Rule 16 regarding discovery and inspection"


  24. by oldedude on June 30, 2022 3:30 pm
    This is the same judge that retired directly after this trial. He was bought off. "The court" could be found in collusion with the prosecution.

    This from bill Barr.


  25. by islander on June 30, 2022 4:55 pm

    OD, that's your "opinion" and you're welcome to it. What I gave you is "fact".


  26. by oldedude on June 30, 2022 6:37 pm
    It's the "opinion" of a former AG after he reviewed the case. I think he may know more about the law than either of us. Unless you're like another person that used to be on the site that was an "expert" on everything.


  27. by oldedude on June 30, 2022 7:56 pm
    "In fact, Sullivan’s obstreperous behavior in this case has been unpardonable.

    It’s been almost a year since Flynn first asked to withdraw his guilty plea and more than seven months since the government itself moved to dismiss the charges against him because, as Sullivan noted, the Justice Department said “(1) Mr. Flynn’s false statements to the FBI agents were not ‘material’ to any investigation; (2) the government is doubtful that it could prove the falsity of Mr. Flynn’s statements; and (3) the government has ‘no substantial federal interest in penalizing a defendant for a crime that it is not satisfied occurred and that it does not believe it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.’”

    So, why did it take this long for Sullivan to dismiss a prosecution that the parties agree never should have been brought in the first place?

    Well, he took the extremely unusual step of appointing a retired federal judge, John Gleeson, as a “friend of court”—just a few days after Gleeson wrote a harsh polemic against Flynn in The Washington Post. Sullivan tasked him with investigating whether he should agree to the dismissal and whether Flynn should potentially be charged with perjury (?!) in connection with initially having entered a guilty plea.

    The implications of Sullivan’s moves were staggering.

    Moreover, it’s been 3-1/2 months since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc, gave Sullivan a face-saving “out” to continue handling the case, overruling a panel decision that had ordered him to immediately dismiss the case.

    The en banc court gently prodded him to resolve the issues quickly, saying, “we trust and expect the District Court to proceed with appropriate dispatch.”

    Unfortunately, he did nothing of the sort, demonstrating that the “trust” of the appellate court was misplaced. Given Sullivan’s questionable conduct throughout the case, it should have known better.

    And now, it appears he’s only dismissed the case because Trump’s pardon made it moot. As one news outlet blared, in a headline that illustrated Sullivan’s appearance of partisan bias, “Judge takes final shots at Trump, Flynn as he agrees to dismiss case.”

    Let’s be clear here. At this point, Sullivan didn’t have a choice. And troublingly, he tried to tilt the scale in his favor on unresolved issues surrounding the scope of a federal judge’s authority when both the government and the defendant agree that criminal charges should be dismissed.

    Of course, he asserted, the “Court Has Discretion to Review the Unopposed Rule 48(a) Motion [to Dismiss],” and to review it for either “Deficient Reasoning Or Prosecutorial Abuse.”

    While never actually saying whether he would have refused to dismiss the charges absent the president’s pardon—although from his order it seems likely he would have refused, despite the grave separation of powers concerns such an action would have raised—Sullivan claimed it was a “close call.”

    In fact, he goes on to say that “while not conclusory, many of the government’s reasons for why it has decided to reverse course and seek dismissal in this case appear pretextual, particularly in view of the surrounding circumstances.”

    Contrary to that assertion, though, it’s those “surrounding circumstances”—such as the FBI’s ambush interview, the FBI’s failure to follow standard protocols, and the FBI and Justice Department’s failure to turn over potentially exculpatory or impeaching evidence, among other things—that no doubt played a part in the Justice Department’s decision to no longer pursue charges against Flynn.

    Sullivan wants to simply ignore all of this troubling conduct by federal agents and prosecutors.

    Instead, he said, “the Court finds . . . [the Justice Department’s stated rationales as to why it believed it could not prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt] dubious to say the least, arguably overcoming the strong presumption of regularity that usually attaches to prosecutorial decisions.”

    So, just to be clear, Sullivan implies that he thinks that he could unilaterally require the government to move forward with a prosecution when it no longer believes it can prove the case or when it believes the interests of justice require a dismissal.

    Imagine if that standard were applied regularly or in any other criminal case. There would, rightly, be an outcry.

    Sullivan seems to be confused about what country it is where he’s a judge. For example, in France and Spain, judges act as both judges and the government prosecutor. That, wisely, is not the case here, where the Constitution’s doctrine of separation of powers divides those responsibilities between the judicial and executive branches.

    In a final political potshot at both Trump and Flynn that has no place in a legal opinion, Sullivan said, “President Trump’s decision to pardon Mr. Flynn is a political decision, not a legal one. Because the law recognizes the President’s power to pardon, the appropriate course is to dismiss this case as moot.

    “However, the pardon ‘does not, standing alone, render [Mr. Flynn] innocent of the alleged violation.’”

    No, but the government saying it had no case and that it could not actually prove that Flynn had violated any law certainly means he is “not guilty” in the eyes of law.

    And for Sullivan, that’s what should count.

    What’s even more clear is that the law does not, and never has, rendered Sullivan a sovereign entity, capable of writing the law, prosecuting those who violate the law, and passing judgment on those alleged violations.

    Ours is a nation of checks and balances. And fortunately, Trump used his pardon power to check a judge who was out of control and to deliver long-overdue justice to Flynn."
    heritage.org


  28. by islander on July 1, 2022 6:10 am

    OD, that’s an opinion piece.

    It’s conclusions are virtually all speculation and opinion.

    If you want the “facts” read the “Transcript” of the case...I left you the link yesterday.


  29. by oldedude on July 1, 2022 6:42 am
    The facts remain if you would bother to read them. DOJ knew they were fukked up and tried to pull out of it. That is a fact. One of the reasons they wanted to pull out was that the agents involved had violated DOJ/FBI protocol. They had already ruined Flynn, his livelihood, his family, and life. What else is there to do? You see no wrong doing in them violating his rights just to ruin him. I guess that the difference in us. Even if it were cliton (either one) and they did this to them, I would say the same thing. You wouldn't.


  30. by islander on July 1, 2022 7:02 am

    Here's the difference between a fact and speculation/opinion (from your piece)


    Fact: "President Donald Trump had pardoned him the day before Thanksgiving."

    Opinion: "It never should have taken this long for Sullivan to dismiss the case, and frankly, it never should have come to this."

    Speculation: "Sullivan wants to simply ignore all of this troubling conduct by federal agents and prosecutors."




  31. by oldedude on July 1, 2022 10:26 am
    It's interesting that you can't see the facts if you actually read the article.

    "It’s been almost a year since Flynn first asked to withdraw his guilty plea and more than seven months since the government itself moved to dismiss the charges against him because, as Sullivan noted,

    the Justice Department said
    “(1) Mr. Flynn’s false statements to the FBI agents were not ‘material’ to any investigation;

    (2) the government is doubtful that it could prove the falsity of Mr. Flynn’s statements; and

    (3) the government has ‘no substantial federal interest in penalizing a defendant for a crime that it is not satisfied occurred and that it does not believe it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.’”


    So why did the judge continue? Prosecution said their case was in shambles. They couldn't prove their case, and it didn't matter anyway.

    That's pretty factual to me.


Comment on: "A Trump supporter is allowed to testify...watch what happens."

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:
SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page


From our contributors:
Display Order:

The FBI Pays Trump a Little House Call
Dungeons & Dragons by Ponderer     August 9, 2022 6:26 am (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (1 comments) [7 views]


List of Tax Hikes in Democrat Reconciliation Bill
Politics by HatetheSwamp     August 8, 2022 9:29 am (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: Ponderer (5 comments) [132 views]


Joseph R. Biden ranks with FDR and LBJ in legislative achievements.
Government by Curt_Anderson     August 8, 2022 2:16 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: Ponderer (5 comments) [49 views]


Did the US media overhype the 'betrayal' and fate of Afghanistan interpreters?
Media by Curt_Anderson     August 8, 2022 5:03 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (6 comments) [88 views]


Trump complained U.S. generals lacked the loyalty German generals showed Hitler, book says
Military by Curt_Anderson     August 8, 2022 8:00 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: Donna (1 comments) [8 views]


Lizzy's daddy: 'Never Has America Faced A Greater Threat Than Donald Trump,' Says Guy Who Started Two Wars And Shot A Dude In The Face
Politics by HatetheSwamp     August 8, 2022 3:25 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (2 comments) [39 views]


Olivia Newton-John, singer and actress, dead at 73
Entertainment by HatetheSwamp     August 8, 2022 1:08 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: Donna (1 comments) [28 views]


Senate Republicans managed to score points for their side today.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     August 7, 2022 10:53 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (9 comments) [104 views]


Trumpy voter fraud 'expert' under investigation for scheme to seize and tamper with voting machines.
Crime by Curt_Anderson     August 8, 2022 12:00 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: (0 comments) [18 views]


White nationalist PM of Hungary Viktor Orban received a standing ovation after his speech at CPAC yesterday
Dinosaurs by Donna     August 5, 2022 10:20 am (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (47 comments) [401 views]


Law selectors, pages, etc.