Innocent people do not require pardons.
@XaoslordErie @Florence Ehh...sometimes they do.
Pleading the Fifth is a tactical move that is useful in a lot of situations (like if you need to get the defense to lay off your client's reputation and focus on the elements of the effing crime already). It doesn't automatically indicate the pleader has something relevant to hide.
Source: am lawyer
@danialexis @XaoslordErie Yep, I get that. But if you're asked 'Do you believe in the peaceful transfer of power?' and you're an American General, and you say 'I plead the fifth', I think we're entitled to draw our own conclusions. Especially if you actively were involved in an insurrection!
@Florence @XaoslordErie That was a profoundly unsettling moment, for sure.
It was, indeed - and it made many of us pretty angry.
@Florence @danialexis @XaoslordErie
And now he calls himself a Christian Nationalist. He needs to be locked up. Period.
@CinnamonGirlE @danialexis @XaoslordErie With him, in particular, I totally agree.
@Florence @danialexis @XaoslordErie Given that taking the Fifth explicitly means you are refusing to testify because you believe that testimony would be used as evidence against you, criminally, (and your lawyer agrees!), yeah, I think we can draw one or more unpatriotic conclusions about Flynn.
@Attilisk @Florence @XaoslordErie It's just such a weird thing to say in response to "do you believe in a peaceful transition of power?"
Like, not *believing* in something isn't a crime. Unless there's some UCMJ thing here I don't know about. But generally, believing in some general principle (or not) is not itself criminal.
At best it hints toward motive for some other action, but we can figure out his motives from the public record.
@danialexis @Attilisk @XaoslordErie I know what you're saying is correct, legally it's spot on. But I'm not a lawyer so am speaking for a country! For the emotion so many of us feel, especailly perhaps those of us who have served, at the way he has used his 'rank' to this terrible end. xx
@Florence @Attilisk @XaoslordErie I'm with you on that.
Like - as a lawyer, pleading the Fifth there is weird to me.
As an American, pleading the Fifth there appalls me. How DARE you, sir. This is our NATION you're talking about.
@danialexis
Well, it's not like they care. If they did, they'd not have been insurrectionists in the first place. But for a military man to insult the service of myself and all those who came before and after ... that's appalling.
@danialexis Yes! You just summed up my own feelings perfectly! xx
@danialexis @Attilisk @Florence @XaoslordErie So I guess, technically, one doesn't have to believe in a peaceful transfer of power to uphold the US Constitution, but...Isn't there "Conduct Unbecoming to an Officer", or is that just on TV? I think they could yank his pension and tie him up in court til way after his death from natural causes, if there was a will to hold him accountable. I mean, he's regularly presented as Gen. Michael Flynn! NOT a good luck for the US armed services.
@Ironworker229
Flynn is entitled to use his former rank, so long as he has not been convicted of a crime punishable by either military or civilian law. Once he is convicted, however, he is no longer entitled to refer to himself by rank and, in fact, could lose rank and benefits if convicted.
'Conduct unbecoming' does exist, but it's more likely Article 15 of UCMJ would be invoked, a General Article, which basically covers any offense not elsewhere addressed.
@XaoslordErie Thanks! I am mostly ignorant, but Have Opinions! I appreciate any accurate info to add to my knowledge base.
So is Art. 15 where "Supporting/organizing an armed insurrection" would fall?
@Ironworker229
It would be if there were no other UCMJ article supporting such a charge directly, which there is; it falls under Article 94, which covers mutiny and sedition. Article 15, since it's a General article, could then be used to stipulate additional charges not covered otherwise. Might even be able to sneak Article 93 (Dereliction of Duty) in there somewhere if one were clever enough.
@Ironworker229
Something I neglected to mention I was just thinking about is that paygrades E-7 and up through the officer ranks require a literal act of Congress to remove them or charge them with bad conduct. At least, that is how it used to be, and it may have changed by now, but I doubt it has.
@XaoslordErie Thanks again for your engagement and insight.
@XaoslordErie Because of course.
@XaoslordErie @Ironworker229 I don't think it has but it's usually easier to CM or otherwise prosecute. IMHO.
@XaoslordErie @Ironworker229 I'm not even sure you'd have to be that clever!
@Ironworker229 @danialexis @Florence @XaoslordErie I don’t know how Conduct Unbecoming would work in relation to someone who is retired from the service. But, yeah, not a good look for the armed forces.
@Attilisk It doesn't, which is why I suggest Article 94 instead, possibly Article 93, and general Article 15.
@Florence @danialexis @XaoslordErie He needs to be reactivated and court martialed!! Have his friggen rank brought down to nothing.
@Embers Amen. Preach it.
@Florence No, they sure don't.