I can't disagree with the view that you start by not disbelieving the woman. How many double-negatives is that? Must be a record!Alyssa Milano said it the best way just , I think, yesterday/today(?): something along the lines of: the point of the metoo movement was never that all women should just be believed in everything they say, but rather, the default of never believing the woman should be changed.
Ok, now that's something I think most people can get on board with.
At a minimum, we should be grateful that the Times made a grudging push back against the Democrats misuse of the Times article. In a related situation, the accusations against General Flynn seem to be unraveling. Evidently new documentation has been released by the FBI. In response, President Trump called on CNN to undertake some soul searching in their reporting. Maybe the news-media, CNN and the Times, are finally facing the reality that the negative biased stories that they have been spewing out may be reaching an end-of-life and it is time to return to real balanced news.The Biden campaign talking points, which were first reported by BuzzFeed News, instruct supporters to describe the candidate as a “fierce advocate for women” who has never faced any “complaint, allegation, hint or rumor of any impropriety or inappropriate conduct.” The talking points also inaccurately suggested that an investigation by The New York Times this month found that “this incident did not happen.”
In a statement issued Wednesday, The Times noted that the investigation “made no conclusion either way.”" (emphasis added)
Actually his lawyers did. This is not an unusual practice. Its legal and has been used for decades. Your local PD uses it also however on a local level being caught lying to the cops is used as a consciousness of guilt argument. Doubtful that they would persuade a Judge to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea, as he did break the law and then lied about it, but it would certainly give trump cover to pardon him.Evidently new documentation has been released by the FBI.
Same thing.True, but it could be vacated.
Flynn was suspected of violating the Logan Act. An old law rarely used but a law still on the books none the less. There were recordings of his call so the FBI already knew before speaking to him what was going on. It is much easier to prove that he lied to the FBI, a felony, than to prove that he violated the logan act. So what do you do? You give him the opportunity to tell the truth or to lie. Either way he gets charged. I'm not even sure he pleaded to the logan act so technically he could possibly still be charged even if trump pardons him.I saw something on YouTube where the FBI were quoted as saying they were either trying to get him fired or to resign. I mean what kind of law enforcement is it? Corrupt for sure.
He confessed to the judge during his colloquy not the FBI.The guilty plea will stand, a Judge could set aside the results of a coerced confession. Which law enforcement does routinely.
no, not really. Just not for public consumption.Lol, that's a yes
This is a generalization of what happened to Fynn >He confessed to the judge during his colloquy not the FBI.
The reid technique on the other hand is arguably coerced.
“If you don’t confess, I’m going to arrest your wife, I’m going to arrest your family, I’m going to go to the newspaper and basically make sure that a very embarrassing story about you is highly publicized.” So it would be improper to make threats like that to compel someone to make a confession. Sometimes the police make promises. “Look, I’m going to talk to the DA, I’m going to see that no charges are filed, I’m going to see that the case is dismissed, you won’t go to jail.” And oftentimes, those are promises and assurances that really are untrue, but they would often compel a person to make an admission—even an innocent person, sometimes, to make a confession or an admission—that is not really voluntary.
After the FBI is done with you. Of course you have to agree to the plea.He confessed to the judge
The other argument to that is he took the hit to protect his son. Look at drug cases. Car pulled over, drugs found, cop asks whos drugs are they. If everyone in car says not mine they all get charged. If lets say the husband says they're his to protect his wife is that coerced or a calculated decision?This is a generalization of what happened to Fynn >