Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "DOJ Dismisses Flynn? Not So Fast. (LegalEagle’s Law Review)" video.

@ConstitutionalCrank708 McCabe and Comey CLEARLY have more evidence against them for lying under oath, separately from the Flynn case, than Flynn does. By a thousand miles. And they are the ones that helped "The White House" target and then lie about Flynn for no good cause. They are in very serious jeopardy. The video didn't mention that. I wonder why.
5
@DeeAreDee Listen, you absurd ignoramus, if you had any knowledge at all about the US legal system you wouldn't even have to ask for "links." All of the relevant evidence is in the public domain. You can start with the defendant's attorney and her Twitter feed. You probably don't even know who she is. Why you're so impressed by this video is beyond any rational logic. You're a dupe of the public education system, obviously. Why don't you read the Dunning Kruger studies before you even attempt to smart off to people online? You've been taught to think like a talking monkey. A zoo animal. And that's good enough for you.
4
The accused has had his fundamental due process rights violated. You think that you're "punching up" but you're a dupe of the "Social Justice" fascists that orchestrated this. Merely because you just assume that they're "on your side." And they're not.
4
@DeeAreDee You don't understand the insane "punching up" cult. They're "Legal Realists" and think they're "speaking truth to power" in the face of "The Patriarchy" and "the dominant hegemonic culture that framed the 'racist" US Constitution." (Critical Theory, CLS, CRT, etc.) Fine. It's OK if you read that crap. I do too. But I know what all of their assumptions are. I file those ideas under caveat doctrines. But these kooks are are lying by omission. On their best of days. They try to represent "mainstream academic thought" and "oppressed minority" at the same time without explaining their underlying assumptions to the audience. They're partisan kooks and any sane, competent person can explain to you what they're leaving out. People like Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley do much better at explaining where the controversies lie. All of your "sources" are lying partisans pretending to explain the "Science" of modern Machiavellian "Social Justice" from the cult that wants to run Our Democracy as the embedded "Brain Trusts" while 'lifting up voices of the voiceless' (that they regard as innately inferior). Read Orwell's Animal Farm. You follow Orwell's Pigs.
3
@jond2720 These people can't follow. Neither can the video host, apparently. Imagine a "Legal Eagle" that has never heard of a coerced confession/plea?
3
The entire reason you're supposed to hire lawyers is so that you can offer stipulated pleas without being accused of lying in the agreement when new evidence shows up and you modify your position.
2
@dylancraven3979 factoid (n.) 1973, "published statement taken to be a fact because of its appearance in print," from fact + -oid, first explained, if not coined, by Norman Mailer. Factoids ... that is, facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper, creations which are not so much lies as a product to manipulate emotion in the Silent Majority. [Mailer, "Marilyn," 1973] By 1988 it was being used in the sense of "small, isolated bit of true factual information." https://www.etymonline.com/word/factoid
2
LOL. "Quietly packing the courts" with the approval of the Senate. You idiots are fascinating.
1
There's one written US Constitution, one SCOTUS, but two conflicting cultures. Guess which cult you belong to?
1
@bendamasta The Demon Rats are infinitely worse. All of your discussions here are idiotic. The video itself is so biased that it's shameful he pretends to be an "educator." Ask Jonathan Turley or Alan Dershowitz (perhaps the only two living, competent Democrats) to explain it to you. There are perhaps two or three competent lawyers commenting here and you have no idea how to parse the controversies. You're an incorrigible idiot. You don't understand what "the rule of law" means. You don't understand what "checks and balances" mean. You're a typical "unskilled and unaware of it" kook. The DOJ is not a "separate branch" from the Executive Branch. Congress, and the whining morons that are deceiving you, have no criminal liability from lying to you daily. That's on you that you can't properly parse fact from fiction.
1
@Vialle1014 What an ignorant comment. All you people do is whinge and cry after being triggered by demagogic liars. You don't even know what impartial means because you have no objective standards for judging anything anyone tells you.
1
@mgarcia366 Checks and balances exist on every level of governance in the USA. There is no unchecked government entity. The closest thing to unchecked governance is when agencies are allowed to act overseas and there's no real way to bring complaints to a court or an oversight committee.
1
@16m49x3 Right. This is an attempt to "check" the runaway malfeasance of the Obama administration that thought "Barakillary" would have 4 straight terms. US AG Lynch was promoted and protected by the Clintons her entire career. She was brought in to make for a "smooth transition" and the election itself was regarded as a mere "glass ceiling breaking" formality. They're still trying to cover up their crimes.
1
@XS69 Wrong. US AG is not in the US Constitution. He's a cabinet member that answers to POTUS. POTUS is in the US Constitution. POTUS is a "one man branch" that chooses all of his underlings but in order to have cheifs with certain delegated authority they must be approved by the Senate. Nonetheless, POTUS may choose instead to perform all of those duties on his own. Perfectly legal and as the Constitution intended. US AG is not "independent" other than under "the rule of law" rubric he is a sentient officer that may choose to speak against his orders, but he has no legal right to block Presidential orders unless it is an order to violate fundamental rights of others. FFS, the power of pardon is written explicitly in to the Constitution. Anything short of that is lawful other than "impeachable offenses" and then the remedy is...impeachment hearings. You lunatics already took your best shot at that. Your cult is so pathetic.
1
@jimmydyurko LOL. You feel Obama was better because you reason like a child.
1
@TheJingles007 Guilty of what? Offending your cult? Yes. Is that a crime? No.
1
Yes.
1
@dylancechanowicz5480 You're an idiot. You don't even understand the case. The original accusation can't be supported well enough for a tort claim or even classroom exposition, never mind a criminal case.
1
@peterjp4 Yes.
1
@Khaim.m What an insane apology for your stupid attacks. None of you know how to lay out a coherent, fact based story to even test against "the law."
1
This is not an "iron clad case." The narrator is a liar.
1
HamsterK1977 You must be joking. He certainly did not reference any factual evidence. Why don't you go and visit your nearest dictionary to read about what "exactly" means. He glossed over ALL of the documentary evidence available to the public and referenced NOTHING but delusional "hot takes" or "community truth" spin. And he did this knowingly. He made a dogmatic claim that he knew he could not support with evidence and relied instead on deluded, partisan stories.
1
HamsterK1977 " and explained the laws you puppet." Moron, This isn't a "rules and laws republic." It's a rule of law republic. When you "explain laws" you're supposed to present a rational argument. Leaving out contrary evidence is allowed sometimes but only when others are there to fill in the blanks. He's posing at Master Expositor and ignoring the evidence and ignoring all of the valid counter arguments. The ones based on a rational reading of the case. You don't even recognize when you're being sold a bunch of bull. When you so easily label others (when you don't understand any of the controversies) "puppet" it suggests that you're projecting your own fears that you are a useless groupthink moron. Try that on for size.
1