Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[ChumpDumper]

^hive mind:rollin you think Michelle Obama is a man. You lost your mind.

[Spurs Homer]

Almost posted this article as a new thread - but maybe this thread is the appropriate place -since it is pretty much predicting


Trump and Russia Collude Part II


great read - and pretty alarming - although an entire right wing of the country is already on Team Russia - but one day they will see that they were pretty much doing russia's work for them -;


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/06/putin-american-democracy/610570/

[TSA]

https://twitter.com/LeeSmithDC/status/1260543697332113410

Henry personally led the remediation and forensics analysis of the DNC server after being warned of a breach in late April 2016 – he was paid by the DNC, which refused to turn over its serves to the FBI. Asked for the date when alleged Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC [servers], but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said.

Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions:

"There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left."

"There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."

"There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network. … We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made."

"Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw."
Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that."



The firm's work with the DNC and FBI is also tainted by partisan affiliations. Before joining CrowdStrike, Henry served as executive assistant director at the FBI under Mueller. Co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch is a vocal critic of Vladimir Putin and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, the pro-NATO think tank that has consistently promoted an aggressive policy toward Russia. And the newly released testimony confirms that CrowdStrike was hired to investigate the DNC breach by Michael Sussmann of Perkins Coie – the same Democrat law firm that hired Fusion GPS to produce the discredited Steele dossier -- which was also treated as central evidence in the investigation. Sussmann played a critical role in generating the Trump-Russia collusion allegation. Ex-British spy and dossier compiler Christopher Steele has testified in British court that Sussmann shared with him the now-debunked Alfa Bank server theory, alleging a clandestine communication channel between the bank and the Trump Organization.

Henry’s recently released testimony does not mean that Russia did not hack the DNC. What it does make clear is that Obama administration officials, the DNC and others have misled the public by presenting information that they knew that was uncertain as fact. The fact that the two private firms that generated the core allegations at the heart of Russiagate -- Russian email hacking and Trump-Russia collusion – were both in the employ of the Democratic Party suggests that the federal investigation was compromised from the start.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_h ack_of_dnc_123596.html

[TSA]

https://twitter.com/tindelson/status/1260601395859861505

:lol

[Spurs Homer]

https://twitter.com/tindelson/status/1260601395859861505

:lol



do you believe this as strongly and with the same fervor as-

hillary running a pedo ring in a pizza dungeon?


same?

or

more bigly?


:lol:lol:lol

[TSA]

do you believe this as strongly and with the same fervor as-

hillary running a pedo ring in a pizza dungeon?


same?

or

more bigly?


:lol:lol:lol

Yes I believe the President of Crowdstrike when he testified under oath that he had no evidence Russia exfiltrated the DNC emails. Do you believe the President of Crowdstrike’s testimony under oath? Yes or no.

[Spurs Homer]

Yes I believe the President of Crowdstrike when he testified under oath that he had no evidence Russia exfiltrated the DNC emails. Do you believe the President of Crowdstrike’s testimony under oath? Yes or no.

do you believe hillary is involved in a pedo dungeon?

yes or no?

[TSA]

do you believe hillary is involved in a pedo dungeon?

yes or no?

Never thought she was tbh, and your deflection attempts are pathetic.

Do you believe the President of Crowdstrike’s testimony under oath? Yes or no.

[Reck]

The guy with wrong about pizza gate in his title thought Bill headed a pedo ring but doesn’t think Hillary was involved.

Checks out. :lol

[Spurs Homer]

Never thought she was tbh, and your deflection attempts are pathetic.

Do you believe the President of Crowdstrike’s testimony under oath? Yes or no.

after you answer my weeks old question of why ratliffe - under oath

says he does not know what a “deep state” is- as he tries to get the confirmation to be trumps next henchman


why didnt he testify under oath that the intel is a deep state?


he denied it all under oath - why? He was asked if trump is correct that usa intel was a deep state and he could not confirm trumps conspiracy theory...


deflecting my ass - you deflected for weeks - pussy


i believe YOU believe YOUR cherry-picked testimony

but it doesnt mean what you think it means

[diego]

Never thought she was tbh, and your deflection attempts are pathetic.

Do you believe the President of Crowdstrike’s testimony under oath? Yes or no.

Well who knows, maybe he was afraid his son might commit a crime in the future and wanted to protect him. You just can't trust anything anyone says anymore

[TSA]

after you answer my weeks old question of why ratliffe - under oath

says he does not know what a “deep state” is- as he tries to get the confirmation to be trumps next henchman


why didnt he testify under oath that the intel is a deep state?


he denied it all under oath - why? He was asked if trump is correct that usa intel was a deep state and he could not confirm trumps conspiracy theory...


deflecting my ass - you deflected for weeks - pussy


i believe YOU believe YOUR cherry-picked testimony

but it doesnt mean what you think it means

I answered your question and you are now dodging and deflecting. It must hurt to have invested so much of yourself into this whole Russia thing only to find out you’ve been lied to for 3+ years. But you’re special. Unlike all the other previous Russiagate hoax believers that hide in embarrassment you are the only one who still believes the debunked narrative.

[ChumpDumper]

I agree with Crowdstirke guy's conclusion under oath the Russians in fact did take the files.'

Do you think it was Seth Rich or something?

[Spurs Homer]

I answered your question and you are now dodging and deflecting. It must hurt to have invested so much of yourself into this whole Russia thing only to find out you’ve been lied to for 3+ years. But you’re special. Unlike all the other previous Russiagate hoax believers that hide in embarrassment you are the only one who still believes the debunked narrative.


you never read the Mueller report


but you believe there was a pedo pizza dungeon!

lololol

[TSA]

you never read the Mueller report


but you believe there was a pedo pizza dungeon!

lololol

This Mueller report?

1. "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

2. "The investigation examined whether [contacts between Russia and Trump figures] involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination."

3. "The investigation did not establish that [Carter] Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 election."

4. "The Office did not identify evidence in those [contacts between Russians and people around Trump after the GOP convention] of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian government."

5. "The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort's sharing polling data and Russia's interference in the election ... [and] the investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts."

6. "The investigation did not establish that these [contacts between Russians and people around Trump during the transition] reflected or constituted coordination between the Trump Campaign and Russia in its election interference activities."

7. "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the [Russian disinformation campaign]."

[Spurs Homer]

The trump propaganda talking point ^ right on cue

pedo ring in a chuckie cheese basement


hahahahaha!

[TSA]

:cry third attempt and still no takers :cry

[TSA]

https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1260635872271228928

oh hey an unmasking request on Flynn from Biden

[ChumpDumper]

https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1260635872271228928

oh hey an unmasking request on Flynn from Biden
Good.

Flynn was a menace and security threat.

I'm sure you're really concerned about all unmasking requests, right?

[Spurs Homer]

Good.

Flynn was a menace and security threat.

I'm sure you're really concerned about all unmasking requests, right?


unmasking = the new FISA fake outrage!

[ChumpDumper]

unmasking = the new FISA fake outrage!Unmasking requests hit their highest level in 2018. TSA is totally outraged and posts about it all the time.

[ChumpDumper]

https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1260635872271228928

oh hey an unmasking request on Flynn from BidenDude, what was Flynn doing weeks before the ambassador call that led to all these unmasking requests?

Obama had already told Trump not to hire Flynn.

[boutons_deux]

Dude, what was Flynn doing weeks before the ambassador call that led to all these unmasking requests?

Obama had already told Trump not to hire Flynn.

Flynn was so flakey he got removed an earlier govt job.

Just the guy USA needed as Nat Sec advisor.

[boutons_deux]

Obviously, Trash hired Flynn as NSA to spite Obama


"According to all three former officials, Obama warned Trump against hiring Flynn.

The Obama administration fired Flynn in 2014 from his position as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency,

largely because of mismanagement and temperament issues.

Obama’s warning pre-dated the

concerns inside the government about Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador, one of the officials said.

Obama passed along a general caution that he believed Flynn was not suitable for such a high level post,

two U.S. officials told NBC News that the Defense Intelligence Agency didn't know

Flynn had been paid nearly $34,000 by a Russian state media outlet

when it renewed his security clearance in April 2016.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-warned-trump-against-hiring-mike-flynn-say-officials-n756316 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-warned-trump-against-hiring-mike-flynn-say-officials-n756316)

Trash's NatSec advisor compromised Pootin, who probably told Trash/Kushner to hire Flynn.

[DMC]

Why isn’t anybody here answering the IMPORTANT question??!!!!?????


What if Michael Flynn was a black teenager? :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry
He'd be the youngest 3 star general in the history of the race. Probably using an aimbot.

[Spurs Homer]

Judge Sullivan considering whether Flynn can be held in contempt for perjury


since he swore under oath he was guilty - now says hes not


ohr shit!

[ChumpDumper]

He's also is getting a retired judge to make the case the DOJ motion shouldn't be granted.

Trump should just pardon Flynn before his DOJ is further embarrassed.

[Spurs Homer]

He's also is getting a retired judge to make the case the DOJ motion shouldn't be granted.

Trump should just pardon Flynn before his DOJ is further embarrassed.


dec 1,2017

judge sullivan in court: “you understand that with this plea- you give up your right FOREVER
to question/challenge the interview?

flynn: “yes your honor”

oops

[Reck]

Lol TSA pre ejac put on hold.

[Chucho]

Why isn’t anybody here answering the IMPORTANT question??!!!!?????


What if Michael Flynn was a black teenager? :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry

His name would be spelled Mykal.

[boutons_deux]

Trump’s administration has ordered the unmasking of over 36,000 people in three years —

higher than Obama


https://www.rawstory.com/2020/05/trumps-administration-has-ordered-the-unmasking-of-over-36000-people-in-three-years-higher-than-obama/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/RoscoeBDavis1/status/1260666797742862336

https://mobile.twitter.com/RoscoeBDavis1/status/1260666801291243532

Another Obama admin lie exposed. Looking forward to the explanations on how each of these individuals had a “need to know” for these unmasking requests.

[ChumpDumper]

https://mobile.twitter.com/RoscoeBDavis1/status/1260666797742862336

https://mobile.twitter.com/RoscoeBDavis1/status/1260666801291243532

Another Obama admin lie exposed. Looking forward to the explanations on how each of these individuals had a “need to know” for these unmasking requests.I'm looking forward to see WTF Flynn was doing to make people request the unmasking to find out it was him.

[Chris]

DOJ will file petition for writ of mandamus and seek reassignment on remand.

[TSA]

Cooking Up a Criminal Investigation, the Obama Way

David HarsanyiMay 13, 2020 7:09 PM

According to the standards now set by Obama-administration defenders, it would be no big deal if Donald Trump’s Department of Justice opened criminal investigations into high-profile Democrats such as John Kerry (now a member of Joe Biden’s campaign) who met with Iranians officials over the past four years in an effort to undermine the foreign-policy goals of the duly elected government of the United States. These are potential Logan Act violations, after all.

It would be no big deal, either, if Trump’s DOJ opened up investigations into Democrats who have ever taken any money from foreign powers, because these are potential FARA violations. Sure, only six such convictions have been pursued by the DOJ since 1966, but no one says your pretext has to be solid.

It would also fine if, three weeks before Election Day, the DOJ filled out surveillance warrant applications — applications that excluded vital exculpatory evidence — to spy on the Democratic Party’s presidential campaign.

If Joe Biden were to win the presidency, it would be no big deal if Trump’s DOJ snooped on the incoming national-security adviser John Kerry, taped his completely legal calls with foreign dignitaries, simply because Trump suspected that Kerry would disagree with his administration’s stance on Iran, a nation that threatens the sanctity of our democracy and murders hundreds of soldiers.

Then, once Kerry was spied on by the NSA, and unmasked by dozens of high-ranking partisan Trump officials — one of them a future presidential candidate — it would be no big deal if any of them illegally leaked Kerry’s name to the press. They would do this in an effort to smear Kerry and railroad him into a plea — not over any risible FARA or Logan Act abuses, but over an innocuous lie about a lawful call told during an ostensibly friendly conversation — so that the Trump administration could fortify a waning investigation into the Democratic Party.

It would be no big deal if that waning investigation itself was predominately based on a fictitious document paid for by the Republican National Committee. It would be no big deal we if we found out that Trump allies within multiple law-enforcement agencies had referred to the investigation — an investigation based on fictitious evidence paid for by the RNC — as an “insurance policy” against the incoming president. It would be a no-big-deal investigation if the entire thing was propelled by fabricated evidence in FISA warrant applications — and if nearly all FISA warrant applications contained serious errors.

For four years, Trump allies within the Biden administration would illegally leak misleading bits and pieces of their investigation to a compliant media, which then would dutifully smear Kerry and the Democratic Party as seditious operatives, fueling a massive faux scandal and creating enough pressure for an independent investigation that would paralyze the Biden presidency and convince half the nation that the election was stolen.

And when all the skullduggery is finally exposed, and prosecutors have not found enough evidence to indict a single person in the Biden campaign for any wrongdoing that’s related to the stated reason for the investigation, Republicans can demand that everyone just move on. No big deal.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/cooking-up-a-criminal-investigation-the-obama-way/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[Spurs Homer]

https://mobile.twitter.com/RoscoeBDavis1/status/1260666797742862336

https://mobile.twitter.com/RoscoeBDavis1/status/1260666801291243532

Another Obama admin lie exposed. Looking forward to the explanations on how each of these individuals had a “need to know” for these unmasking requests.

when you discover a traitor colluding with our sworn enemy

you fucking watch that traitor

and if the fbi had failed to do that

you would be clutching your pearls and howling - “why didnt the fbi protect us from russia spying on poor widdle flynn and trump!”

unmasking is another term for “surveilling treasonous unpatriotic scum”

you want to know why there were pages of unmasking incidents?

because the trump team was and is full of unpatriotic scum - the biggest one being the one most compromised by russia - yes your cult hero

[ChumpDumper]

Cooking Up a Criminal Investigation, the Obama Way

David HarsanyiMay 13, 2020 7:09 PM

According to the standards now set by Obama-administration defenders, it would be no big deal if Donald Trump’s Department of Justice opened criminal investigations into high-profile Democrats such as John Kerry (now a member of Joe Biden’s campaign) who met with Iranians officials over the past four years in an effort to undermine the foreign-policy goals of the duly elected government of the United States. These are potential Logan Act violations, after all.

It would be no big deal, either, if Trump’s DOJ opened up investigations into Democrats who have ever taken any money from foreign powers, because these are potential FARA violations. Sure, only six such convictions have been pursued by the DOJ since 1966, but no one says your pretext has to be solid.

It would also fine if, three weeks before Election Day, the DOJ filled out surveillance warrant applications — applications that excluded vital exculpatory evidence — to spy on the Democratic Party’s presidential campaign.

If Joe Biden were to win the presidency, it would be no big deal if Trump’s DOJ snooped on the incoming national-security adviser John Kerry, taped his completely legal calls with foreign dignitaries, simply because Trump suspected that Kerry would disagree with his administration’s stance on Iran, a nation that threatens the sanctity of our democracy and murders hundreds of soldiers.

Then, once Kerry was spied on by the NSA, and unmasked by dozens of high-ranking partisan Trump officials — one of them a future presidential candidate — it would be no big deal if any of them illegally leaked Kerry’s name to the press. They would do this in an effort to smear Kerry and railroad him into a plea — not over any risible FARA or Logan Act abuses, but over an innocuous lie about a lawful call told during an ostensibly friendly conversation — so that the Trump administration could fortify a waning investigation into the Democratic Party.

It would be no big deal if that waning investigation itself was predominately based on a fictitious document paid for by the Republican National Committee. It would be no big deal we if we found out that Trump allies within multiple law-enforcement agencies had referred to the investigation — an investigation based on fictitious evidence paid for by the RNC — as an “insurance policy” against the incoming president. It would be a no-big-deal investigation if the entire thing was propelled by fabricated evidence in FISA warrant applications — and if nearly all FISA warrant applications contained serious errors.

For four years, Trump allies within the Biden administration would illegally leak misleading bits and pieces of their investigation to a compliant media, which then would dutifully smear Kerry and the Democratic Party as seditious operatives, fueling a massive faux scandal and creating enough pressure for an independent investigation that would paralyze the Biden presidency and convince half the nation that the election was stolen.

And when all the skullduggery is finally exposed, and prosecutors have not found enough evidence to indict a single person in the Biden campaign for any wrongdoing that’s related to the stated reason for the investigation, Republicans can demand that everyone just move on. No big deal.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/cooking-up-a-criminal-investigation-the-obama-way/amp/?__twitter_impression=trueJudging from the record number of unmaskings requested by the Trump administration, they're probably doing everything listed in this article.

[ChumpDumper]

DOJ will file petition for writ of mandamus and seek reassignment on remand.
OK, Margot.
1260744037428060161

[DMC]

Cooking Up a Criminal Investigation, the Obama Way

David HarsanyiMay 13, 2020 7:09 PM

According to the standards now set by Obama-administration defenders, it would be no big deal if Donald Trump’s Department of Justice opened criminal investigations into high-profile Democrats such as John Kerry (now a member of Joe Biden’s campaign) who met with Iranians officials over the past four years in an effort to undermine the foreign-policy goals of the duly elected government of the United States. These are potential Logan Act violations, after all.

It would be no big deal, either, if Trump’s DOJ opened up investigations into Democrats who have ever taken any money from foreign powers, because these are potential FARA violations. Sure, only six such convictions have been pursued by the DOJ since 1966, but no one says your pretext has to be solid.

It would also fine if, three weeks before Election Day, the DOJ filled out surveillance warrant applications — applications that excluded vital exculpatory evidence — to spy on the Democratic Party’s presidential campaign.

If Joe Biden were to win the presidency, it would be no big deal if Trump’s DOJ snooped on the incoming national-security adviser John Kerry, taped his completely legal calls with foreign dignitaries, simply because Trump suspected that Kerry would disagree with his administration’s stance on Iran, a nation that threatens the sanctity of our democracy and murders hundreds of soldiers.

Then, once Kerry was spied on by the NSA, and unmasked by dozens of high-ranking partisan Trump officials — one of them a future presidential candidate — it would be no big deal if any of them illegally leaked Kerry’s name to the press. They would do this in an effort to smear Kerry and railroad him into a plea — not over any risible FARA or Logan Act abuses, but over an innocuous lie about a lawful call told during an ostensibly friendly conversation — so that the Trump administration could fortify a waning investigation into the Democratic Party.

It would be no big deal if that waning investigation itself was predominately based on a fictitious document paid for by the Republican National Committee. It would be no big deal we if we found out that Trump allies within multiple law-enforcement agencies had referred to the investigation — an investigation based on fictitious evidence paid for by the RNC — as an “insurance policy” against the incoming president. It would be a no-big-deal investigation if the entire thing was propelled by fabricated evidence in FISA warrant applications — and if nearly all FISA warrant applications contained serious errors.

For four years, Trump allies within the Biden administration would illegally leak misleading bits and pieces of their investigation to a compliant media, which then would dutifully smear Kerry and the Democratic Party as seditious operatives, fueling a massive faux scandal and creating enough pressure for an independent investigation that would paralyze the Biden presidency and convince half the nation that the election was stolen.

And when all the skullduggery is finally exposed, and prosecutors have not found enough evidence to indict a single person in the Biden campaign for any wrongdoing that’s related to the stated reason for the investigation, Republicans can demand that everyone just move on. No big deal.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/cooking-up-a-criminal-investigation-the-obama-way/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

What are you talking about? Like SR21 said, its really just about justice being served, to preserve the sanctity of the American government and legal system, to do the right thing. It's not about politics.

[Reck]

OK, Margot.
1260744037428060161

Didn't earned the nickname bot for no reason. :lol Citizen X reporting for bot duty.

[Reck]

OK, Margot.
1260744037428060161

1260717500129579015

1260718314055237634

Otherwise known as go fuck yourself I can do what I want. :lol Flynn

[Chris]

https://mobile.twitter.com/RoscoeBDavis1/status/1260666797742862336

https://mobile.twitter.com/RoscoeBDavis1/status/1260666801291243532

Another Obama admin lie exposed. Looking forward to the explanations on how each of these individuals had a “need to know” for these unmasking requests.

[REDACTED]

[ChumpDumper]

[REDACTED]Flynn was doing all kinds of shit with Turkey too. Wouldn't be surprised if they asked to unmask Flynn when the kidnapping plot became known.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit/status/1260785237770080256?s=19

[Chris]

Flynn was doing all kinds of shit with Turkey too.

What's your conspiracy theory here?

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/1260796984933396480?s=19

#Obamagate

[ChumpDumper]

https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit/status/1260785237770080256?s=19Looks like he can tbh.

[ChumpDumper]

What's your conspiracy theory here?He was going to kidnap a cleric and sent him back to Turkey.

Where you been?

[Chris]

Looks like he can tbh.

yup

[DMC]

What's your conspiracy theory here?

All kinds of things. Look it up.

[Reck]

:cry mean judge doing judge things is corrupt.

[Chris]

He was going to kidnap a cleric and sent him back to Turkey.

Where you been?

The allegations that got investigated by Mueller? What happened? You said he was doing all kinds of shit.

[Chris]

All kinds of things. Look it up.

lol

[ChumpDumper]

The allegations that got investigated by Mueller? What happened? You said he was doing all kinds of shit.Mueller didn't investigate it in 2016.

Do you know how time works, Qhris?

[Nbadan]

That interpretation was wrong, Mr. Priestap told the prosecutors reviewing the case. He said that F.B.I. officials were trying to do the right thing in questioning Mr. Flynn and that he knew of no effort to set him up. Media reports about his notes misconstrued them, he said, according to the people familiar with the investigation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/us/politics/bill-priestap-michael-flynn.html?fbclid=IwAR1D7Bl_JOsOKIfv6giN5eJbVRK-zZ00YyP0OKi-71CZHEqeALrdwA1hT5M

[TSA]

That interpretation was wrong, Mr. Priestap told the prosecutors reviewing the case. He said that F.B.I. officials were trying to do the right thing in questioning Mr. Flynn and that he knew of no effort to set him up. Media reports about his notes misconstrued them, he said, according to the people familiar with the investigation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/us/politics/bill-priestap-michael-flynn.html?fbclid=IwAR1D7Bl_JOsOKIfv6giN5eJbVRK-zZ00YyP0OKi-71CZHEqeALrdwA1hT5M

“Priestap told investigators that he did not remember the circumstances surrounding the notes that he took, and that he was giving them his interpretation of the notes as he read them now, according to a person familiar with his interview”

And here is where you leave the thread

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/1260827183309819906?s=19

[Spurs Homer]

Cooking Up a Criminal Investigation, the Obama Way

David HarsanyiMay 13, 2020 7:09 PM

According to the standards now set by Obama-administration defenders, it would be no big deal if Donald Trump’s Department of Justice opened criminal investigations into high-profile Democrats such as John Kerry (now a member of Joe Biden’s campaign) who met with Iranians officials over the past four years in an effort to undermine the foreign-policy goals of the duly elected government of the United States. These are potential Logan Act violations, after all.

It would be no big deal, either, if Trump’s DOJ opened up investigations into Democrats who have ever taken any money from foreign powers, because these are potential FARA violations. Sure, only six such convictions have been pursued by the DOJ since 1966, but no one says your pretext has to be solid.

It would also fine if, three weeks before Election Day, the DOJ filled out surveillance warrant applications — applications that excluded vital exculpatory evidence — to spy on the Democratic Party’s presidential campaign.

If Joe Biden were to win the presidency, it would be no big deal if Trump’s DOJ snooped on the incoming national-security adviser John Kerry, taped his completely legal calls with foreign dignitaries, simply because Trump suspected that Kerry would disagree with his administration’s stance on Iran, a nation that threatens the sanctity of our democracy and murders hundreds of soldiers.

Then, once Kerry was spied on by the NSA, and unmasked by dozens of high-ranking partisan Trump officials — one of them a future presidential candidate — it would be no big deal if any of them illegally leaked Kerry’s name to the press. They would do this in an effort to smear Kerry and railroad him into a plea — not over any risible FARA or Logan Act abuses, but over an innocuous lie about a lawful call told during an ostensibly friendly conversation — so that the Trump administration could fortify a waning investigation into the Democratic Party.

It would be no big deal if that waning investigation itself was predominately based on a fictitious document paid for by the Republican National Committee. It would be no big deal we if we found out that Trump allies within multiple law-enforcement agencies had referred to the investigation — an investigation based on fictitious evidence paid for by the RNC — as an “insurance policy” against the incoming president. It would be a no-big-deal investigation if the entire thing was propelled by fabricated evidence in FISA warrant applications — and if nearly all FISA warrant applications contained serious errors.

For four years, Trump allies within the Biden administration would illegally leak misleading bits and pieces of their investigation to a compliant media, which then would dutifully smear Kerry and the Democratic Party as seditious operatives, fueling a massive faux scandal and creating enough pressure for an independent investigation that would paralyze the Biden presidency and convince half the nation that the election was stolen.

And when all the skullduggery is finally exposed, and prosecutors have not found enough evidence to indict a single person in the Biden campaign for any wrongdoing that’s related to the stated reason for the investigation, Republicans can demand that everyone just move on. No big deal.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/cooking-up-a-criminal-investigation-the-obama-way/amp/?__twitter_impression=true


That is a lot of tap-dancing and juggling and super backflips - all to defend the indefensible.

Here is the answer to all of that garbage:

Obama, HRC, BIden, BUsh, REagan - DOES NOT MATTER-

ALL OF THEM

would have immediately REFUSED RUSSIA’S ADVANCES - and gone straight to the FBI.

All of them prior 44 presidents would have done the exact same thing Bernie Sanders did- when told that Putin might want to also help his campaign: HE TOLD PUTIN TO GO FUCK HIMSELF-



ONLY TRUMP


is unable to do this - even after 3 years.

TRUMP has people like TSA doing backflips and posting russian propaganda of how “tough” trump has been - because

TRUMP HIMSELF - cannot/willnot denounce PUTIN and RUSSIA.


Anything else is bullshit and pretense - ONLY TRUMP TEAM WELCOMED RUSSIA-period.

[DMC]

That is a lot of tap-dancing and juggling and super backflips - all to defend the indefensible.

Here is the answer to all of that garbage:

Obama, HRC, BIden, BUsh, REagan - DOES NOT MATTER-

ALL OF THEM

would have immediately REFUSED RUSSIA’S ADVANCES - and gone straight to the FBI.

All of them prior 44 presidents would have done the exact same thing Bernie Sanders did- when told that Putin might want to also help his campaign: HE TOLD PUTIN TO GO FUCK HIMSELF-



ONLY TRUMP


is unable to do this - even after 3 years.

TRUMP has people like TSA doing backflips and posting russian propaganda of how “tough” trump has been - because

TRUMP HIMSELF - cannot/willnot denounce PUTIN and RUSSIA.


Anything else is bullshit and pretense - ONLY TRUMP TEAM WELCOMED RUSSIA-period.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.gif

[TSA]

Judge Sullivan Disregards Two Controlling Precedents By Appointing Amicus In Flynn Case

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan disregarded two controlling precedents from higher courts with his decision to appoint John Gleeson as amicus curiae in the U.S. v. Michael Flynn case this week. Judicial conduct similar to J. Sullivan’s in these prior, far less politically charged cases was roundly and unanimously condemned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan, and their colleagues across the ideological spectrum. So, whether or not one agrees with the Department of Justice’s call to drop its charges against President Trump’s former National Security Advisor, Gen. Michael Flynn, there should be widespread agreement that J. Sullivan has veered way out of line.

One week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Ginsburg, that took judges to task for similar amicus antics. Her opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith upbraided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for violating a basic aspect of legal proceedings called the “party presentation principle.” In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for dragons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them. As J. Ginsburg put it: “[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government … They ‘do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties.”

Instead, in Sineneng-Smith, a Ninth Circuit panel comprised of JJ. Stephen Reinhardt, Wallace Tashima and Marsha Berzon took highly irregular steps in an appeal of a criminal immigration case. The defendant was found guilty at trial of bilking Filipino home health care workers out of more than $3.3 million by promising to file immigration paperwork for them (at nearly $6k a pop) that had no chance of succeeding because the relevant program under which they could become lawful U.S. residents had expired. Undaunted by this conduct, and apparently in search of a rationale to overturn her conviction, the panel ordered up a new round of amicus briefs after party briefing and oral argument concluded. The panel sought briefs from a few court-selected pro-immigration sources, including the Federal Defender Organizations of the Ninth Circuit, the Immigrant Defense Project, and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. Further, the court directed these amici to brief three specific points, including “whether the statute of conviction is overbroad or likely overbroad under the First Amendment[.]”

The Ninth Circuit allowed the parties to file briefs responding to the new amici. The court also scheduled new oral argument, giving amici twice as much argument time as Sineneng-Smith’s counsel. She, in turn, latched onto the First Amendment overbreadth argument suggested by the Court and articulated in the court-solicited amicus briefs. As J. Ginsburg wisely noted, “How could she do otherwise? Understandably, she rode with an argument suggested by the panel.” Although J. Reinhardt died about six weeks after the second oral argument, a reconstituted panel (adding J. Andrew Hurwitz) held that the facially overbroad statute violated the First Amendment and was not subject to a limiting construction.

Justice Ginsburg’s decision castigated the Ninth Circuit’s conduct as “depart[ing] so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion” and “remand[ed] the case for an adjudication of the appeal attuned to the case shaped by the parties rather than the case designed by the appeals panel.” J. Ginsburg faulted the panel’s “redirection” and “takeover” of the appeal and chastised that “the Ninth Circuit’s radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale.”

Judge Sullivan’s actions this week raise serious doubt whether he paid attention to this recent, unanimous decision. Let’s rehearse. First, the Ninth Circuit solicited specific amici. So too, J. Sullivan has now appointed former prosecutor and judge John Gleeson to oppose DOJ’s effort to drop the case and essentially represent DOJ’s former view of the case. And he has opened the door to a flood of amicus curiae briefs from special-interest groups hostile to Flynn. Second, the Ninth Circuit suggested particular arguments for amici to make. Likewise, J. Sullivan has instructed Mr. Gleason to explore a possible perjury charge. Last, the Sineneng-Smith panel decided the case on an issue not presented by the parties. J. Sullivan has not issued a ruling yet, but if he does anything other than accept dismissal of the charges, he will duplicate the Ninth Circuit’s violation of the party presentation principle. Hence, he is coming perilously close to completing the very trifecta that drew the Supreme Court’s wrath against the Ninth Circuit.

Arguably, J. Sullivan has one-upped the Ninth Circuit’s antics. They intervened on the side of the criminal defendant, but he has asked amicus to intervene against the criminal defendant. It’s bad enough for any judge to presume to take over the Attorney General’s responsibility to decide whether to bring charges against a federal criminal defendant (or what charges to bring). Such behavior is a clear-cut violation of the separation of powers. But by abusing his Article III perch to second-guess decision-making the Constitution exclusively reserves to Article II—and to do so to the defendant’s disadvantage—J. Sullivan’s conduct implicates Flynn’s constitutional right to the due process of law.

Four years ago, in a precedent even more squarely on point, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (per J. Srinivasan) granted mandamus against a different D.C. district court judge for refusing a government charging decision. J. Sullivan seems poised to ignore the lessons from that higher court ruling, too.

In U.S. v. Fokker Servs. B.V., which I first wrote about for Forbes.com here, the district judge was overturned via an extraordinary writ of mandamus. That means that the government (and Fokker) went directly to the court of appeals and persuaded it to intervene and put a stop to the unlawful conduct of the trial judge. Oddly, J. Sullivan’s Minute Order on amicus briefs in Flynn cites the Fokker precedent to support appointing amicus curiae in a criminal case. But he neglects to mention that mandamus was granted against the district court judge in that case! Moreover, appointing amicus to represent a lower court’s view that neither party will defend (as happened on appeal in Fokker) is far different from appointing amicus in trial court to represent an alternative prosecutor’s view of the case.

The Fokker case arose in the context of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) the Department of Justice entered into with a Dutch company that disclosed violating U.S. sanctions and export control laws. In such deals, defendants plead guilty to a charge, but the government does not prosecute the case right away. In exchange, for a certain agreed-to period of time, the defendant demonstrates that it has reformed its conduct and put more effective compliance protocols in place. If the government is satisfied at the end of the time period, it will dismiss the charge and the defendant will avert criminal punishment. District judges primarily have to approve these deals to ensure that DOJ is not using them to defeat a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. In Fokker, however, the district judge refused to enter the DPA because he felt that the company was getting off too easily and should have to pay a higher fine, hire an independent monitor, and that individuals at the company should have to face prosecution.

As the Court of Appeals explained though, such considerations are outside the judge’s role: “The Constitution allocates primacy in criminal charging decisions to the Executive Branch. The Executive’s charging authority embraces … whether to dismiss charges once brought. It has long been settled that the Judiciary generally lacks authority to second-guess those Executive determinations, much less to impose its own charging preferences.” Indeed, “[f]ew subjects are less adapted to judicial review than the exercise by the Executive of his discretion in deciding when and whether … to dismiss a proceeding once brought.” J. Srinivasan explained that the Constitution’s delegation of “take Care” duties and the pardon power undergird the Executive’s primacy. As a result, “‘judicial authority is … at its most limited’ when reviewing the Executive’s exercise of discretion over charging determinations.”

With specific regard to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires “leave of court” to dismiss criminal charges against a defendant, J. Srinivasan said, “[D]ecisions to dismiss pending criminal charges … lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion.” And the leave of court language “gives no power to a district court to deny a prosecutor’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority. For instance, a court cannot deny leave of court because of a view that the defendant should stand trial notwithstanding the prosecution’s desire to dismiss the charges[.]”

Judge Srinivasan concluded, “[A]uthority over criminal charging decisions resides fundamentally with the Executive, without the involvement of—and without oversight power in—the Judiciary.” “In vacating the district court order, we have no occasion to disagree (or agree) with that court’s concerns about the government’s charging decisions in this case. Rather, the fundamental point is that those determinations are for the Executive—not the courts—to make. We therefore grant the government’s petition for a writ of mandamus[.]” The Flynn case arose in a different context, but the issue whether a trial judge may refuse to dismiss charges is identical, and Fokker’s discussion of Rule 48(a) fully anticipated it—and answered it decisively.

Combining the worst aspects of Sineneng-Smith with the worst aspects of the Fokker case is hardly a winning recipe for the administration of justice. Given the current posture of the case, DOJ and/or Flynn may well seek and receive a mandamus judgment against J. Sullivan from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Such a course of action will seem quite appropriate if J. Sullivan follows through, given how extreme and indefensible his actions will appear in light of the contrary Ginsburg and Srinivasan precedents. If J. Sullivan does not come to his senses (and mandamus does not happen for some reason), Gen. Flynn will have to incur additional, unjustified expense responding to a slew of amicus briefs making novel arguments against him—in a case DOJ has already asked to dismiss. Whatever else happened in Flynn’s case, this injustice is still entirely avoidable.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markchenoweth/2020/05/14/judge-sullivan-disregards-two-controlling-precedents-by-appointing-amicus-in-flynn-case/#6897aace6f0a

[spurraider21]

DOJ will file petition for writ of mandamus and seek reassignment on remand.


OK, Margot.
1260744037428060161
You stole her shit

Not a trend setter

[ChumpDumper]

Judge Sullivan Disregards Two Controlling Precedents By Appointing Amicus In Flynn Case

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan disregarded two controlling precedents from higher courts with his decision to appoint John Gleeson as amicus curiae in the U.S. v. Michael Flynn case this week. Judicial conduct similar to J. Sullivan’s in these prior, far less politically charged cases was roundly and unanimously condemned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan, and their colleagues across the ideological spectrum. So, whether or not one agrees with the Department of Justice’s call to drop its charges against President Trump’s former National Security Advisor, Gen. Michael Flynn, there should be widespread agreement that J. Sullivan has veered way out of line.

One week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Ginsburg, that took judges to task for similar amicus antics. Her opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith upbraided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for violating a basic aspect of legal proceedings called the “party presentation principle.” In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for dragons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them. As J. Ginsburg put it: “[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government … They ‘do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties.”

Instead, in Sineneng-Smith, a Ninth Circuit panel comprised of JJ. Stephen Reinhardt, Wallace Tashima and Marsha Berzon took highly irregular steps in an appeal of a criminal immigration case. The defendant was found guilty at trial of bilking Filipino home health care workers out of more than $3.3 million by promising to file immigration paperwork for them (at nearly $6k a pop) that had no chance of succeeding because the relevant program under which they could become lawful U.S. residents had expired. Undaunted by this conduct, and apparently in search of a rationale to overturn her conviction, the panel ordered up a new round of amicus briefs after party briefing and oral argument concluded. The panel sought briefs from a few court-selected pro-immigration sources, including the Federal Defender Organizations of the Ninth Circuit, the Immigrant Defense Project, and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. Further, the court directed these amici to brief three specific points, including “whether the statute of conviction is overbroad or likely overbroad under the First Amendment[.]”

The Ninth Circuit allowed the parties to file briefs responding to the new amici. The court also scheduled new oral argument, giving amici twice as much argument time as Sineneng-Smith’s counsel. She, in turn, latched onto the First Amendment overbreadth argument suggested by the Court and articulated in the court-solicited amicus briefs. As J. Ginsburg wisely noted, “How could she do otherwise? Understandably, she rode with an argument suggested by the panel.” Although J. Reinhardt died about six weeks after the second oral argument, a reconstituted panel (adding J. Andrew Hurwitz) held that the facially overbroad statute violated the First Amendment and was not subject to a limiting construction.

Justice Ginsburg’s decision castigated the Ninth Circuit’s conduct as “depart[ing] so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion” and “remand[ed] the case for an adjudication of the appeal attuned to the case shaped by the parties rather than the case designed by the appeals panel.” J. Ginsburg faulted the panel’s “redirection” and “takeover” of the appeal and chastised that “the Ninth Circuit’s radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale.”

Judge Sullivan’s actions this week raise serious doubt whether he paid attention to this recent, unanimous decision. Let’s rehearse. First, the Ninth Circuit solicited specific amici. So too, J. Sullivan has now appointed former prosecutor and judge John Gleeson to oppose DOJ’s effort to drop the case and essentially represent DOJ’s former view of the case. And he has opened the door to a flood of amicus curiae briefs from special-interest groups hostile to Flynn. Second, the Ninth Circuit suggested particular arguments for amici to make. Likewise, J. Sullivan has instructed Mr. Gleason to explore a possible perjury charge. Last, the Sineneng-Smith panel decided the case on an issue not presented by the parties. J. Sullivan has not issued a ruling yet, but if he does anything other than accept dismissal of the charges, he will duplicate the Ninth Circuit’s violation of the party presentation principle. Hence, he is coming perilously close to completing the very trifecta that drew the Supreme Court’s wrath against the Ninth Circuit.

Arguably, J. Sullivan has one-upped the Ninth Circuit’s antics. They intervened on the side of the criminal defendant, but he has asked amicus to intervene against the criminal defendant. It’s bad enough for any judge to presume to take over the Attorney General’s responsibility to decide whether to bring charges against a federal criminal defendant (or what charges to bring). Such behavior is a clear-cut violation of the separation of powers. But by abusing his Article III perch to second-guess decision-making the Constitution exclusively reserves to Article II—and to do so to the defendant’s disadvantage—J. Sullivan’s conduct implicates Flynn’s constitutional right to the due process of law.

Four years ago, in a precedent even more squarely on point, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (per J. Srinivasan) granted mandamus against a different D.C. district court judge for refusing a government charging decision. J. Sullivan seems poised to ignore the lessons from that higher court ruling, too.

In U.S. v. Fokker Servs. B.V., which I first wrote about for Forbes.com here, the district judge was overturned via an extraordinary writ of mandamus. That means that the government (and Fokker) went directly to the court of appeals and persuaded it to intervene and put a stop to the unlawful conduct of the trial judge. Oddly, J. Sullivan’s Minute Order on amicus briefs in Flynn cites the Fokker precedent to support appointing amicus curiae in a criminal case. But he neglects to mention that mandamus was granted against the district court judge in that case! Moreover, appointing amicus to represent a lower court’s view that neither party will defend (as happened on appeal in Fokker) is far different from appointing amicus in trial court to represent an alternative prosecutor’s view of the case.

The Fokker case arose in the context of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) the Department of Justice entered into with a Dutch company that disclosed violating U.S. sanctions and export control laws. In such deals, defendants plead guilty to a charge, but the government does not prosecute the case right away. In exchange, for a certain agreed-to period of time, the defendant demonstrates that it has reformed its conduct and put more effective compliance protocols in place. If the government is satisfied at the end of the time period, it will dismiss the charge and the defendant will avert criminal punishment. District judges primarily have to approve these deals to ensure that DOJ is not using them to defeat a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. In Fokker, however, the district judge refused to enter the DPA because he felt that the company was getting off too easily and should have to pay a higher fine, hire an independent monitor, and that individuals at the company should have to face prosecution.

As the Court of Appeals explained though, such considerations are outside the judge’s role: “The Constitution allocates primacy in criminal charging decisions to the Executive Branch. The Executive’s charging authority embraces … whether to dismiss charges once brought. It has long been settled that the Judiciary generally lacks authority to second-guess those Executive determinations, much less to impose its own charging preferences.” Indeed, “[f]ew subjects are less adapted to judicial review than the exercise by the Executive of his discretion in deciding when and whether … to dismiss a proceeding once brought.” J. Srinivasan explained that the Constitution’s delegation of “take Care” duties and the pardon power undergird the Executive’s primacy. As a result, “‘judicial authority is … at its most limited’ when reviewing the Executive’s exercise of discretion over charging determinations.”

With specific regard to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires “leave of court” to dismiss criminal charges against a defendant, J. Srinivasan said, “[D]ecisions to dismiss pending criminal charges … lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion.” And the leave of court language “gives no power to a district court to deny a prosecutor’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority. For instance, a court cannot deny leave of court because of a view that the defendant should stand trial notwithstanding the prosecution’s desire to dismiss the charges[.]”

Judge Srinivasan concluded, “[A]uthority over criminal charging decisions resides fundamentally with the Executive, without the involvement of—and without oversight power in—the Judiciary.” “In vacating the district court order, we have no occasion to disagree (or agree) with that court’s concerns about the government’s charging decisions in this case. Rather, the fundamental point is that those determinations are for the Executive—not the courts—to make. We therefore grant the government’s petition for a writ of mandamus[.]” The Flynn case arose in a different context, but the issue whether a trial judge may refuse to dismiss charges is identical, and Fokker’s discussion of Rule 48(a) fully anticipated it—and answered it decisively.

Combining the worst aspects of Sineneng-Smith with the worst aspects of the Fokker case is hardly a winning recipe for the administration of justice. Given the current posture of the case, DOJ and/or Flynn may well seek and receive a mandamus judgment against J. Sullivan from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Such a course of action will seem quite appropriate if J. Sullivan follows through, given how extreme and indefensible his actions will appear in light of the contrary Ginsburg and Srinivasan precedents. If J. Sullivan does not come to his senses (and mandamus does not happen for some reason), Gen. Flynn will have to incur additional, unjustified expense responding to a slew of amicus briefs making novel arguments against him—in a case DOJ has already asked to dismiss. Whatever else happened in Flynn’s case, this injustice is still entirely avoidable.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markchenoweth/2020/05/14/judge-sullivan-disregards-two-controlling-precedents-by-appointing-amicus-in-flynn-case/#6897aace6f0aMan, Sullivan must really be onto something if these guys are freaking out so badly.

[Spurs Homer]

Man, Sullivan must really be onto something if these guys are freaking out so badly.



dude


COPYPASTA is ok when Comrade TSA does the copypasta!

[Spurs Homer]

Lol

last night Hannity

called for corrupt Sullivan to recuse!

[Trill Clinton]

OK, Margot.
1260744037428060161


Got em

[Winehole23]

Eric Holder broke Judge Sullivan, I believe.

Sullivan will probably end up giving AG Barr what he wants, but not without having a hearing or creating a record.

[Spurs Homer]

Eric Holder broke Judge Sullivan, I believe.

Sullivan will probably end up giving AG Barr what he wants, but not without having a hearing or creating a record.


Holder?

how so?

[boutons_deux]

White House’s own counsel reviewed Mike Flynn’s conversations with Russian ambassador

— and agreed he was lying

The White House legal counsel reviewed transcripts of Michael Flynn’s calls to the Russian ambassador and

concluded President Donald Trump’s first national security adviser was lying.

Don McGahn and former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus agreed that the

retired U.S. Army general had given misleading statements to FBI agents about the conversations,

“McGahn and Priebus concluded that Flynn could not have forgotten the details of the discussions of sanctions and had instead been lying about what he discussed with Kislyak,”

Flynn ... he denied discussing Kremlin sanctions even when presented with his own words from the highly classified transcripts. :lol

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/05/white-houses-own-counsel-reviewed-mike-flynns-conversations-with-russian-ambassador-and-agreed-he-was-lying/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4532 (https://www.rawstory.com/2020/05/white-houses-own-counsel-reviewed-mike-flynns-conversations-with-russian-ambassador-and-agreed-he-was-lying/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4532)

[spurraider21]

Man, Sullivan must really be onto something if these guys are freaking out so badly.
The Unraveling

[ElNono]

OK, Margot.
1260744037428060161

:lol

[ElNono]

Looks like the court might end up deciding the case after all... TSA should be happy, I guess...

[Reck]

In other, but related news
1260981238040584194

:lol

[Chris]

*post a tweet ="Chrisbot posting tweets! reeeeeeeeeeeee"

*post without a tweet = "Chrisbot not posting the tweet reeeeeeeee"

dumb faggots :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Marg:lolt

[Chris]

reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[ChumpDumper]

Margot's gettin' upset!

[Chris]

Margot's gettin' upset!

kys

[Reck]

reeee

kys

The fuck? Chrisbot model T2019 already going haywire. Time to update firmware.

[Spurs Homer]

reeee

kys

The fuck? Chrisbot model T2019 already going haywire. Time to update firmware.


Marqhot?

[Chris]

reeee

kys

The fuck? Chrisbot model T2019 already going haywire. Time to update firmware.

kys

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1260949473720705024?s=19

"me no remember" :lol I hope they throw the book at this serpent.

[ChumpDumper]

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1260949473720705024?s=19

"me no remember" :lol I hope they throw the book at this serpent.For what charges?

[Chris]

For what charges?

kys

[spurraider21]

*post a tweet ="Chrisbot posting tweets! reeeeeeeeeeeee"

*post without a tweet = "Chrisbot not posting the tweet reeeeeeeee"

dumb faggots :lol
yeah, either way you're a bot with no original commentary or opinions. either retweeting or copypasta.

when you do say something original, its vague, and then when asked to explain it, you refuse or say "look it up"

complete bot

[Reck]

yeah, either way you're a bot with no original commentary or opinions. either retweeting or copypasta.

when you do say something original, its vague, and then when asked to explain it, you refuse or say "look it up"

complete bot

kys

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1261019635299819522?s=19

Notwithstanding all the online punditry, the issue before the Court as posed by the DOJ motion is very simple. The fact that Judge Sullivan is accepting amicus briefs and claims he needs a “Friend of the Court” to brief the opposing view on a minor point of procedural law is a transparent revelation of his duplicitous motives. To suggest that he needs “advice” on whether Gen. Flynn should be held in contempt of court for perjury simply ignores his own 33 years experience as a federal judge — signaling that in all that time he’s never figured out what misconduct would be considered sufficient to cite a party before his court for contempt.

[Chris]

yeah, either way you're a bot with no original commentary or opinions. either retweeting or copypasta.

when you do say something original, its vague, and then when asked to explain it, you refuse or say "look it up"

complete bot

Should be easy to scroll past if any of that were true.

Complete tool.

[ChumpDumper]

https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1261019635299819522?s=19

Notwithstanding all the online punditry, the issue before the Court as posed by the DOJ motion is very simple. The fact that Judge Sullivan is accepting amicus briefs and claims he needs a “Friend of the Court” to brief the opposing view on a minor point of procedural law is a transparent revelation of his duplicitous motives. To suggest that he needs “advice” on whether Gen. Flynn should be held in contempt of court for perjury simply ignores his own 33 years experience as a federal judge — signaling that in all that time he’s never figured out what misconduct would be considered sufficient to cite a party before his court for contempt.:lol no

[Chris]

kys

kys

[ChumpDumper]

kysIs that an acronym for a crime?

I'll accept someone else's tweet as an answer.

[Chris]

Is that an acronym for a crime?

I'll accept someone else's tweet as an answer.

kys

[ChumpDumper]

kysThese really do look like bot responses.

[Chucho]

Anyone remember when the IG report was supposed to bury all of those in on the fix and how that never materialized into anything of note?

Pepperidge Farms remembers.

[Chris]

These really do look like bot responses.

kys

[ChumpDumper]

:lol we broke Margot

[Chris]

we

kys

[Chris]

nice mash up here :tu

Bt67DqMDH2s

^you don't need to read 2000 pages, just watch this :tu

[ChumpDumper]

kysOK I broke Margot. All I'm doing now is seeing how many times in a row I can trigger your bot reply.

[Chris]

OK I broke Margot. All I'm doing now is seeing how many times in a row I can trigger your bot reply.

kys

[ChumpDumper]

kysIt's cute because you have no idea what unmasking means.

[TSA]

https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1261019635299819522?s=19

Notwithstanding all the online punditry, the issue before the Court as posed by the DOJ motion is very simple. The fact that Judge Sullivan is accepting amicus briefs and claims he needs a “Friend of the Court” to brief the opposing view on a minor point of procedural law is a transparent revelation of his duplicitous motives. To suggest that he needs “advice” on whether Gen. Flynn should be held in contempt of court for perjury simply ignores his own 33 years experience as a federal judge — signaling that in all that time he’s never figured out what misconduct would be considered sufficient to cite a party before his court for contempt.

yup :bobo

I’m not going to turn this article into an extended legal review of all the potentially relevant — in a tangential way — case law on federal rules which has come down in various Circuit Courts of Appeal over the last 100 years. There will be amicus briefs filed that will chart that path — maybe even Judge Gleeson will go down that road. But those who do will only be engaging in an exercise of legal sophistry and obfuscation because the answer to the question before Judge Sullivan is quite simple, and it was provided by the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit just four years ago in its decision in the case of United States v. Fokker Services.

There will be efforts to “distinguish” Fokker — to say it’s not a sufficiently similar case to control the outcome here — and efforts to point to other decisions in the DC Circuit or other Circuit Courts of Appeal which point in a different direction for an answer to the Rule 48(a) question. But that’s all a distraction and a waste of time because Judge Sullivan cannot escape Fokker. A District Court judge in the District of Columbia is obligated to follow the rulings of the Circuit Court for DC — he does not have a choice. He cannot “dissent” and reach a decision based on his own views. He might not like or agree with the outcome that is dictated by the Fokker case, but in order to respect the oath of his office, he is duty-bound — bound by the Constitution — to respect and apply the law as it is established by a court of a higher status than the Court he presides in.

There are four words in the language of Rule 48(a) that are the source of the consternation and controversy surrounding the DOJ motion to dismiss. In its entirety Rule 48(a) reads as follows:

Rule 48. Dismissal: (a) By the Government. The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant’s consent.

“Leave of court” simply means with the court’s permission — permission. But the combination of the two orders entered by Sullivan yesterday will result in the filing of literally thousands of pages of legal analysis as to what a court is entitled to do in coming to a decision about whether to grant such permission.

I’ll state the answer first — what does the phrase mean? — and offer an overview of the cases which dictate what Sullivan’s final decision must be.

Q — What does “with leave of court” mean in the context of Rule 48(a)?

A — Nobody knows.

Source — Supreme Court of the United States. In Footnote 15 of its decision in Rinaldi v. United States, the Court said the following:

The words “leave of court” were inserted in Rule 48(a) without explanation.

The insertion of those words is one of those instances where Congress changed the language of a proposed rule — by inserting language that was not in the proposal sent by the Supreme Court — but provided no explanation or rationale for why, or the significance of the additional language. They are essentially a blank canvas upon which judges have provided their own meaning.

The Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Rinaldi addressed the meaning of the language — but did not adopt a conclusive meaning because the Court decided such a meaning was not necessary to the outcome of the case.

DOJ’s motion relies on Rinaldi to support its position that Judge Sullivan has no meaningful discretion in deciding how he should rule on the motion to dismiss. In Rinaldi the defendant was convicted at trial. After the trial, the Department of Justice joined with the defendant in making a joint motion to dismiss the case on the basis that it had been brought by an individual prosecutor who misrepresented to the trial court his authority to do so. The defendant had been previously convicted in state court for the same conduct that constituted the federal offense with which he was charged. Bringing the federal case in that situation violated a well-known DOJ policy, and when asked about that by the trial court, the prosecutor misrepresented to the Court that he had secured all the necessary approvals to file the case as an exception to the policy, when that was not true.

The defendant raised the issue of the policy violation in his appeal. The government agreed with the defendant before the appeals court, and the D.C. Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court for further consideration. On remand the government moved to dismiss the case pursuant to Rule 48(a) — the same rule that has been invoked in the DOJ Motion to Dismiss Gen. Flynn’s case. But the District Court in Rinaldi denied the motion because it had not been made before the defendant was convicted, and because of the prosecutor’s bad faith in misleading the court.

A divided D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s denial of the Rule 48(a) motion by a vote of 7-6. The majority view was that the Government’s misconduct gave the District Court adequate reason to deny the motion, and that the defendant had no right to have an otherwise valid conviction dismissed simply because the Justice Department violated its own internal policy.

By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court reversed, and determined that the case must be dismissed. But opponents of Gen. Flynn — in the form of dozens of incoming amicus briefs and the briefing of Judge Gleeson — will likely seize upon other language in Footnote 15, specifically the following:

But the Rule has also been held to permit the court to deny a Government dismissal motion to which the defendant has consented if the motion is prompted by considerations clearly contrary to the public interest. See United States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d 504 (CA5 1975); United States v. Ammidown, 162 U.S.App.D.C. 28, 33, 497 F.2d 615, 620 (1973).

The argument that has been advanced by the pundit class is that the dismissal is a political favor to Pres. Trump, therefore not in the interests of justice and thus “contrary to the public interest.” They will argue that the language of the footnote confirms that the district court can deny the motion based on a finding that the DOJ motion is improperly motivated.

But that is not actually what the Court said in Rinaldi, as the full text of the quoted footnote makes clear. The full text of Footnote 15 reads:

The words “leave of court” were inserted in Rule 48(a) without explanation. While they obviously vest some discretion in the court, the circumstances in which that discretion may properly be exercised have not been delineated by this Court. The principal object of the “leave of court” requirement is apparently to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment, e.g., charging, dismissing, and recharging, when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant’s objection…. But the Rule has also been held to permit the court to deny a Government dismissal motion to which the defendant has consented if the motion is prompted by considerations clearly contrary to the public interest…. It is unnecessary to decide whether the court has discretion under these circumstances, since, even assuming it does, the result in this case remains the same.

(At the ellipses, I omitted internal case citations to lower court decisions.)

The bolded language states that the Supreme Court did not decide whether the “with leave of court” phrase in Rule 48(a) provides discretion to a district court to deny a motion made by the government on the basis that the district court finds — in its view — that granting the motion would be “contrary to the public interest.” As is the common practice of the Supreme Court, it opted to not address that question because doing so was not necessary to the decision in the case.

But if we turn to a more recent decision of the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit — which are binding on Judge Sullivan — one case strongly supports the proposition that Judge Sullivan is not entitled to evaluate the motives of a co-equal branch of government in making a charging decision — an issue that is uniquely within the authority of the Executive branch of government under our constitutional framework.

In 2016, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit decided the U.S. v. Fokker Services case finding that the district court judge committed reversible error in denying a joint request from the government and the defendant to “exclude time” under the Speedy Trial Act. The district court had denied the request because it disagreed with the charging decisions made by the government in the case leading up to the motion. The district court had pressed the prosecutors to explain why they had decided to not pursue criminal charges against individual corporate officials. When he was not satisfied with the answers he was provided, he denied the joint request to exclude time. The Appeals Court explained:

[P]ursuant to the agreement, the government filed with the district court a one-count information against Fokker, together with the [Deferred Prosecution Agreement]…. [T]he government and Fokker filed a joint motion for the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, in order to “allow [the company] to demonstrate its good conduct and implement certain remedial measures.”… The district court then held a series of status conferences, during which it repeatedly emphasized its concerns about the absence of any criminal prosecution of individual company officers…. The court requested several additional written submissions from the government. The government was asked to explain why the interests of justice supported the court’s approval of the deal embodied by the DPA, and also to address whether Fokker’s initial disclosures to the government had in fact been voluntary…. The district court later expressed that it might still reject the DPA because it was “too good a deal for the defendant.”… [T]he district court denied the joint motion for the exclusion of time. In explaining the reasons for its decision, the court criticized the government for failing to prosecute any “individuals … for their conduct.” …. According to the court, approval of an agreement in which the defendant had been “prosecuted so anemically for engaging in such egregious conduct for such a sustained period of time and for the benefit of one of our country’s worst enemies” would “promote disrespect for the law.”

The Fokker case involved a motion to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act. The Speedy Trial Act is a federal statute that governs how quickly a case must be brought to trial, and is intended to protect the rights of both the defendant and the “people” to have a timely disposition of federal criminal cases once they are indicted. But, just like Rule 48(a), agreements to suspend the running of time under the Speedy Trial Act, even if jointly requested by both parties, still require approval of the court and a court finding that the granting the motion is “in the interests of justice.”

With regard to what authority that language actually gave to the District Court in ruling on a joint motion to exclude time, the DC Court of Appeals wrote:

While the exclusion of time is subject to “the approval of the court,” there is no ground for reading that provision to confer free-ranging authority in district courts to scrutinize the prosecution’s discretionary charging decisions. Rather, we read the statute against the background of settled constitutional understandings under which authority over criminal charging decisions resides fundamentally with the Executive, without the involvement of—and without oversight power in—the Judiciary.

What is important to take away from this language is that the Court of Appeals has already ruled definitively in the D.C. Circuit that it is not proper to elevate language in a statute passed by Congress in such a way as to contravene the longstanding and foundational constitutional understanding of the respective roles of the Executive and Judiciary in the manner by which the criminal justice system operates. The Court of Appeals reversed the district judge for using the “approval of the court” language as a basis to impose his judgment with regard to the charging decisions in the case in place of the government’s judgment on those issues with which he disagreed. Not only did he lack the power to do that — he lacked the power to even entertain the possibility of denying the motion to exclude time on that basis because to do so was to interfere on questions that are uniquely committed to the Executive to decide.

The same limiting principles apply here. The opponents of the motion by DOJ would elevate the language of a RULE of procedure — not even a statute passed by Congress and signed by the President — above the constitutional framework under with the Judiciary and Executive perform different functions.

So, as the Supreme Court acknowledged in Rinaldi, it is impossible to know what was meant by “with leave of court” when it was inserted into the text of the rule proposal that became Rule 48(a) without explanation.

But the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit conclusively told us what it did NOT mean — it does not mean that Judge Sullivan has the power to go behind the reasons for the decision set forth in the DOJ Motion to Dismiss, and that he does not have the authority to substitute his view of the case for the Executive Branch’s view of the case based on four words in a procedural rule.

Here is my prediction for what Judge Sullivan will eventually do if he is forced to make a decision on the motion. He will write a long long opinion that is a one-sided work of historical revision that ignores nearly all the misconduct on the part of the investigators and prosecutors, and relies greatly on the proceedings by which Gen. Flynn was led to plead guilty. He will then comb through every scrap of paper he can find to denigrate and dismiss the rationale that has been offered by DOJ, and find that all the legal arguments offered are specious.

He will conclude by excoriating Gen. Flynn for the “conduct” underlying the charges that were brought against him — and likely for uncharged conduct involving the allegations of FARA violations (but he won’t make the mistake of referencing “treason” again), and explain why Gen. Flynn’s conduct, in Judge Sullivan’s view, was a threat to the Flag, Democracy, Apple Pie, and Hot Dogs.

But in the final paragraph he will say that, notwithstanding everything he has found to be true as reflected in his opinion, he has no choice under the law but to grant DOJ’s motion and dismiss the case.

He’ll order that his opinion be published in the Federal Supplement, with the goal being that his account will be the definitive historical account of the Gen. Flynn saga.

He’ll do what the law commands him to do, but he’ll do it in such a way that he’s a hero to all his left-wing legal cronies.

https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/05/14/recent-decisions-of-the-court-of-appeals-for-dc-circuit-show-sullivan-must-dismiss-flynn-case/

[spurraider21]

somebody call ducks, chrisbot needs repairing

[boutons_deux]

redstate, vehemently unbiased source

[TSA]

Anyone remember when the IG report was supposed to bury all of those in on the fix and how that never materialized into anything of note?

Pepperidge Farms remembers.

IG reports point out the problems, Prosecutors do the burying.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/John_Durham_crop.jpg/448px-John_Durham_crop.jpg

[spurraider21]

HOROWITZ IS COMING

err, i mean... HUBER, no wait, DURHAM

[ChumpDumper]

:lol TSA and his predictions

[DMC]

Anyone remember when the IG report was supposed to bury all of those in on the fix and how that never materialized into anything of note?

Pepperidge Farms remembers.

Did you say Pepperidge Farms?

[DMC]

IG reports point out the problems, Prosecutors do the burying.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/John_Durham_crop.jpg/448px-John_Durham_crop.jpg

That dude probably has an inch of chicken grease under that sloppy stash.

[TSA]

DEVIN NUNES VINDICATED -- AGAIN. Think back to March 2017. Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, then chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, announced he had learned about the "unmasking" of Trump transition officials by the outgoing Obama administration. Most people didn't even know what unmasking was; it referred to the disclosure of names of Americans whose communications were incidentally picked up in U.S. intelligence surveillance. In this case, one American unmasked was Gen. Michael Flynn, the incoming Trump national security adviser, whose conversations with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak were intercepted by U.S. spies. The unmasking led to enormous grief for Gen. Flynn and the country.

Nunes' announcement was quickly dismissed as a "stunt," a "charade," and a "fiasco." "The unmasking stunt was completely fabricated," said former Obama Justice Department official Matthew Miller. "Devin Nunes is dangerous," pronounced the New York Times' Frank Bruni. "Nunes' Fake Scandal" declared the New Yorker. Similar sentiments echoed across the hallowed halls of the Washington Post, the Times, CNN, and MSNBC.


Then everyone moved on. There was much more to discover. In 2018, Nunes announced the source of the notorious Steele dossier and the fact that U.S. intelligence used its false allegations to win court approval to wiretap a former Trump campaign official, Carter Page. Nunes was again denounced. His discovery was -- wait for it -- a stunt and a charade and a fiasco. But of course, Nunes was right.

So now, back to unmasking. Thanks to the efforts of Richard Grenell, the temporary head of U.S. intelligence, the list of Obama officials who submitted requests to unmask Flynn during the transition has finally been declassified. A total of 16 Obama officials sought secret information about Flynn, including Vice President Joe Biden, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, UN Ambassador Samantha Power, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough.

The requesters were authorized to receive information about unmasking. Perhaps all of them had entirely legitimate and unremarkable reasons to need to see it. But the bottom line is, there sure were a lot of Obama people interested in Michael Flynn during the transition. What did they want? "The officials listed should confirm whether they reviewed this information, why they asked for it and what they did with it," said Republican Senators Ron Johnson and Charles Grassley, who asked for the information.

And then there is Devin Nunes. Just as with the dossier, he was right to point out unmasking. And as always, he's prepared to be denounced again. But he is feeling a sense of vindication. "I sounded the alarm on this in March 2017," he said in a statement Wednesday night. "It's an outrageous abuse of Americans' civil liberties for an administration to exploit our intelligence capabilities to spy on its political opponents. And that's exactly what happened."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/byron-yorks-daily-memo-devin-nunes-vindicated-again

Nunes

[Chris]

yup :bobo

I’m not going to turn this article into an extended legal review of all the potentially relevant — in a tangential way — case law on federal rules which has come down in various Circuit Courts of Appeal over the last 100 years. There will be amicus briefs filed that will chart that path — maybe even Judge Gleeson will go down that road. But those who do will only be engaging in an exercise of legal sophistry and obfuscation because the answer to the question before Judge Sullivan is quite simple, and it was provided by the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit just four years ago in its decision in the case of United States v. Fokker Services.

There will be efforts to “distinguish” Fokker — to say it’s not a sufficiently similar case to control the outcome here — and efforts to point to other decisions in the DC Circuit or other Circuit Courts of Appeal which point in a different direction for an answer to the Rule 48(a) question. But that’s all a distraction and a waste of time because Judge Sullivan cannot escape Fokker. A District Court judge in the District of Columbia is obligated to follow the rulings of the Circuit Court for DC — he does not have a choice. He cannot “dissent” and reach a decision based on his own views. He might not like or agree with the outcome that is dictated by the Fokker case, but in order to respect the oath of his office, he is duty-bound — bound by the Constitution — to respect and apply the law as it is established by a court of a higher status than the Court he presides in.

There are four words in the language of Rule 48(a) that are the source of the consternation and controversy surrounding the DOJ motion to dismiss. In its entirety Rule 48(a) reads as follows:

Rule 48. Dismissal: (a) By the Government. The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant’s consent.

“Leave of court” simply means with the court’s permission — permission. But the combination of the two orders entered by Sullivan yesterday will result in the filing of literally thousands of pages of legal analysis as to what a court is entitled to do in coming to a decision about whether to grant such permission.

I’ll state the answer first — what does the phrase mean? — and offer an overview of the cases which dictate what Sullivan’s final decision must be.

Q — What does “with leave of court” mean in the context of Rule 48(a)?

A — Nobody knows.

Source — Supreme Court of the United States. In Footnote 15 of its decision in Rinaldi v. United States, the Court said the following:

The words “leave of court” were inserted in Rule 48(a) without explanation.

The insertion of those words is one of those instances where Congress changed the language of a proposed rule — by inserting language that was not in the proposal sent by the Supreme Court — but provided no explanation or rationale for why, or the significance of the additional language. They are essentially a blank canvas upon which judges have provided their own meaning.

The Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Rinaldi addressed the meaning of the language — but did not adopt a conclusive meaning because the Court decided such a meaning was not necessary to the outcome of the case.

DOJ’s motion relies on Rinaldi to support its position that Judge Sullivan has no meaningful discretion in deciding how he should rule on the motion to dismiss. In Rinaldi the defendant was convicted at trial. After the trial, the Department of Justice joined with the defendant in making a joint motion to dismiss the case on the basis that it had been brought by an individual prosecutor who misrepresented to the trial court his authority to do so. The defendant had been previously convicted in state court for the same conduct that constituted the federal offense with which he was charged. Bringing the federal case in that situation violated a well-known DOJ policy, and when asked about that by the trial court, the prosecutor misrepresented to the Court that he had secured all the necessary approvals to file the case as an exception to the policy, when that was not true.

The defendant raised the issue of the policy violation in his appeal. The government agreed with the defendant before the appeals court, and the D.C. Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court for further consideration. On remand the government moved to dismiss the case pursuant to Rule 48(a) — the same rule that has been invoked in the DOJ Motion to Dismiss Gen. Flynn’s case. But the District Court in Rinaldi denied the motion because it had not been made before the defendant was convicted, and because of the prosecutor’s bad faith in misleading the court.

A divided D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s denial of the Rule 48(a) motion by a vote of 7-6. The majority view was that the Government’s misconduct gave the District Court adequate reason to deny the motion, and that the defendant had no right to have an otherwise valid conviction dismissed simply because the Justice Department violated its own internal policy.

By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court reversed, and determined that the case must be dismissed. But opponents of Gen. Flynn — in the form of dozens of incoming amicus briefs and the briefing of Judge Gleeson — will likely seize upon other language in Footnote 15, specifically the following:

But the Rule has also been held to permit the court to deny a Government dismissal motion to which the defendant has consented if the motion is prompted by considerations clearly contrary to the public interest. See United States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d 504 (CA5 1975); United States v. Ammidown, 162 U.S.App.D.C. 28, 33, 497 F.2d 615, 620 (1973).

The argument that has been advanced by the pundit class is that the dismissal is a political favor to Pres. Trump, therefore not in the interests of justice and thus “contrary to the public interest.” They will argue that the language of the footnote confirms that the district court can deny the motion based on a finding that the DOJ motion is improperly motivated.

But that is not actually what the Court said in Rinaldi, as the full text of the quoted footnote makes clear. The full text of Footnote 15 reads:

The words “leave of court” were inserted in Rule 48(a) without explanation. While they obviously vest some discretion in the court, the circumstances in which that discretion may properly be exercised have not been delineated by this Court. The principal object of the “leave of court” requirement is apparently to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment, e.g., charging, dismissing, and recharging, when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant’s objection…. But the Rule has also been held to permit the court to deny a Government dismissal motion to which the defendant has consented if the motion is prompted by considerations clearly contrary to the public interest…. It is unnecessary to decide whether the court has discretion under these circumstances, since, even assuming it does, the result in this case remains the same.

(At the ellipses, I omitted internal case citations to lower court decisions.)

The bolded language states that the Supreme Court did not decide whether the “with leave of court” phrase in Rule 48(a) provides discretion to a district court to deny a motion made by the government on the basis that the district court finds — in its view — that granting the motion would be “contrary to the public interest.” As is the common practice of the Supreme Court, it opted to not address that question because doing so was not necessary to the decision in the case.

But if we turn to a more recent decision of the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit — which are binding on Judge Sullivan — one case strongly supports the proposition that Judge Sullivan is not entitled to evaluate the motives of a co-equal branch of government in making a charging decision — an issue that is uniquely within the authority of the Executive branch of government under our constitutional framework.

In 2016, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit decided the U.S. v. Fokker Services case finding that the district court judge committed reversible error in denying a joint request from the government and the defendant to “exclude time” under the Speedy Trial Act. The district court had denied the request because it disagreed with the charging decisions made by the government in the case leading up to the motion. The district court had pressed the prosecutors to explain why they had decided to not pursue criminal charges against individual corporate officials. When he was not satisfied with the answers he was provided, he denied the joint request to exclude time. The Appeals Court explained:

[P]ursuant to the agreement, the government filed with the district court a one-count information against Fokker, together with the [Deferred Prosecution Agreement]…. [T]he government and Fokker filed a joint motion for the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, in order to “allow [the company] to demonstrate its good conduct and implement certain remedial measures.”… The district court then held a series of status conferences, during which it repeatedly emphasized its concerns about the absence of any criminal prosecution of individual company officers…. The court requested several additional written submissions from the government. The government was asked to explain why the interests of justice supported the court’s approval of the deal embodied by the DPA, and also to address whether Fokker’s initial disclosures to the government had in fact been voluntary…. The district court later expressed that it might still reject the DPA because it was “too good a deal for the defendant.”… [T]he district court denied the joint motion for the exclusion of time. In explaining the reasons for its decision, the court criticized the government for failing to prosecute any “individuals … for their conduct.” …. According to the court, approval of an agreement in which the defendant had been “prosecuted so anemically for engaging in such egregious conduct for such a sustained period of time and for the benefit of one of our country’s worst enemies” would “promote disrespect for the law.”

The Fokker case involved a motion to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act. The Speedy Trial Act is a federal statute that governs how quickly a case must be brought to trial, and is intended to protect the rights of both the defendant and the “people” to have a timely disposition of federal criminal cases once they are indicted. But, just like Rule 48(a), agreements to suspend the running of time under the Speedy Trial Act, even if jointly requested by both parties, still require approval of the court and a court finding that the granting the motion is “in the interests of justice.”

With regard to what authority that language actually gave to the District Court in ruling on a joint motion to exclude time, the DC Court of Appeals wrote:

While the exclusion of time is subject to “the approval of the court,” there is no ground for reading that provision to confer free-ranging authority in district courts to scrutinize the prosecution’s discretionary charging decisions. Rather, we read the statute against the background of settled constitutional understandings under which authority over criminal charging decisions resides fundamentally with the Executive, without the involvement of—and without oversight power in—the Judiciary.

What is important to take away from this language is that the Court of Appeals has already ruled definitively in the D.C. Circuit that it is not proper to elevate language in a statute passed by Congress in such a way as to contravene the longstanding and foundational constitutional understanding of the respective roles of the Executive and Judiciary in the manner by which the criminal justice system operates. The Court of Appeals reversed the district judge for using the “approval of the court” language as a basis to impose his judgment with regard to the charging decisions in the case in place of the government’s judgment on those issues with which he disagreed. Not only did he lack the power to do that — he lacked the power to even entertain the possibility of denying the motion to exclude time on that basis because to do so was to interfere on questions that are uniquely committed to the Executive to decide.

The same limiting principles apply here. The opponents of the motion by DOJ would elevate the language of a RULE of procedure — not even a statute passed by Congress and signed by the President — above the constitutional framework under with the Judiciary and Executive perform different functions.

So, as the Supreme Court acknowledged in Rinaldi, it is impossible to know what was meant by “with leave of court” when it was inserted into the text of the rule proposal that became Rule 48(a) without explanation.

But the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit conclusively told us what it did NOT mean — it does not mean that Judge Sullivan has the power to go behind the reasons for the decision set forth in the DOJ Motion to Dismiss, and that he does not have the authority to substitute his view of the case for the Executive Branch’s view of the case based on four words in a procedural rule.

Here is my prediction for what Judge Sullivan will eventually do if he is forced to make a decision on the motion. He will write a long long opinion that is a one-sided work of historical revision that ignores nearly all the misconduct on the part of the investigators and prosecutors, and relies greatly on the proceedings by which Gen. Flynn was led to plead guilty. He will then comb through every scrap of paper he can find to denigrate and dismiss the rationale that has been offered by DOJ, and find that all the legal arguments offered are specious.

He will conclude by excoriating Gen. Flynn for the “conduct” underlying the charges that were brought against him — and likely for uncharged conduct involving the allegations of FARA violations (but he won’t make the mistake of referencing “treason” again), and explain why Gen. Flynn’s conduct, in Judge Sullivan’s view, was a threat to the Flag, Democracy, Apple Pie, and Hot Dogs.

But in the final paragraph he will say that, notwithstanding everything he has found to be true as reflected in his opinion, he has no choice under the law but to grant DOJ’s motion and dismiss the case.

He’ll order that his opinion be published in the Federal Supplement, with the goal being that his account will be the definitive historical account of the Gen. Flynn saga.

He’ll do what the law commands him to do, but he’ll do it in such a way that he’s a hero to all his left-wing legal cronies.

https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/05/14/recent-decisions-of-the-court-of-appeals-for-dc-circuit-show-sullivan-must-dismiss-flynn-case/

I don't always agree with Shapiro, but this is pretty good analysis on unmasking and Biden:

NH-G5qUh25A

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1261039557576994817

:lol

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheFirstonTV/status/1260982326022070274

:rollin

[spurraider21]

you hear the beep and disconnect as he said "absolutely, it is".... not after the follow up question

[Chucho]

IG reports point out the problems, Prosecutors do the burying.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/John_Durham_crop.jpg/448px-John_Durham_crop.jpg

Wilford Brimley got lapband surgery it seems.

[Chris]

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheFirstonTV/status/1260982326022070274

:rollin

LMAO

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1261004586359422979?s=19

someone is worried :lol

[ChumpDumper]

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1261004586359422979?s=19

someone is worried :lolSo a tweet means someone is worried.:lmao

[TSA]

OPEN MEMORANDUM TO BARAK OBAMA

To: Barack Hussein Obama
From: Sidney Powell
www.SidneyPowell.com

Date: May 13, 2020

Re: Your Failure to Find Precedent for Flynn Dismissal

Regarding the decision of the Department of Justice to dismiss charges against General Flynn, in your recent call with your alumni, you expressed great concern: “there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.”

Here is some help—if truth and precedent represent your true concern. Your statement is entirely false. However, it does explain the damage to the Rule of Law throughout your administration.

First, General Flynn was not charged with perjury—which requires a material false statement made under oath with intent to deceive.1 A perjury prosecution would have been appropriate and the Rule of Law applied if the Justice Department prosecuted your former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for his multiple lies under oath in an investigation of a leak only he knew he caused.

McCabe lied under oath in fully recorded and transcribed interviews with the Inspector General for the DOJ. He was informed of the purpose of the interview, and he had had the benefit of counsel. He knew he was the leaker. McCabe even lied about lying. He lied to his own agents—which sent them on a “wild-goose-chase”—thereby making his lies “material” and an obstruction of justice. Yet, remarkably, Attorney General Barr declined to prosecute McCabe for these offenses.

Applying the Rule of Law, after declining McCabe’s perjury prosecution, required the Justice Department to dismiss the prosecution of General Flynn who was not warned, not under oath, had no counsel, and whose statements were not only not recorded, but were created as false by FBI agents who falsified the 302.

Second, it would seem your “wingman” Eric Holder is missing a step these days at Covington & Burling LLP. Indelibly marked in his memory (and one might think, yours) should be his Motion to Dismiss the multi-count jury verdict of guilty and the entire case against former United States Senator Ted Stevens. Within weeks of Mr. Holder becoming Attorney General, he moved to dismiss the Stevens prosecution in the interest of justice for the same reasons the Justice Department did against General Flynn—egregious misconduct by prosecutors who hid exculpatory evidence and concocted purported crimes.

As horrifying as the facts of the Stevens case were, they pale in comparison to the targeted setup, framing, and prosecution of a newly elected President’s National Security Advisor and the shocking facts that surround it. This case was an assault on the heart of liberty— our cherished system of self-government, the right of citizens to choose their President, and the hallowed peaceful transition of power.

Third, the inability of anyone in your alumni association to find “anybody who has been charged [with anything] just getting off scot-free” would be laughable were it not so pathetic.

Many of your alum feature prominently in the non-fiction legal thriller published in 2014: Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice. A national best- seller, it focusses on the egregious prosecutorial misconduct of your longest serving White House Counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler; your counter-terrorism advisor Lisa Monaco; Loretta Lynch’s DAG for the Criminal Division Leslie Caldwell; and Mueller protégé Andrew Weissmann. While they worked as federal prosecutors on the Enron Task Force—under the purported supervision of Christopher Wray—they destroyed Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs; sent four Merrill Lynch executives to prison on an indictment that criminalized an innocent business transaction while they hid the evidence that showed those defendants were innocent for six years. Both cases were reversed on appeal for their over-criminalization and misconduct. Indeed, Andersen was reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court.

Fourth, even if your many alumni don’t remember multiple cases that had to be reversed or dismissed for their own misconduct, Judge Emmet Sullivan should remember dismissing the corrupted case against Ted Stevens. Judge Sullivan is the judicial hero of Licensed to Lie. It is that case that caused Judge Sullivan to enter the strong Brady order the Mueller and D.C. career prosecutors violated repeatedly in the Flynn prosecution.

Fifth, there is precedent for guilty pleas being vacated. Your alumni Weissmann and Ruemmler are no strangers to such reversals. At least two guilty pleas they coerced by threats against defendants in Houston had to be thrown out—again for reasons like those here. The defendants “got off scot-free” because—like General Flynn—your alumni had concocted the charges and terrorized the defendants into pleading guilty to “offenses” that were not crimes. Andersen partner David Duncan even testified for the government against Andersen in its trial, but his plea had to be vacated. Enron Broadband defendant Christopher Calger had his plea vacated. There are many others across the country.

Sixth, should further edification be necessary, see Why Innocent People Plead Guilty, written in 2014 by federal Judge Jed Rakoff (a Clinton appointee). Abusive prosecutors force innocent people to plead guilty with painful frequency. The Mueller special counsel operation led by Andrew Weissmann and Weissmann “wannabes” specializes in prosecutorial terrorist tactics repulsive to everything “justice” is supposed to mean. These tactics are designed to intimidate their targets into pleading guilty—while punishing them and their families with the process itself and financial ruin.

Most important, General Flynn was honest with the FBI agents. They knew he was—and briefed that to McCabe and others three different times. At McCabe’s directions, Agent Strzok and McCabe’s “Special Counsel” Lisa Page, altered the 302 to create statements Weissmann, Mueller, Van Grack, and Zainab Ahmad could assert were false. Only the FBI agents lied—and falsified documents. The crimes are theirs alone.

Seventh, the D.C. circuit in which you reside vacated a Section 1001 case for a legal failure much less egregious than those in General Flynn’s case. United States v. Safavian, 528 F.3d 957 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Safavian sought advice from his agency’s ethics board and did not give them all the relevant info. The jury convicted him on the theory it was a 1001 violation to conceal the information from the government ethics board. The court disagreed: “As Safavian argues and as the government agrees, there must be a legal duty to disclose in order for there to be a concealment offense in violation of § 1001(a)(1), yet the government failed to identify a legal disclosure duty except by reference to vague standards of conduct for government employees.” General Flynn did not even know he was the subject of an investigation—and in truth, he was not. The only crimes here were by your alumni in the FBI, White House, intelligence community, and Justice Department.

These are just a few obvious and well-known examples to those paying any attention to criminal justice issues.

Finally, the “leaked” comments from your alumni call further evinces your obsession with destroying a distinguished veteran of the United States Army who has defended the Constitution and this country “from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” with the highest honor for thirty-three years. He and many others will continue to do so.

The Pummelling

[ChumpDumper]

OPEN MEMORANDUM TO BARAK OBAMA

To: Barack Hussein Obama
From: Sidney Powell
www.SidneyPowell.com

Date: May 13, 2020

Re: Your Failure to Find Precedent for Flynn Dismissal

Regarding the decision of the Department of Justice to dismiss charges against General Flynn, in your recent call with your alumni, you expressed great concern: “there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.”

Here is some help—if truth and precedent represent your true concern. Your statement is entirely false. However, it does explain the damage to the Rule of Law throughout your administration.

First, General Flynn was not charged with perjury—which requires a material false statement made under oath with intent to deceive.1 A perjury prosecution would have been appropriate and the Rule of Law applied if the Justice Department prosecuted your former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for his multiple lies under oath in an investigation of a leak only he knew he caused.

McCabe lied under oath in fully recorded and transcribed interviews with the Inspector General for the DOJ. He was informed of the purpose of the interview, and he had had the benefit of counsel. He knew he was the leaker. McCabe even lied about lying. He lied to his own agents—which sent them on a “wild-goose-chase”—thereby making his lies “material” and an obstruction of justice. Yet, remarkably, Attorney General Barr declined to prosecute McCabe for these offenses.

Applying the Rule of Law, after declining McCabe’s perjury prosecution, required the Justice Department to dismiss the prosecution of General Flynn who was not warned, not under oath, had no counsel, and whose statements were not only not recorded, but were created as false by FBI agents who falsified the 302.

Second, it would seem your “wingman” Eric Holder is missing a step these days at Covington & Burling LLP. Indelibly marked in his memory (and one might think, yours) should be his Motion to Dismiss the multi-count jury verdict of guilty and the entire case against former United States Senator Ted Stevens. Within weeks of Mr. Holder becoming Attorney General, he moved to dismiss the Stevens prosecution in the interest of justice for the same reasons the Justice Department did against General Flynn—egregious misconduct by prosecutors who hid exculpatory evidence and concocted purported crimes.

As horrifying as the facts of the Stevens case were, they pale in comparison to the targeted setup, framing, and prosecution of a newly elected President’s National Security Advisor and the shocking facts that surround it. This case was an assault on the heart of liberty— our cherished system of self-government, the right of citizens to choose their President, and the hallowed peaceful transition of power.

Third, the inability of anyone in your alumni association to find “anybody who has been charged [with anything] just getting off scot-free” would be laughable were it not so pathetic.

Many of your alum feature prominently in the non-fiction legal thriller published in 2014: Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice. A national best- seller, it focusses on the egregious prosecutorial misconduct of your longest serving White House Counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler; your counter-terrorism advisor Lisa Monaco; Loretta Lynch’s DAG for the Criminal Division Leslie Caldwell; and Mueller protégé Andrew Weissmann. While they worked as federal prosecutors on the Enron Task Force—under the purported supervision of Christopher Wray—they destroyed Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs; sent four Merrill Lynch executives to prison on an indictment that criminalized an innocent business transaction while they hid the evidence that showed those defendants were innocent for six years. Both cases were reversed on appeal for their over-criminalization and misconduct. Indeed, Andersen was reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court.

Fourth, even if your many alumni don’t remember multiple cases that had to be reversed or dismissed for their own misconduct, Judge Emmet Sullivan should remember dismissing the corrupted case against Ted Stevens. Judge Sullivan is the judicial hero of Licensed to Lie. It is that case that caused Judge Sullivan to enter the strong Brady order the Mueller and D.C. career prosecutors violated repeatedly in the Flynn prosecution.

Fifth, there is precedent for guilty pleas being vacated. Your alumni Weissmann and Ruemmler are no strangers to such reversals. At least two guilty pleas they coerced by threats against defendants in Houston had to be thrown out—again for reasons like those here. The defendants “got off scot-free” because—like General Flynn—your alumni had concocted the charges and terrorized the defendants into pleading guilty to “offenses” that were not crimes. Andersen partner David Duncan even testified for the government against Andersen in its trial, but his plea had to be vacated. Enron Broadband defendant Christopher Calger had his plea vacated. There are many others across the country.

Sixth, should further edification be necessary, see Why Innocent People Plead Guilty, written in 2014 by federal Judge Jed Rakoff (a Clinton appointee). Abusive prosecutors force innocent people to plead guilty with painful frequency. The Mueller special counsel operation led by Andrew Weissmann and Weissmann “wannabes” specializes in prosecutorial terrorist tactics repulsive to everything “justice” is supposed to mean. These tactics are designed to intimidate their targets into pleading guilty—while punishing them and their families with the process itself and financial ruin.

Most important, General Flynn was honest with the FBI agents. They knew he was—and briefed that to McCabe and others three different times. At McCabe’s directions, Agent Strzok and McCabe’s “Special Counsel” Lisa Page, altered the 302 to create statements Weissmann, Mueller, Van Grack, and Zainab Ahmad could assert were false. Only the FBI agents lied—and falsified documents. The crimes are theirs alone.

Seventh, the D.C. circuit in which you reside vacated a Section 1001 case for a legal failure much less egregious than those in General Flynn’s case. United States v. Safavian, 528 F.3d 957 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Safavian sought advice from his agency’s ethics board and did not give them all the relevant info. The jury convicted him on the theory it was a 1001 violation to conceal the information from the government ethics board. The court disagreed: “As Safavian argues and as the government agrees, there must be a legal duty to disclose in order for there to be a concealment offense in violation of § 1001(a)(1), yet the government failed to identify a legal disclosure duty except by reference to vague standards of conduct for government employees.” General Flynn did not even know he was the subject of an investigation—and in truth, he was not. The only crimes here were by your alumni in the FBI, White House, intelligence community, and Justice Department.

These are just a few obvious and well-known examples to those paying any attention to criminal justice issues.

Finally, the “leaked” comments from your alumni call further evinces your obsession with destroying a distinguished veteran of the United States Army who has defended the Constitution and this country “from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” with the highest honor for thirty-three years. He and many others will continue to do so.

The Pummelling:lmao letters

Now I know nothing is coming of this.

[Spurs Homer]

OPEN MEMORANDUM TO BARAK OBAMA

To: Barack Hussein Obama
From: Sidney Powell
www.SidneyPowell.com (http://www.SidneyPowell.com)

Date: May 13, 2020

Re: Your Failure to Find Precedent for Flynn Dismissal

Regarding the decision of the Department of Justice to dismiss charges against General Flynn, in your recent call with your alumni, you expressed great concern: “there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.”

Here is some help—if truth and precedent represent your true concern. Your statement is entirely false. However, it does explain the damage to the Rule of Law throughout your administration.

First, General Flynn was not charged with perjury—which requires a material false statement made under oath with intent to deceive.1 A perjury prosecution would have been appropriate and the Rule of Law applied if the Justice Department prosecuted your former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for his multiple lies under oath in an investigation of a leak only he knew he caused.

McCabe lied under oath in fully recorded and transcribed interviews with the Inspector General for the DOJ. He was informed of the purpose of the interview, and he had had the benefit of counsel. He knew he was the leaker. McCabe even lied about lying. He lied to his own agents—which sent them on a “wild-goose-chase”—thereby making his lies “material” and an obstruction of justice. Yet, remarkably, Attorney General Barr declined to prosecute McCabe for these offenses.

Applying the Rule of Law, after declining McCabe’s perjury prosecution, required the Justice Department to dismiss the prosecution of General Flynn who was not warned, not under oath, had no counsel, and whose statements were not only not recorded, but were created as false by FBI agents who falsified the 302.

Second, it would seem your “wingman” Eric Holder is missing a step these days at Covington & Burling LLP. Indelibly marked in his memory (and one might think, yours) should be his Motion to Dismiss the multi-count jury verdict of guilty and the entire case against former United States Senator Ted Stevens. Within weeks of Mr. Holder becoming Attorney General, he moved to dismiss the Stevens prosecution in the interest of justice for the same reasons the Justice Department did against General Flynn—egregious misconduct by prosecutors who hid exculpatory evidence and concocted purported crimes.

As horrifying as the facts of the Stevens case were, they pale in comparison to the targeted setup, framing, and prosecution of a newly elected President’s National Security Advisor and the shocking facts that surround it. This case was an assault on the heart of liberty— our cherished system of self-government, the right of citizens to choose their President, and the hallowed peaceful transition of power.

Third, the inability of anyone in your alumni association to find “anybody who has been charged [with anything] just getting off scot-free” would be laughable were it not so pathetic.

Many of your alum feature prominently in the non-fiction legal thriller published in 2014: Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice. A national best- seller, it focusses on the egregious prosecutorial misconduct of your longest serving White House Counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler; your counter-terrorism advisor Lisa Monaco; Loretta Lynch’s DAG for the Criminal Division Leslie Caldwell; and Mueller protégé Andrew Weissmann. While they worked as federal prosecutors on the Enron Task Force—under the purported supervision of Christopher Wray—they destroyed Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs; sent four Merrill Lynch executives to prison on an indictment that criminalized an innocent business transaction while they hid the evidence that showed those defendants were innocent for six years. Both cases were reversed on appeal for their over-criminalization and misconduct. Indeed, Andersen was reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court.

Fourth, even if your many alumni don’t remember multiple cases that had to be reversed or dismissed for their own misconduct, Judge Emmet Sullivan should remember dismissing the corrupted case against Ted Stevens. Judge Sullivan is the judicial hero of Licensed to Lie. It is that case that caused Judge Sullivan to enter the strong Brady order the Mueller and D.C. career prosecutors violated repeatedly in the Flynn prosecution.

Fifth, there is precedent for guilty pleas being vacated. Your alumni Weissmann and Ruemmler are no strangers to such reversals. At least two guilty pleas they coerced by threats against defendants in Houston had to be thrown out—again for reasons like those here. The defendants “got off scot-free” because—like General Flynn—your alumni had concocted the charges and terrorized the defendants into pleading guilty to “offenses” that were not crimes. Andersen partner David Duncan even testified for the government against Andersen in its trial, but his plea had to be vacated. Enron Broadband defendant Christopher Calger had his plea vacated. There are many others across the country.

Sixth, should further edification be necessary, see Why Innocent People Plead Guilty, written in 2014 by federal Judge Jed Rakoff (a Clinton appointee). Abusive prosecutors force innocent people to plead guilty with painful frequency. The Mueller special counsel operation led by Andrew Weissmann and Weissmann “wannabes” specializes in prosecutorial terrorist tactics repulsive to everything “justice” is supposed to mean. These tactics are designed to intimidate their targets into pleading guilty—while punishing them and their families with the process itself and financial ruin.

Most important, General Flynn was honest with the FBI agents. They knew he was—and briefed that to McCabe and others three different times. At McCabe’s directions, Agent Strzok and McCabe’s “Special Counsel” Lisa Page, altered the 302 to create statements Weissmann, Mueller, Van Grack, and Zainab Ahmad could assert were false. Only the FBI agents lied—and falsified documents. The crimes are theirs alone.

Seventh, the D.C. circuit in which you reside vacated a Section 1001 case for a legal failure much less egregious than those in General Flynn’s case. United States v. Safavian, 528 F.3d 957 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Safavian sought advice from his agency’s ethics board and did not give them all the relevant info. The jury convicted him on the theory it was a 1001 violation to conceal the information from the government ethics board. The court disagreed: “As Safavian argues and as the government agrees, there must be a legal duty to disclose in order for there to be a concealment offense in violation of § 1001(a)(1), yet the government failed to identify a legal disclosure duty except by reference to vague standards of conduct for government employees.” General Flynn did not even know he was the subject of an investigation—and in truth, he was not. The only crimes here were by your alumni in the FBI, White House, intelligence community, and Justice Department.

These are just a few obvious and well-known examples to those paying any attention to criminal justice issues.

Finally, the “leaked” comments from your alumni call further evinces your obsession with destroying a distinguished veteran of the United States Army who has defended the Constitution and this country “from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” with the highest honor for thirty-three years. He and many others will continue to do so.

The Pummelling




:lol:lol:lol


powell!

I saw her on Hannity - she is genuinely batshit crazy -

whataboutism! mccabe mcabe - but mccabe is NOT who obama was talking about -

and mccabe was not charged because BARR could not make the case - NOT because he let him off


flynn - did not lie! FBI said so! - fucking bullshit liar -

flynn lied- period.

whether the fbi said that flynn did not "appear" to display the normal signs a liar displays when lying


BECAUSE HE IS A GODDAMN EXPERIENCED LIAR!

Not because he wasnt lying - and the FBI knew because they HAD THE FUCKING RECORDING


you idiot!



pizzagate FAIL!


:lol:lol:lol

[Reck]

You can always tell when TSA is in manic mode when he starts double, triple posting and doing copypastas left and right.

*No one reads those.*

[ChumpDumper]

You can always tell when TSA is in manic mode when he starts double, triple posting and doing copypastas left and right.

*No one reads those.*Here are the main things TSA is trying to cover up with his walls of text.

1) Flynn pleaded guilty under oath twice.

2) Officials requesting the unmasking of a person caught in an NSA intercept of foreign communications do not know the identity of that person in advance.

3) They don't know the identity of the person in advance because the identity of the person is masked.

4) That's what masking means.

5) lol

[Chris]

Here are the main things TSA is trying to cover up with his walls of text.

1) Flynn pleaded guilty under oath twice.

2) Officials requesting the unmasking of a person caught in an NSA intercept of foreign communications do not know the identity of that person in advance.

3) They don't know the identity of the person in advance because the identity of the person is masked.

4) That's what masking means.

5) lol

6.) kys

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/DeAnna4Congress/status/1260909988110905344?s=19

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

6.) kys
lol Margot

https://twitter.com/DeAnna4Congress/status/1260909988110905344?s=19

:lol?

Show where he literally committed treason.

Be specific. That's a very serious charge.

[Chris]

lol Margot
?

Show where he literally committed treason.

Be specific. That's a very serious charge.

kys

[ChumpDumper]

kyslol margotbot meltdown

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1261138690929295361?s=19

Where is it?!

[ChumpDumper]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1261138690929295361?s=19

Where is it?!Flynn pleaded guilty twice.

[Reck]

Trump making things worse as usual.

[ChumpDumper]

Trump making things worse as usual.Good thing he's laser focused on the pandemic that's killing thousands of Americans every day.

[Chris]

Flynn pleaded guilty twice.

General Flynn was protecting his family.

[Chris]

Good thing he's laser focused on the pandemic that's killing thousands of Americans every day.

Cuomo killed thousands of people by mandating nursing homes accomodate people infected with COVID.

You don't give a fuck.

[ChumpDumper]

General Flynn was protecting his family.From what?


Cuomo killed thousands of people by mandating nursing homes accomodate people infected with COVID.

You don't give a fuck.Whataboustismargotbot

You don't give a fuck about any of the deaths. Not one.

[Chris]

From what?

Mueller and his team of Obama appointed prosecutors. How mamy times do I have to tell you this?

[ChumpDumper]

Mueller and his team of Obama appointed prosecutors. How mamy times do I have to tell you this?What were those big meanies going to do to his family?

[Chris]

What were those big meanies going to do to his family?

"First we fuck Flynn, then we fuck Trump"

Use your imagination. Probably a perjury trap and a long costly trial if I had to guess.

[ChumpDumper]

"First we fuck Flynn, then we fuck Trump"

Use your imagination. Probably a perjury trap and a long costly trial if I had to guess.Perjury traps are easy to avoid.

Don't lie.

Like Flynn lied.

lol

[Chris]

Perjury traps are easy to avoid.

Don't lie.

Like Flynn lied.

lol

You have experience avoiding perjury traps?

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/1261144272709062657?s=19

Lawdy!

[ChumpDumper]

You have experience avoiding perjury traps?I've never heard of anyone getting caught in one when they didn't lie.

Why can't the Flynn's just tell the truth?

[Chris]

I've never heard of anyone getting caught in one when they didn't lie.

So you were talking out of your ass.


Why can't the Flynn's just tell the truth?

General Flynn was protecting his family.

[ChumpDumper]

So you were talking out of your ass.You can't be charged with perjury if you don't lie.

You can even have your lawyer there.


General Flynn was protecting his family.From their own lies? lol Margot

[Chris]

You can't be charged with perjury if you don't lie.

You can even have your lawyer there.

From their own lies? lol Margot

Flynn didn't have a lawyer when he was ambushed and interrogated. He answered questions in good faith. Mueller's threats came after the fact, hence the plea deal.

[ChumpDumper]

Flynn didn't have a lawyer when he was ambushed and interrogated. He answered questions in good faith. Mueller's threats came after the fact, hence the plea deal.He lied. He could've asked for a lawyer. He's kind of stupid. He knew he lied, hence his guilty plea.

[ElNono]

It's very likely that the court will eventually acquiesce to the DOJ motion. However, the judge is not without authority to impose sanctions on the defendant (they do it all the time, even if the defendant eventually prevails) before the case is dismissed.

I think that's the angle Judge Sullivan might be taking.

[Chris]

Expert weighs in.

GD-rsN6sCqE

[ChumpDumper]

Expert weighs in.

GD-rsN6sCqEHe said under oath he wasn't coerced, so you insist he perjured himself in open court.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/dbongino/status/1261339822095925248?s=19

: )

[LkrFan]

Flynn didn't have a lawyer when he was ambushed and interrogated. He answered questions in good faith. Mueller's threats came after the fact, hence the plea deal.

A 4 Star General was ambushed and interrogated. :downspin: that shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit !! :lmao

[LkrFan]

https://twitter.com/dbongino/status/1261339822095925248?s=19

: )

172 days before November 3rd. Do you Repugs really wanna play this game? Not only is the Presidential election coming up, several senate seats. If the senate turns Blue David Dennison = f:lolcked

[LkrFan]

Expert weighs in.

GD-rsN6sCqE

You. Cannot. Coerce. A. 4. Star. General. McCain? He was interrogated. Not this clown. -200 points son. :lol

[spurraider21]

General Flynn was protecting his family.


General Flynn was protecting his family.


General Flynn was protecting his family.


Flynn protecting his family forever :tu


protecting his family

General Flynn.
https://media1.tenor.com/images/4eee766423f2603c12ea5c0b5a0b5949/tenor.gif?itemid=12237835

[Chris]

https://media.giphy.com/media/2VC9uMlSDTZfO/giphy.gif

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Margot

[Spurs Homer]

Flynn didn't have a lawyer when he was ambushed and interrogated. He answered questions in good faith. Mueller's threats came after the fact, hence the plea deal.


Im pretty sure if you go through Flynns military career-

with his rank

he most definitely TAUGHT classes/gave training to nco’s (non-commisioned officers) and high ranking officers-

on interrogations, investigations, intelligence, counter-intelligence, etc


but as soon as the cult is given a narrative- they open wide and swallow it whole.

Truth is he is guilty, admitted to being guilty , and when Judge sullivan told him as flynn was still under oath in a court of law-

“you understand that by making this guilty plea - you cannot ever challenge the interview- forever?”

flynn: “yes your honor- i plead guilty because i am- in fact- guilty”


a fourth grader would understand this-


a CULT member will listen to the narrative given to him by other cultists.

[Chris]

Im pretty sure if you go through Flynns military career-

with his rank

he most definitely TAUGHT classes/gave training to nco’s (non-commisioned officers) and high ranking officers-

on interrogations, investigations, intelligence, counter-intelligence, etc


but as soon as the cult is given a narrative- they open wide and swallow it whole.

Truth is he is guilty, admitted to being guilty , and when Judge sullivan told him as flynn was still under oath in a court of law-

“you understand that by making this guilty plea - you cannot ever challenge the interview- forever?”

flynn: “yes your honor- i plead guilty because i am- in fact- guilty”


a fourth grader would understand this-


a CULT member will listen to the narrative given to him by other cultists.

I already told you not to waste your time. I don't do the troll thing.

[Spurs Homer]

I already told you not to waste your time. All I know - is the troll thing.


fify

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1261432794414120960?s=19

oh baby :wow

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/GeorgePapa19/status/1261416326968438784?s=19

[spurraider21]

https://twitter.com/GeorgePapa19/status/1261416326968438784?s=19
^convicted felon

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1261447282936905728?s=19

[ChumpDumper]

https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1261447282936905728?s=19Turns out he did lie. Just like he said.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/GeorgePapa19/status/1261496658564612097?s=19

[ElNono]

How's the liar doing? And I don't mean Chris...

[Chris]

"It was a coup and indictments are coming"

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/Thomas1774Paine/status/1261691648918069250?s=19

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1261716052150550530?s=19

His name was Seth Rich and he died for it.

[TSA]

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1261716052150550530?s=19

His name was Seth Rich and he died for it.

Old news Chris I already posted it. But you are forgiven as no one wanted to talk about it and you probably missed my post :lol

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao Seth Rich

[Chris]

Old news Chris I already posted it. But you are forgiven as no one wanted to talk about it and you probably missed my post :lol

my bad :tu

[ElNono]

:lmao Seth Rich

[spurraider21]

:lmao KimDotCom

[spurraider21]

whats the point of an independent special counsel if you can just appoint a new AG to undo things?

hadn't even considered that perspective until watching this undressing of the DOJ

there's a lot of background here but the withdrawal stuff starts around 18:30


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cid38A_9e04

[boutons_deux]

FBI interrogated Flynn when Flynn lied AFTER Trash was President.

[TSA]

whats the point of an independent special counsel if you can just appoint a new AG to undo things?

hadn't even considered that perspective until watching this undressing of the DOJ

there's a lot of background here but the withdrawal stuff starts around 18:30


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cid38A_9e04

What’s the point of an independent special counsel if the team he assembles are dishonest hacks?

https://mobile.twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1262362515985612800

[TSA]

Disinformation from Schiff, media damaged America

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has been feeding the American people misinformation for years. He used his position — replete with access to information and people in the know — to distribute wild accounts of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

The effect was to frighten and alarm millions of Americans, sowing division between neighbors, toxifying our discourse and raising anxieties.

The Trump administration spent time and resources fighting off the fallacy that cursed them since day one and deprived the American people of a president who could devote his time and energy to the policies they had elected him to enact.

Just a year ago, Adam Schiff was on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, Fox News — anyone who would have him — talking about Trump/Russia collusion “in plain sight.”

Even after the Mueller report clearly indicated that there was no provable collusion or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, Schiff continued to propagate the lie.

Chris Wallace of Fox News pressed Schiff on the claims, playing the congressman a highlight reel of his assertions of collusion.

Schiff shot back, “What more clear intent to collude could you have than the Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of what was described as an effort to help Mr. Trump in the campaign and Don Jr. saying if it’s what you say, I would love it?”

“Intent to collude.”

That after years sounding the alarm about “damning evidence” of collusion with Putin that was “more than circumstantial.” This scandal was “beyond Watergate,” Schiff, privy to all of the sensitive intelligence, told us.

We found out this week that Schiff always knew there was no evidence of collusion. By day he would interview former Obama administration officials including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, national security adviser Susan Rice and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who would tell him there was nothing, and by night he’d jump on a newscast assuring Americans that he’d seen evidence of something.

But there was nothing.

The canard Schiff continued to promulgate was supercharged, though, by the media, who went wall to wall with their coverage. Relics from Watergate were dragged out onto “Breaking News” sets and we were told how serious the matter was.

Hysterical anti-Trump media personalities took to social media to scold anyone who doubted the Russia conspiracy, lecturing us about putting “country over party.”

The coordination between Schiff and the media was pernicious.

As Lee Smith wrote in the New York Post, “The tragic fact is that once-prestigious press organizations, including CNN as well as MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post, weren’t fooled by the collusion hoax. They were an essential part of it.”

Adam Schiff is a vile actor. Democrats must follow their own mantra and put their country over party and eject the snake in their midst.

There are bipartisan endeavors — like infrastructure legislation, economic recovery and the battle against the pandemic — that have undoubtedly been hindered by the malevolence of the congressman from California who abused his power by weaponizing his position in order to bring down a duly-elected president.

We will continue to bear the poisoned fruit from his actions for years and it will happen again in a different form unless there is a reckoning, once and for all.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/05/17/disinformation-from-schiff-media-damaged-america/

And you stupid fucks slurped up every word.

[boutons_deux]

disinformation from Schiff?

Trash is approaching 20K LIES in 3 years

Trash committed criminal negligent manslaughter of 10Ks (so far) of Americans and cratered the economy

Schiff? :lol GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK

[Spurs Homer]

Disinformation from Schiff, media damaged America

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has been feeding the American people misinformation for years. He used his position — replete with access to information and people in the know — to distribute wild accounts of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

The effect was to frighten and alarm millions of Americans, sowing division between neighbors, toxifying our discourse and raising anxieties.

The Trump administration spent time and resources fighting off the fallacy that cursed them since day one and deprived the American people of a president who could devote his time and energy to the policies they had elected him to enact.

Just a year ago, Adam Schiff was on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, Fox News — anyone who would have him — talking about Trump/Russia collusion “in plain sight.”

Even after the Mueller report clearly indicated that there was no provable collusion or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, Schiff continued to propagate the lie.

Chris Wallace of Fox News pressed Schiff on the claims, playing the congressman a highlight reel of his assertions of collusion.

Schiff shot back, “What more clear intent to collude could you have than the Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of what was described as an effort to help Mr. Trump in the campaign and Don Jr. saying if it’s what you say, I would love it?”

“Intent to collude.”

That after years sounding the alarm about “damning evidence” of collusion with Putin that was “more than circumstantial.” This scandal was “beyond Watergate,” Schiff, privy to all of the sensitive intelligence, told us.

We found out this week that Schiff always knew there was no evidence of collusion. By day he would interview former Obama administration officials including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, national security adviser Susan Rice and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who would tell him there was nothing, and by night he’d jump on a newscast assuring Americans that he’d seen evidence of something.

But there was nothing.

The canard Schiff continued to promulgate was supercharged, though, by the media, who went wall to wall with their coverage. Relics from Watergate were dragged out onto “Breaking News” sets and we were told how serious the matter was.

Hysterical anti-Trump media personalities took to social media to scold anyone who doubted the Russia conspiracy, lecturing us about putting “country over party.”

The coordination between Schiff and the media was pernicious.

As Lee Smith wrote in the New York Post, “The tragic fact is that once-prestigious press organizations, including CNN as well as MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post, weren’t fooled by the collusion hoax. They were an essential part of it.”

Adam Schiff is a vile actor. Democrats must follow their own mantra and put their country over party and eject the snake in their midst.

There are bipartisan endeavors — like infrastructure legislation, economic recovery and the battle against the pandemic — that have undoubtedly been hindered by the malevolence of the congressman from California who abused his power by weaponizing his position in order to bring down a duly-elected president.

We will continue to bear the poisoned fruit from his actions for years and it will happen again in a different form unless there is a reckoning, once and for all.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/05/17/disinformation-from-schiff-media-damaged-america/

And you stupid fucks slurped up every word.

someday you will read this and will understand how stupid you were and how brainwashed:

this guy just printed the collusion “in plain sight” and then instructed YOU to

NOT believe your own eyes!

and you obeyed!


trump: “russia if you are listening...”. (Plain sight)
5 hours later on that same date 5-27-2016- russia/wiki hack happens to american citizens

Collusion/coordination in plain sight - which schiff pointed out and your eyes and the mueller report confirmed it


except now = you have been ordered to disbelieve your own eyes

same with trump tower mtg emails: russians say “we got dirt”. Jr answers - “i love it and sets up the mtg”
in plain sight = collusion

mueller explained it to you too! (They all lied, destroyed emails, and obstructed investigation = this is why conspiracy was not proven - until Barr and trump are removed and the cover up exposed)


someday (after the brainwashing fades) you will ask yourself:

”how in da fuck did i see with my own eyes - Trump asking russia publicly to cyberhack (felony) an american citizen and then I was given the info that russia did it 5 hours later....how in da fuck did i witness it ..and then refuse to believe what i saw?”

”how in da fuck did i accuse others of being stupid when i also fell for pizzagate?”

“was i brainwashed?”

[ChumpDumper]

Disinformation from Schiff, media damaged America

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has been feeding the American people misinformation for years. He used his position — replete with access to information and people in the know — to distribute wild accounts of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

The effect was to frighten and alarm millions of Americans, sowing division between neighbors, toxifying our discourse and raising anxieties.

The Trump administration spent time and resources fighting off the fallacy that cursed them since day one and deprived the American people of a president who could devote his time and energy to the policies they had elected him to enact.

Just a year ago, Adam Schiff was on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, Fox News — anyone who would have him — talking about Trump/Russia collusion “in plain sight.”

Even after the Mueller report clearly indicated that there was no provable collusion or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, Schiff continued to propagate the lie.

Chris Wallace of Fox News pressed Schiff on the claims, playing the congressman a highlight reel of his assertions of collusion.

Schiff shot back, “What more clear intent to collude could you have than the Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of what was described as an effort to help Mr. Trump in the campaign and Don Jr. saying if it’s what you say, I would love it?”

“Intent to collude.”

That after years sounding the alarm about “damning evidence” of collusion with Putin that was “more than circumstantial.” This scandal was “beyond Watergate,” Schiff, privy to all of the sensitive intelligence, told us.

We found out this week that Schiff always knew there was no evidence of collusion. By day he would interview former Obama administration officials including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, national security adviser Susan Rice and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who would tell him there was nothing, and by night he’d jump on a newscast assuring Americans that he’d seen evidence of something.

But there was nothing.

The canard Schiff continued to promulgate was supercharged, though, by the media, who went wall to wall with their coverage. Relics from Watergate were dragged out onto “Breaking News” sets and we were told how serious the matter was.

Hysterical anti-Trump media personalities took to social media to scold anyone who doubted the Russia conspiracy, lecturing us about putting “country over party.”

The coordination between Schiff and the media was pernicious.

As Lee Smith wrote in the New York Post, “The tragic fact is that once-prestigious press organizations, including CNN as well as MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post, weren’t fooled by the collusion hoax. They were an essential part of it.”

Adam Schiff is a vile actor. Democrats must follow their own mantra and put their country over party and eject the snake in their midst.

There are bipartisan endeavors — like infrastructure legislation, economic recovery and the battle against the pandemic — that have undoubtedly been hindered by the malevolence of the congressman from California who abused his power by weaponizing his position in order to bring down a duly-elected president.

We will continue to bear the poisoned fruit from his actions for years and it will happen again in a different form unless there is a reckoning, once and for all.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/05/17/disinformation-from-schiff-media-damaged-america/

And you stupid fucks slurped up every word.You thought a United Airlines 737 was Air Force One because QAnon told you.

You believed Hillary Clinton murdered Seth Rich because a fat felon fugitive told you.

You believed Democrats held children in a sex dungeon under a pizza restaurant because anonymous blogs told you.

We thought there might be collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia because the Trump campaign actively and admittedly tried to collude with Russia.

Sorry, you rate a lot higher than we do on the rube-o-meter.

[ChumpDumper]

Also, lol.

1262414980357525506

[spurraider21]

I don’t know that i ever cited to Schiff re evidence of collusion. I was content with letting the investigation go forward and am content with Muellers conclusion that there’s no evidence of collusion

[Spurs Homer]

I don’t know that i ever cited to Schiff re evidence of collusion. I was content with letting the investigation go forward and am content with Muellers conclusion that there’s no evidence of collusion


lol

you must have reading comprehension skills issues

”no evidence of collusion”

was never a part of the mueller report once he explained that “collusion” is not a legal term and no such crime exists in the penal code

the con man conned you when he threw out that meaningless term

now he is throwing out “obamagate” for the same reasons- distracting from his criminality

[Spurs Homer]

Also, lol.

1262414980357525506

thats not what trump and hannity allege!

[spurraider21]

lol

you must have reading comprehension skills issues

”no evidence of collusion”

was never a part of the mueller report once he explained that “collusion” is not a legal term and no such crime exists in the penal code

the con man conned you when he threw out that meaningless term

now he is throwing out “obamagate” for the same reasons- distracting from his criminality
the word "collusion" isnt important. collusion referred to coordation with the russians, with the potential legal charge being conspiracy

from Mueller's report:

Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

i accept mueller's findings

[Spurs Homer]

the word "collusion" isnt important. collusion referred to coordation with the russians, with the potential legal charge being conspiracy

from Mueller's report:

Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

i accept mueller's findings

I can understand TSA spreading misinformation and outright lying thru his teeth - because he is a fucking gullible stupid moron -

but - YOU?

Someone who claims to have studied the law? I just dont get it - unless you are trolling and I missed it?

You who have studied the law and you "get" the nuances of the law and you aren't stupid enough to know when Barr was using those nuances to shield for his criminal buddy - are you?


These are respectable law scholars (not the magazine - the experts quoted in the article);

https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/



Myth: Mueller found “no collusion.”

Response: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.
While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

To find conspiracy, a prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime: an agreement between at least two people, to commit a criminal offense and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. One of the underlying criminal offenses that Mueller reviewed for conspiracy was campaign-finance violations. Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting. This meeting did not amount to a criminal offense, in part, because Mueller was unable to establish “willfulness,” that is, that the participants knew that their conduct was illegal. Mueller was also unable to conclude that the information was a “thing of value” that exceeded $25,000, the requirement for campaign finance to be a felony, as opposed to a civil violation of law. But the fact that the conduct did not technically amount to conspiracy does not mean that it was acceptable. Trump campaign members welcomed foreign influence into our election and then compromised themselves with the Russian government by covering it up.


Mueller found other contacts with Russia, such as the sharing of polling data about Midwestern states where Trump later won upset victories, conversations with the Russian ambassador to influence Russia’s response to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to election interference, and communications with Wikileaks after it had received emails stolen by Russia. While none of these acts amounted to the crime of conspiracy, all could be described as “collusion.”

[DMC]

:lmao holy fuck what a meltdown.

[spurraider21]

didnt find sufficient evidence to bring any charges re conspiring with russians to influence the election. i never said he didnt find any contacts or attempts.

thats good enough for me tbh

i do think mueller laid out a strong case for impeachment due to obstruction of justice. vol 2 was damning as hell, but because meuller's team agreed that they could not legally charge a sitting president, they were also not allowed to levy any specific allegations of crimes being committed. but the entirety of vol 2, in addition to the not-so-subtle comments about not exonerating the president... was pretty clear

pelosi and the dems of the house showed remarkable (and misguided) restraint in not pushing forward with impeachment at that time tbh. all they did was embolden trump to continue acting lawlessly and obstructing justice which he then tried to do with the ukraine scandal leading to his impeachment

[Spurs Homer]

I don’t know that i ever cited to Schiff re evidence of collusion. I was content with letting the investigation go forward and am content with Muellers conclusion that there’s no evidence of collusion



Misinformation.

[spurraider21]

collusion is lay term for coordination ie conspiracy. insufficient evidence to bring charges. sorry.

[Spurs Homer]

collusion is lay term for coordination ie conspiracy. insufficient evidence to bring charges. sorry.


still wrong -

collusion does not exist in the criminal code of conduct, in the penal code - in any state laws, etc...


it was a CON MAN throwing it in the ring to lead you down the rabbit hole.

[spurraider21]

still wrong -

collusion does not exist in the criminal code of conduct, in the penal code - in any state laws, etc...


it was a CON MAN throwing it in the ring to lead you down the rabbit hole.
kicking and screaming wont change mueller's conclusions

i never said collusion was in the criminal code. i said it was the lay term for coordination with the charges being conspiracy. and there was insufficient evidence to bring charges for conspiracy

you're probably a trump supporter with how much you are trying to shit on and undermine the mueller report tbh

[Spurs Homer]

kicking and screaming wont change mueller's conclusions

i never said collusion was in the criminal code. i said it was the lay term for coordination with the charges being conspiracy. and there was insufficient evidence to bring charges for conspiracy

you're probably a trump supporter with how much you are trying to shit on and undermine the mueller report tbh


no one is kicking and screaming - but you have repeatedly pushed out this misinformation -
that mueller concluded that

there was no evidence of collusion -


I pointed it out and if you read the article you will know the truth - that

not charging conspiracy does NOT mean there was no evidence of it.


I hope you do well on your law career because you will lose cases throwing out misinformation like that or misinterpreting the law.

[spurraider21]

no one is kicking and screaming - but you have repeatedly pushed out this misinformation -
that mueller concluded that

there was no evidence of collusion -


I pointed it out and if you read the article you will know the truth - that

not charging conspiracy does NOT mean there was no evidence of it.


I hope you do well on your law career because you will lose cases throwing out misinformation like that or misinterpreting the law.
if there was good evidence of collusion with russians to interfere with the election then there would have been conspiracy charges brought on those grounds

sorry

[Spurs Homer]

if there was good evidence of collusion with russians to interfere with the election then there would have been conspiracy charges brought on those grounds

sorry

there you go throwing out garbage misinformation again...

there was tons of it but -

1) mueller could NOT - was not ALLOWED to charge trump with any crimes

2) BARR stopped the investigation prematurely

3) Rosenstein restricted - who mueller could and could not compel to testify and he also made muellers jurisdiction so tiny that mueller could not compel the lost emails, electronic msgs, evidence to he handed over - he could not charge trump jr or any trump family and the 13 cases mueller farmed out have been covered up by barr -

there's more - but you aren't an honest broker so I'll spare you the rest...

[spurraider21]

there you go throwing out garbage misinformation again...

there was tons of it but -

1) mueller could NOT - was not ALLOWED to charge trump with any crimes


didnt find sufficient evidence to bring any charges re conspiring with russians to influence the election. i never said he didnt find any contacts or attempts.

thats good enough for me tbh

i do think mueller laid out a strong case for impeachment due to obstruction of justice. vol 2 was damning as hell, but because meuller's team agreed that they could not legally charge a sitting president, they were also not allowed to levy any specific allegations of crimes being committed. but the entirety of vol 2, in addition to the not-so-subtle comments about not exonerating the president... was pretty clear

pelosi and the dems of the house showed remarkable (and misguided) restraint in not pushing forward with impeachment at that time tbh. all they did was embolden trump to continue acting lawlessly and obstructing justice which he then tried to do with the ukraine scandal leading to his impeachment
lol

[Spurs Homer]

lol


lol


before: if there was good evidence of collusion with russians to interfere with the election then there would have been conspiracy charges brought on those grounds



after: blah-blah


pick a lane

[TSA]

1) mueller could NOT - was not ALLOWED to charge trump with any crimes

Why wasn’t anyone else charged with conspiracy?

[spurraider21]

lol


before: if there was good evidence of collusion with russians to interfere with the election then there would have been conspiracy charges brought on those grounds



after: blah-blah


pick a lane
could have charged people from trump's campaign other than trump himself

and the conclusion that there was no evidence sufficient to bring charges was very different than the wording Vol 2's conclusion

[TSA]

thats not what trump and hannity allege!

https://mobile.twitter.com/themarketswork/status/1262426680536076299

“Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.”

[Spurs Homer]

Why wasn’t anyone else charged with conspiracy?

its in the mueller report -

mueller could only investigate -

flynn,manafort,stone,papadopoulos -

and only for a narrow set of things -

he was not allowed to establish that russian conspiracy

we will have to wait until barr and trump are gone to be able to uncover the treason

[Spurs Homer]

could have charged people from trump's campaign other than trump himself

and the conclusion that there was no evidence sufficient to bring charges was very different than the wording Vol 2's conclusion


not fucking true again

read the mueller report

mueller was only allowed to investigate

flynn,stone,manafort and popa dipshit

[TSA]

its in the mueller report -

mueller could only investigate -

flynn,manafort,stone,papadopoulos -

and only for a narrow set of things -

he was not allowed to establish that russian conspiracy

we will have to wait until barr and trump are gone to be able to uncover the treason

Why weren’t Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Papadapolous, or Trump Jr charged with conspiracy?

[Reck]

Also, lol.

1262414980357525506


https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1261004586359422979?s=19

someone is worried :lol

Obama shitting bricks tho. :lol

[Spurs Homer]

Why weren’t Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Papadapolous, or Trump Jr charged with conspiracy?


Mueller was not allowed to charge.

Barr still covering up the report.

read the last pages read the links -

or not.

[TSA]

Mueller was not allowed to charge.

Barr still covering up the report.

read the last pages read the links -

or not.

You just said Mueller wasn’t allowed to charge Trump. None of those people are Trump.

Why weren’t Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Papadapolous, or Trump Jr charged with conspiracy?

[Spurs Homer]

You just said Mueller wasn’t allowed to charge Trump. None of those people are Trump.

Why weren’t Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Papadapolous, or Trump Jr charged with conspiracy?


flynn was charged with what mueller was allowed to charge him with
manafort- same
stone & pop - same


jr was untouchable

meullers hands were tied first by rosensteins mandate
then by barr

now the cover up

[DMC]

flynn was charged with what mueller was allowed to charge him with
manafort- same
stone & pop - same


jr was untouchable

meullers hands were tied first by rosensteins mandate
then by barr

now the cover up

:lol idiot getting shit on by the entire forum err day

[TSA]

flynn was charged with what mueller was allowed to charge him with
manafort- same
stone & pop - same


jr was untouchable

meullers hands were tied first by rosensteins mandate
then by barr

now the cover up

Show me the mandate that said Mueller couldn’t charge Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Papadapolous, or Trump Jr with conspiracy.

[Spurs Homer]

Show me the mandate that said Mueller couldn’t charge Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Papadapolous, or Trump Jr with conspiracy.


read the mueller report

its all there

[DMC]

read the mueller report

its all there

You're obviously a sock puppet troll for the right.

[Spurs Homer]

You're obviously a sock puppet troll for the right.


you are dying on the hill called trump
and
getting shit on 24/7 no matter how hard you try


hahahahahahahahaha!

[TSA]

read the mueller report

its all there

You’re the one who claimed there was a mandate. Show me the mandate that said Mueller couldn’t charge Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Papadapolous, or Trump Jr with conspiracy.

[TSA]

You're obviously a sock puppet troll for the right.

I’ve gone back and forth with this same thought since he started posting in the political forum.

[Spurs Homer]

You’re the one who claimed there was a mandate. Show me the mandate that said Mueller couldn’t charge Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Papadapolous, or Trump Jr with conspiracy.

read the fucking mueller report

i posted this shit time and time again for you and you were too busy posting propaganda and believing barrs spin

and to make it worse - you dont even believe your own eyes when shown proof


go fuck yourself

[TSA]

read the fucking mueller report

i posted this shit time and time again for you and you were too busy posting propaganda and believing barrs spin

and to make it worse - you dont even believe your own eyes when shown proof


go fuck yourself

You never posted any mandate showing Mueller couldn’t charge Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Papadapolous, or Trump Jr with conspiracy you fucking liar :lmao

[Spurs Homer]

You never posted any mandate showing Mueller couldn’t charge Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Papadapolous, or Trump Jr with conspiracy you fucking liar :lmao

i posted several times after reading the mueller report 5-6 times

you failed to read it - yet posted conspiracy garbage

pizzagate lol

[TSA]

i posted several times after reading the mueller report 5-6 times

you failed to read it - yet posted conspiracy garbage

pizzagate lol

If you’ve posted it several times and you’ve read the report 5-6 times it would be really easy for you to post it again. Show everyone the mandate that said Mueller couldn’t charge Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Papadapolous, or Trump Jr with conspiracy.

[Spurs Homer]

If you’ve posted it several times and you’ve read the report 5-6 times it would be really easy for you to post it again. Show everyone the mandate that said Mueller couldn’t charge Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Papadapolous, or Trump Jr with conspiracy.

nope

you gotta read the mueller report

chop-chop!

[TSA]

nope

you gotta read the mueller report

chop-chop!

There is no mandate that says what you claim. Why lie about it?

[Spurs Homer]

There is no mandate that says what you claim. Why lie about it?

you spend all this time posting shit and defending shit

yet cannot read the report of what you should know?


several posters have pointed you to read the mueller report

yet you refuse and then turn around and post inaccurate garbage and call people stupid

well

the report will give you facts

that is

the facts that barr did not cover up

and mueller states exactly what he was allowed to charge and not charge

the only liar is you

[TSA]

you spend all this time posting shit and defending shit

yet cannot read the report of what you should know?


several posters have pointed you to read the mueller report

yet you refuse and then turn around and post inaccurate garbage and call people stupid

well

the report will give you facts

that is

the facts that barr did not cover up

and mueller states exactly what he was allowed to charge and not charge

the only liar is youYou spend all this time deflecting and flailing about because you know you are a lying sack of shit.

Show me where Mueller states that he was tasked to investigate conspiracy but not allowed to charge anyone with conspiracy.

[DMC]

I’ve gone back and forth with this same thought since he started posting in the political forum.

No one is that fucking stupid.

[TSA]

No one is that fucking stupid.

I’ve also gone back and forth on that same thought. After this latest episode I’m back to leaning towards right wing troll job, and well done at that.

[Spurs Homer]

lol ^

two trump semen-shielders who get shat on 24/7 commiserating hahahaha!

[TSA]

lol ^

two trump semen-shielders who get shat on 24/7 commiserating hahahaha!

Show me where Mueller states that he was tasked to investigate conspiracy but not allowed to charge anyone with conspiracy.

[TSA]

EXCLUSIVE: The Treasury Department Spied on Flynn, Manafort, and the Trump Family, Says Whistleblower

President Barack Obama’s Treasury Department regularly surveilled retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn’s financial records and transactions beginning in December 2015 and well into 2017, before, during and after when he served at the White House as President Donald Trump’s National Security Director, a former senior Treasury Department official, and veteran of the intelligence community, told the Star Newspapers.

“I started seeing things that were not correct, so I did my own little investigation, because I wanted to make sure what I was seeing was correct” she said. “You never want to draw attention to something if there is not anything there.”

The whistleblower said she only saw metadata, that is names and dates when the general’s financial records were accessed. “I never saw what they saw.”

By March 2016, the whistleblower said she and a colleague, who was detailed to Treasury from the intelligence community, became convinced that the surveillance of Flynn was not tied to legitimate criminal or national security concerns, but was straight-up political surveillance among other illegal activity occurring at Treasury.

“When I showed it to her, what she said, ‘Oh, sh%t!’ and I knew right then and there that I was right – this was some shady stuff,” the whistleblower said.

“It wasn’t just him,” the whistleblower said. “They were targeting other U.S. citizens, as well.”

Only two names are listed in the whistleblower’s official paperwork, so the others must remain sealed, she said. The second name is Paul J. Manafort Jr., the one-time chairman of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The other names include: Members of Congress, the most senior staffers on the 2016 Trump campaign and members of Trump’s family, she said.

“Another thing they would do is take targeted names from a certain database – I cannot name, but you can guess – and they were going over to an unclassified database and they were running those names in the unclassified database,” she said.

This ruse was to get around using classified resources to surveil Americans, she said. Once the Treasury personnel had enough information about someone they were targeting from the black box, they would go to the white box for faster and more informed search.

It was routine for these searches that had no criminal nor national security predicate, merely a political predicate, she said.

Complaint filed with Treasury Inspector General

In March 2017, she filed a formal whistleblower complaint with Acting Treasury Inspector General Richard K. Delmar, who continues in that office today, she said. Beyond Delmar acknowledging receipt of the complaint, the inspector general never followed up on the matter.

This formal complaint was a follow-up to an August 2016 notification to Delmar that did not meet the full requirements of formal complaint, but it provided Delmar with the details of Treasury’s surveillance of Flynn, she said.

The whistleblower filed a subsequent complaint with the Office of Special Counsel May 2017, which is the permanent office established to work with whistleblowers and is not related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

This surveillance program was run out of Treasury’s Office of Intelligence Analysis, which was then under the leadership of S. Leslie Ireland. Ireland came to OIA in 2010 after a long tenure at the Central Intelligence Agency and a one-year stint as Obama’s daily in-person intelligence briefer.

The whistleblower said Treasury should never have been part of the unmasking of Flynn, because its surveillance operation was off-the-books. That is to say, the Justice Department never gave the required approval to the Treasury program, and so there were no guidelines, approvals nor reports that would be associated with a DOJ-sanctioned domestic surveillance operation.

“Accessing this information without approved and signed attorney general guidelines would violate U.S. persons constitutional rights and civil liberties,” she said.

“IC agencies have to adhere to Executive Order 12333, or as it is known in the community: E.O. 12-Triple-Three. Just because OIA does not have signed guidelines does not give them the power or right to operate as they want, if you want information on a U.S. person then work with the FBI on a Title III, if it is a U.S. person involved with a foreign entity then follow the correct process for a FISA, but without signed AG guidelines you cannot even get started,” she said. Title III refers to the FBI authority to electronically surveil Americans.

https://theohiostar.com/2020/05/18/exclusive-the-treasury-department-spied-on-flynn-manafort-and-the-trump-family-says-whistleblower/

[spurraider21]

I’ve also gone back and forth on that same thought. After this latest episode I’m back to leaning towards right wing troll job, and well done at that.
i've gone back and forth too... and good evidence for him being a secret right winger was his fervent defense of amber guyger for killing a scary black man in his own apartment.

but honestly i just think he's a loon like booboo

[Chris]

"Regretfully, I followed my lawyers' strong advice to confirm my [guilty] plea even though it was all I could do not to cry out "no" when this Court [Sullivan] asked me if I was guilty"

"I express my profound apology to this Court...in truth, I never lied...I allowed myself to succumb to the threats from the government to save my family"

"I will not confirm a plea of guilty I should never have entered...as God is my witness, the truth is I am innocent of these charges"

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1262797276285730816?s=19

Lawdy!

[Spurs Homer]

Show me where Mueller states that he was tasked to investigate conspiracy but not allowed to charge anyone with conspiracy.


It is in the Mueller report. Read it.

Last time I will answer your bullshit.

Lazy ass.

[Spurs Homer]

EXCLUSIVE: The Treasury Department Spied on Flynn, Manafort, and the Trump Family, Says Whistleblower

President Barack Obama’s Treasury Department regularly surveilled retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn’s financial records and transactions beginning in December 2015 and well into 2017, before, during and after when he served at the White House as President Donald Trump’s National Security Director, a former senior Treasury Department official, and veteran of the intelligence community, told the Star Newspapers.

“I started seeing things that were not correct, so I did my own little investigation, because I wanted to make sure what I was seeing was correct” she said. “You never want to draw attention to something if there is not anything there.”

The whistleblower said she only saw metadata, that is names and dates when the general’s financial records were accessed. “I never saw what they saw.”

By March 2016, the whistleblower said she and a colleague, who was detailed to Treasury from the intelligence community, became convinced that the surveillance of Flynn was not tied to legitimate criminal or national security concerns, but was straight-up political surveillance among other illegal activity occurring at Treasury.

“When I showed it to her, what she said, ‘Oh, sh%t!’ and I knew right then and there that I was right – this was some shady stuff,” the whistleblower said.

“It wasn’t just him,” the whistleblower said. “They were targeting other U.S. citizens, as well.”

Only two names are listed in the whistleblower’s official paperwork, so the others must remain sealed, she said. The second name is Paul J. Manafort Jr., the one-time chairman of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The other names include: Members of Congress, the most senior staffers on the 2016 Trump campaign and members of Trump’s family, she said.

“Another thing they would do is take targeted names from a certain database – I cannot name, but you can guess – and they were going over to an unclassified database and they were running those names in the unclassified database,” she said.

This ruse was to get around using classified resources to surveil Americans, she said. Once the Treasury personnel had enough information about someone they were targeting from the black box, they would go to the white box for faster and more informed search.

It was routine for these searches that had no criminal nor national security predicate, merely a political predicate, she said.

Complaint filed with Treasury Inspector General

In March 2017, she filed a formal whistleblower complaint with Acting Treasury Inspector General Richard K. Delmar, who continues in that office today, she said. Beyond Delmar acknowledging receipt of the complaint, the inspector general never followed up on the matter.

This formal complaint was a follow-up to an August 2016 notification to Delmar that did not meet the full requirements of formal complaint, but it provided Delmar with the details of Treasury’s surveillance of Flynn, she said.

The whistleblower filed a subsequent complaint with the Office of Special Counsel May 2017, which is the permanent office established to work with whistleblowers and is not related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

This surveillance program was run out of Treasury’s Office of Intelligence Analysis, which was then under the leadership of S. Leslie Ireland. Ireland came to OIA in 2010 after a long tenure at the Central Intelligence Agency and a one-year stint as Obama’s daily in-person intelligence briefer.

The whistleblower said Treasury should never have been part of the unmasking of Flynn, because its surveillance operation was off-the-books. That is to say, the Justice Department never gave the required approval to the Treasury program, and so there were no guidelines, approvals nor reports that would be associated with a DOJ-sanctioned domestic surveillance operation.

“Accessing this information without approved and signed attorney general guidelines would violate U.S. persons constitutional rights and civil liberties,” she said.

“IC agencies have to adhere to Executive Order 12333, or as it is known in the community: E.O. 12-Triple-Three. Just because OIA does not have signed guidelines does not give them the power or right to operate as they want, if you want information on a U.S. person then work with the FBI on a Title III, if it is a U.S. person involved with a foreign entity then follow the correct process for a FISA, but without signed AG guidelines you cannot even get started,” she said. Title III refers to the FBI authority to electronically surveil Americans.

https://theohiostar.com/2020/05/18/exclusive-the-treasury-department-spied-on-flynn-manafort-and-the-trump-family-says-whistleblower/


lololol

you sure spend a lot of time reading that ^ garbage -


but don't have time to read the Mueller report -

so you just reveal and expose the fact of how stupid you are.

[Spurs Homer]

i've gone back and forth too... and good evidence for him being a secret right winger was his fervent defense of amber guyger for killing a scary black man in his own apartment.

but honestly i just think he's a loon like booboo

go fuck yourself pal,

I took a guess in that case and IIRC- I admitted to you I was wrong and even gave YOU props for being correct -


not sure why you suddenly became a trump fellator tho'

[spurraider21]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/498319-former-judge-to-argue-against-doj-in-flynn-case-next-month


A former judge appointed to argue against the Department of Justice's (DOJ) motion to drop charges against Michael Flynn intends to lay out his case next month, he told a federal court on Monday.

John Gleeson was tapped to argue as a third party in the case after the Trump administration moved to drop its charges against the president's former national security adviser for lying to the FBI.

Gleeson, a former federal judge in New York, proposed a June 10 deadline for his amicus brief.

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, a Clinton appointee who's presiding over the Flynn prosecution, tapped Gleeson for the role and instructed him to present an argument against the Justice Department's unusual motion and also explore whether Flynn committed perjury in reversing an earlier guilty plea.

The DOJ's move has raised concerns from critics of political meddling in the case against President Trump (https://thehill.com/people/donald-trump)'s ally. A career prosecutor attached to the case withdrew shortly before the motion to drop charges was filed earlier this month.

Flynn's attorneys are trying to fight Sullivan's appointment of an amicus in the case, saying it violates the separation of powers.

"It is no accident that amicus briefs are excluded in criminal cases," Flynn's lawyers wrote in a filing last week. "A criminal case is a dispute between the United States and a criminal defendant. There is no place for third parties to meddle in the dispute, and certainly not to usurp the role of the government’s counsel. For the Court to allow another to stand in the place of the government would be a violation of the separation of powers."

[spurraider21]

https://i.gyazo.com/37a7e33422558125cfad674c005b5699.png

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.205.0_10.pdf

[Chris]

go fuck yourself pal,

I took a guess in that case and IIRC- I admitted to you I was wrong and even gave YOU props for being correct -


not sure why you suddenly became a trump fellator tho'

quit stealing my shit

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/SidneyPowell1/status/1262802060132651009?s=19

[TSA]

https://i.gyazo.com/37a7e33422558125cfad674c005b5699.png

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.205.0_10.pdf

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

https://sidneypowell.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Petition-filed.pdf

[TSA]

It is in the Mueller report. Read it.

Last time I will answer your bullshit.

Lazy ass.

If it was in the Mueller report you claim to have read 5-6 times you would easily be able to post it, but it was never there and now you are just embarrassing yourself. Why would you lie about such a thing that is so easily disproven? :rollin

[spurraider21]

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

https://sidneypowell.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Petition-filed.pdf
yep. next, to be determined if the court of appeals will even agree to take up the writ... and then how they would rule

the law seems pretty clear that sullivan has some discretion, though. i dont know if this amounts to an abuse of discretion

[Spurs Homer]

If it was in the Mueller report you claim to have read 5-6 times you would easily be able to post it, but it was never there and now you are just embarrassing yourself. Why would you lie about such a thing that is so easily disproven? :rollin


wrong again

here is what would happen

someone posts a truth :

”water is wet”

you : “thats not true - water is not wet”

so go fuck yourself

or read the mueller report when you really give a shit about truth

pizzagate moron

[TSA]

wrong again

here is what would happen

someone posts a truth :

”water is wet”

you : “thats not true - water is not wet”

so go fuck yourself

or read the mueller report when you really give a shit about truth

pizzagate moron

Except you never posted a truth, you just made up a lie.

[TSA]

yep. next, to be determined if the court of appeals will even agree to take up the writ... and then how they would rule

the law seems pretty clear that sullivan has some discretion, though. i dont know if this amounts to an abuse of discretionhttps://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Briefing-Room/News-Releases/Appeals/Flynn-States-Amicus.aspx

"Fifteen Republican state attorneys general on Monday told a federal judge they support the Trump administration dismissing former national security adviser Michael Flynn's criminal charge and warned the judge of overstepping his authority."

"The AGs' brief on Monday was signed by top prosecutors from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost is the lead writer on the filing.
The Republican Attorneys General Association announced its submission of the filing on Monday, but it had not appeared as a filing in federal court. So far, Sullivan has only let Gleeson wade into the Justice Department case against Flynn.

In the filing, the attorneys general say they and the Justice Department have all the power to charge crimes.
"Judges have no share of the executive power, and thus no say in the decision whether to prosecute," the Republican state-level prosecutors wrote. "It has become trendy in recent years for courts to weigh in on the wisdom of this administration's policy decisions. Too often, that commentary comes in grandiose terms more appropriate for an op-ed than a judicial opinion. ... This trend is disastrous for the Judiciary, because it erodes public confidence in the courts' ability to serve as neutral arbiters in politically sensitive cases."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/18/politics/republican-ags-michael-flynn-judge/index.html

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1262833632596627459?s=19

#Obamagate

[spurraider21]

https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Briefing-Room/News-Releases/Appeals/Flynn-States-Amicus.aspx

"Fifteen Republican state attorneys general on Monday told a federal judge they support the Trump administration dismissing former national security adviser Michael Flynn's criminal charge and warned the judge of overstepping his authority."

"The AGs' brief on Monday was signed by top prosecutors from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost is the lead writer on the filing.
The Republican Attorneys General Association announced its submission of the filing on Monday, but it had not appeared as a filing in federal court. So far, Sullivan has only let Gleeson wade into the Justice Department case against Flynn.

In the filing, the attorneys general say they and the Justice Department have all the power to charge crimes.
"Judges have no share of the executive power, and thus no say in the decision whether to prosecute," the Republican state-level prosecutors wrote. "It has become trendy in recent years for courts to weigh in on the wisdom of this administration's policy decisions. Too often, that commentary comes in grandiose terms more appropriate for an op-ed than a judicial opinion. ... This trend is disastrous for the Judiciary, because it erodes public confidence in the courts' ability to serve as neutral arbiters in politically sensitive cases."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/18/politics/republican-ags-michael-flynn-judge/index.html
yeah. its politics, not law.

i think sullivan smells that, which is why he's having argument heard anyway, instead of just granting the prosecution's motion

[ChumpDumper]

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1262833632596627459?s=19

#Obamagate
1262829811866746887
:rollin Qhris

[Reck]

1262829811866746887
:rollin Qhris

I would say neat backfire here by team Trump but that's under playing their high incompetence.

This is Nunes memos all over again.

[ChumpDumper]

I would say neat backfire here by team Trump but that's under playing their high incompetence.

This is Nunes memos all over again.:lol We asked the FBI director if we shouldn't trust that lying shitpile we fired because we didn't trust him and the same shitpile we told Trump to not trust.

[Spurs Homer]

Its nothing less than amazing how hard trump cultists clutch their pearls

over absolutely nothing. Time and time again.

Never can they grasp the simple truth: trump team sold out the us to russia and then tried to cover it up when they got caught.


its just that simple and all the twisting and mental gymnastics and propaganda and misinformation

can only lead to the same conclusion: trump team are disgraceful unpatriotic traitors.

[TSA]

I would say neat backfire here by team Trump but that's under playing their high incompetence.

This is Nunes memos all over again.

Tell me more about the Nunes memo.