Should flipping "almost ought to be illegal"?

[armycowboy]

@LucyLou

You lot are trying to peddle a story that Flynn is innocent? The man is a disgrace to the uniform he once wore.

Oh, not just innocent, dear cowboy. A victim. Practically up on a cross, at this point.

Yeah, they’re trying to portray this disgraced piece of garbage as a martyr for the cause.

[margaretms2]

At least one poster here–it may haven been around the time of the transition to the new forum–assured me that the case against Flynn was falling apart, that he was going to withdraw his plea, etc. I think the idea may have originated in some piece of Federalist claptrap.

[armycowboy]

@margaretms2

At least one poster here–it may haven been around the time of the transition to the new forum–assured me that the case against Flynn was falling apart, that he was going to withdraw his plea, etc. I think the idea may have originated in some piece of Federalist claptrap.

I remember that and it was several members who supported the claim. I believe Rush Limbaugh also pushed the story as well.

[zantax]

@margaretms2

I thought this was a revealing exchange in the preview of the Trump interview:

And he sharply decried those who testify against former confidants to ease legal troubles, bemoaning the longstanding practice.

“It’s called flipping and it almost ought to be illegal,” Trump said in the interview, adding he’s witnessed similar scenarios over his decades in public life. “I know all about flipping, 30, 40 years I have been watching flippers. Everything is wonderful and then they get 10 years in jail and they flip on whoever the next highest one is or as high as you can go.”

Do you agree with Trump’s take here? I don’t know how to qualify “almost ought to be illegal”(?) as a claim, but what do you think?

Can’t say I am a big fan of the tactic, dangle twenty years over someones head and almost anyone will say whatever you want them to say in an attempt to avoid it. It’s testimony gained under duress.

[armycowboy]

@zantax

Can’t say I am a big fan of the tactic, dangle twenty years over someones head and almost anyone will say whatever you want them to say in an attempt to avoid it. It’s testimony gained under duress.

John Gotti approves of your post.

[Nemesis]

@zantax

@margaretms2

I thought this was a revealing exchange in the preview of the Trump interview:

And he sharply decried those who testify against former confidants to ease legal troubles, bemoaning the longstanding practice.

“It’s called flipping and it almost ought to be illegal,” Trump said in the interview, adding he’s witnessed similar scenarios over his decades in public life. “I know all about flipping, 30, 40 years I have been watching flippers. Everything is wonderful and then they get 10 years in jail and they flip on whoever the next highest one is or as high as you can go.”

Do you agree with Trump’s take here? I don’t know how to qualify “almost ought to be illegal”(?) as a claim, but what do you think?

Can’t say I am a big fan of the tactic, dangle twenty years over someones head and almost anyone will say whatever you want them to say in an attempt to avoid it. It’s testimony gained under duress.

Gaining information under duress didnt bother you back in the day when waterboarding was the talk of the forum.But now Trump is in office and possibly impacted by Cohen deciding to make a deal, suddenly you are concerned.

once a Dem gets back into the WH and if a similar situation occurs I am sure your concern for plea deals etc will not longer exist.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

Maybe he meant the use of a plea deal based on flipping should be illegal.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@zantax

Can’t say I am a big fan of the tactic, dangle twenty years over someones head and almost anyone will say whatever you want them to say in an attempt to avoid it. It’s testimony gained under duress.

Do you understand how trials work?

[zantax]

@armycowboy

@zantax

Can’t say I am a big fan of the tactic, dangle twenty years over someones head and almost anyone will say whatever you want them to say in an attempt to avoid it. It’s testimony gained under duress.

John Gotti approves of your post.

Well, we could bring back torture too, I am sure it could net us lots of swell testimony against people the government knows are criminals without having evidence to prove they are.

[armycowboy]

@zantax

Can’t say I am a big fan of the tactic, dangle twenty years over someones head and almost anyone will say whatever you want them to say in an attempt to avoid it. It’s testimony gained under duress.

John Gotti approves of your post.

Well, we could bring back torture too, I am sure it could net us lots of swell testimony against people the government knows are criminals without having evidence to prove they are.

You all were all for water boarding, so there’s that.

[Grimalken]

For what, precisely?

[zantax]

@Nemesis

@zantax

@margaretms2

I thought this was a revealing exchange in the preview of the Trump interview:

And he sharply decried those who testify against former confidants to ease legal troubles, bemoaning the longstanding practice.

“It’s called flipping and it almost ought to be illegal,” Trump said in the interview, adding he’s witnessed similar scenarios over his decades in public life. “I know all about flipping, 30, 40 years I have been watching flippers. Everything is wonderful and then they get 10 years in jail and they flip on whoever the next highest one is or as high as you can go.”

Do you agree with Trump’s take here? I don’t know how to qualify “almost ought to be illegal”(?) as a claim, but what do you think?

Can’t say I am a big fan of the tactic, dangle twenty years over someones head and almost anyone will say whatever you want them to say in an attempt to avoid it. It’s testimony gained under duress.

Gaining information under duress didnt bother you back in the day when waterboarding was the talk of the forum.But now Trump is in office and possibly impacted by Cohen deciding to make a deal, suddenly you are concerned.

once a Dem gets back into the WH and if a similar situation occurs I am sure your concern for plea deals etc will not longer exist.

Waterboarding wasn’t to get evidence for court, nor being used against US citizens. But thanks goodness democrats came along and showed us how to solve that infringement on the rights of foreign terrorists, just kill then instead, due process problem solved.

[zantax]

@armycowboy

@zantax

Can’t say I am a big fan of the tactic, dangle twenty years over someones head and almost anyone will say whatever you want them to say in an attempt to avoid it. It’s testimony gained under duress.

John Gotti approves of your post.

Well, we could bring back torture too, I am sure it could net us lots of swell testimony against people the government knows are criminals without having evidence to prove they are.

You all were all for water boarding, so there’s that.

Against foreign terrorists in a time of war, not against US citizens domestically. So there’s that.

[Apocalypto]

Talking like a true mob boss.

[Vigilante]

@Call_me_Ishmael

Maybe he meant the use of a plea deal based on flipping should be illegal.

You mean it almost ought to be illegal

[Vigilante]

@Grimalken

@margaretms2

Do you agree with Trump’s take here? I don’t know how to qualify “almost ought to be illegal”(?) as a claim, but what do you think?

Depends on the context behind what Trump said.

Is he referring to corrupt prosecutors blackmailing people to lie on a stack of bibles?

We know that sometimes a corrupt prosecution will create crimes out of whole cloth to charge the person with, or their loved ones? They will sometimes threaten to bankrupt people, ruin their personal lives or professional careers, or do it to people close to them.

It’s the practice of coercing a person and forcing them to sign a plea deal, and lie in court, so the prosecution can win a case.

If you believe the news reports, it would be the same process that they are implementing with General Flynn. They have bankrupted him. Then threatened to bankrupt his son and ruin his future, so Flynn gave in and admitted to a crime he had not committed.

Obviousky its a Con spiracy

[armycowboy]

Many reasons. Lying to his superiors and the FBI, taking foreign money after being told it violates Army regulations, treating his subordinates unethically…I could go on.

[armycowboy]

@zantax

You all were all for water boarding, so there’s that.

Against foreign terrorists in a time of war, not against US citizens domestically. So there’s that.

Keep going.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

I understood what he said.

[mobiusptc]

Definitely a point of view and innocent person holds. Smh