he fucking pleaded guilty how on earth could you possibly exonerate him
oh my goddd what is wrong with this world, I'm really waiting to hear the counter-arguments to "the republicans are comic book villians" because I'm finding it more and more difficult to think otherwise.
His son, Mike Flynn Jr, is an especially heinous little twat. He's constantly pushing Deep State conspiracy theories, going on about the Communist Libs, the Fake News Media, quoting Sean Hannity, praising Trump, etc. He's one of the central voices of this absurd cabal, and he's very nearly as unhinged as Trump himself. The GOP propaganda campaign to spin this entire investigation as a big partisan "witch hunt" has fully rooted itself in Trump's base, and no amount of evidence, guilty pleas, or criminal referrals will change their minds.
I would not put it past trump to try and pardon flynn
What if the whole reason he became president was just to pardon all the white collar criminals in federal prison.
Madness!
Sounds like he's in the right crowd.
Honestly the idea of exonerating someone who's plead guilty isn't that ridiculous.
It often makes the most sense for an innocent person to take a plea deal because they can't be certain of the outcome of the trial.
Not to say he is innocent, but a guilty plea doesn't mean much to me in terms of whether or not they can later be exonerated.
He's to supposedly be exonerated for lying to the FBI about his illegal negotiation contacts with the Russian government prior to Trump's election and inauguration. Considering that he is only being charged for the smallest part of what seem to be Logan Act violations and helping play the part of a grand conspiracy, I think he's pretty certain of the outcome of the trial and is willing to exchange being charged for only a minor crime in exchange for becoming a cooperating informant. He has not been charged with all of those other crimes but Mueller has not shut the door on bringing further charges against Michael Flynn.
This isn't any old average plea bargain.
And if anyone tries to get Flynn out of Mueller's sights, such as a Presidential pardon, you can bet Mueller will then charge Flynn with some or all of the other charges against him, forcing Trump to pardon him for all of those, too -- and there'll likely be state charges that can't be pardoned in that packet of fun (Mueller would need to refer to states to get them to indict Flynn on state charges but that's easy enough for him).
Okay, but you'll carefully notice I wasn't actually posting about Mike Flynn's case in particular (dude's fucked) but rather the idea that a guilty plea means someone definitely did something.
so if you're specifically stating Flynn's case is "fucked" and therefore don't share that opinion with this instance, why did you then bring that up in a thread specifically about his case?
Because the article title clearly implies that pleading guilty means that being exonerated isn't a reasonable thing that can happen, even though it is.
Missing the forest for the trees.
I would disagree. Given how aware people are of this case and of Flynn, and especially given that you've just admitted that his case is "fucked", I would argue that it's just pointing out that in this case it's hilarious that people are possibly attempting to exonerate him. I can't see why you'd mention the point you raised given at no point does it feel like the article is trying to point out "all people who pleaded guilty cannot be anything but", merely pointing out how ridiculous it would be in this case given that he's fairly obviously guilty and showing the disconnect with reality that the far-right have. I can't help but feel like your original post is to seed distrust towards the case.
Then the article title should be "Michael Flynn is clearly guilty. Now his supporters are trying to exonerate him."
"Michael Flynn pleaded guilty...trying to exonerate him" clearly paints a relationship between the two statements that's meant to show that because of the first statement the second statement isn't reasonable. However, the first statement does not inherently mean that the second is unreasonable. The article title is flawed.
That's a ridiculous thought you had.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
