Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[ElNono]

Non sequitur. He can rule in someone's favor and still dislike them but I never said he disliked either of these people. I said he wanted to with them, to create a rain delay.

What's a rain delay in judicial terms? He knew the government would ultimately appeal the decision if he ruled to deny the motion, so the steps here were fairly clear.

[angrydude]

That's the allegation DMC made. I was merely pointing out that if the Judge wanted to be anti-trump, he had plenty of opportunities to be, but did not.



It's not unheard of, there's actually case law, which was listed in all the motions to the circuit court you didn't read. Your ignorance is not an excuse.

There's also precedent for prosecutors who withhold exculpatory evidence to be disbarred, but I don't see you championing for that to happen here.

[ElNono]

There's also precedent for prosecutors who withhold exculpatory evidence to be disbarred, but I don't see you championing for that to happen here.

Why would I? The DOJ itself didn't even fire the prosecutor in this case, much less seeking any legal remedies. That's precisely what's really weird with this move.

[Spurtacular]

It's not unheard of, there's actually case law, which was listed in all the motions to the circuit court you didn't read. Your ignorance is not an excuse.

It was ass clownery either way.

Let's not do it cos someone give me reasons

[ElNono]

It was ass clownery either way.

Let's not do it cos someone give me reasons

So you really didn't read it, and still made the claim. No amount of emoticons is going to deflect from that fact.

[Spurtacular]

So you really didn't read it, and still made the claim. No amount of emoticons is going to deflect from that fact.

I haven't read anything new today. This is an old story. Judge was a total bag. FBI were bags. That's who you're sperm shielding for.

[ChumpDumper]

I haven't read anything

[Spurtacular]

Cherp with more nothing w's.

[TSA]

It certainly didn't seem to be new to the DOJ, to the point that the DOJ's own prosecutor had to convince the court previously that the investigation was material (something the Flynn defense had challenged), and I believe as recently as last January of this year, the court concluded that the prosecution was correct in it's assesment. It only became an issue once Barr enlisted a third party to second-guess his own lead prosecutor in the case. There is a problem with the government itself making the claim because they're the one suspect, which is what the Judge had an issue with (and thus the request for an amicus). That case went on for years, only for the DOJ to suddenly turn around and on their own prosecutors, which is extremely rare, especially at this juncture. Again, the case was already won, we were on the sentencing phase here. Flynn certainly had a chance to re-try the case on appeals, including removing his guilty plea, challenging any Brady materials, etc.

I also still don't know what happened with the lying to the DOJ re:Turkey charges. I believe (I could be wrong) they were included in his plea deal, and had nothing to do with the FBI investigation, at least that's what the Sullivan filing implied. I suppose the DOJ felt they suddenly couldn't prove that either?

Like I said a few pages back, you never know how the district court will rule, but I also find it interesting they thought there would be harm to the executive in this case. I would've thought they would rule for harm to Flynn in having to continue the defend himself, but without an actual ruling on the motion from the lower court, I don't believe there's a precedent for granting the writ in those cir stances (IIRC, the dissenting judge said the same), and the precedent that sets.

Ultimately, my concern isn't with this case particularly. I felt that Flynn was going to be pardoned regardless, and for all the claims of "FBI corruption", nobody from the FBI was actually indicted of such behavior, so that's a very flimsy claim by itself.

My concern is the precedent this sets when a corrupt DOJ official (regardless of the party) moves to dismiss a case they already won based on flimsy excuses. But I suppose, as sr21, that might not be the role of the judiciary, and should be the role of impeachment proceedings instead.

It was new evidence uncovered by Jensen. The lead prosecutor was sitting on and hiding evidence from Flynn and the court. Not sure why this is so hard for you to grasp.

[ElNono]

It was new evidence uncovered by Jensen. The lead prosecutor was sitting on and hiding evidence from Flynn and the court. Not sure why this is so hard for you to grasp.

Which is exactly what I said, after all, the lead prosecutor was working for the DOJ, was he not? And Jensen was the third party hired by Barr specifically to undermine that same lead prosecutor (who won the case, BTW).

Was this lead prosecutor fired? reprimanded? Oh wait, no, 9 days ago the DOJ sent a court filing defending him (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...artment-326240) and unequivocally stating there was no wrongdoing.

[TSA]

Which is exactly what I said, after all, the lead prosecutor was working for the DOJ, was he not? And Jensen was the third party hired by Barr specifically to undermine that same lead prosecutor (who won the case, BTW).

Was this lead prosecutor fired? reprimanded? Oh wait, no, 9 days ago the DOJ sent a court filing defending him (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...artment-326240) and unequivocally stating there was no wrongdoing.

No, it's not exactly what you said.

It's really not complicated, the DOJ always had access to the same evidence and concluded it was material not 6 months ago. This evidence might be 'new' to the judge and/or defense, but it wasn't to the DOJ.

There was clearly a convenient change of opinion/hearth at the DOJ here, nothing else. It's undeniably weird considering this case was already won.

And no, they didn't unequivocally state there was no wrong doing.

"While the Justice Department submission indicates that the Flynn legal team’s numerous accusations of misconduct against Van Grack and other prosecutors are unwarranted, the filing gives no similar pass to the FBI. Indeed, the government’s brief is replete with suggestions of impropriety on the part of various senior FBI officials and agents." https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...artment-326240

[ElNono]

No, it's not exactly what you said.

Yes it is. I said this evidence was apparently not new to the DOJ. You just said the DOJ prosecutor was sitting on it. So yeah, it's exactly what I said.

And no, they didn't unequivocally state there was no wrong doing.

"While the Justice Department submission indicates that the Flynn legal team’s numerous accusations of misconduct against Van Grack and other prosecutors are unwarranted, the filing gives no similar pass to the FBI. Indeed, the government’s brief is replete with suggestions of impropriety on the part of various senior FBI officials and agents." https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...artment-326240

From the prosecutors? What do you think the bolded says?. You accused the DOJ lead prosecutor of wrongdoing, yet the DOJ doesn't agree with you. The DOJ 'suggestions of impropriety' from the FBI simply ring hollow considering they took no action whatsoever against those FBI officials and agents, which is why it's a flimsy excuse.

[TSA]

Yes it is. I said this evidence was apparently not new to the DOJ. You just said the DOJ prosecutor was sitting on it. So yeah, it's exactly what I said.

You keep repeating the evidence was not new and you keep getting it wrong.

"In its motion, the government explains that in light of newly discovered evidence of misconduct by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the prosecution can no longer prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any false statements made by Flynn were material to a legitimate investigation—an element the government contends is necessary under Section 1001. See United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509 (1995)."

From the prosecutors? What do you think the bolded says?. You accused the DOJ lead prosecutor of wrongdoing, yet the DOJ doesn't agree with you. The DOJ 'suggestions of impropriety' from the FBI simply ring hollow considering they took no action whatsoever against those FBI officials and agents, which is why it's a flimsy excuse.

I didn’t just accuse the lead prosecutor of wrongdoing I showed what wrongdoing took place. Feel free to dig up my posts in this thread on Van Grack lying to the court. And lol at “took no action”...there are multiple investigations being run by multiple US Attorneys into the actions of these FBI officials and agents. And Im sure you were one of the ones saying these investigations take time during the Mueller investigation.

[ElNono]

You keep repeating the evidence was not new and you keep getting it wrong.

"In its motion, the government explains that in light of newly discovered evidence of misconduct by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the prosecution can no longer prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any false statements made by Flynn were material to a legitimate investigation—an element the government contends is necessary under Section 1001. See United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509 (1995)."

You keep plastering the same quote I already addressed. See post #50778. You simply cannot claim this is new evidence AND that the lead prosecutor was sitting on it. The lead prosecutor always worked for the DOJ. So pick a lane.

I didn’t just accuse the lead prosecutor of wrongdoing I showed what wrongdoing took place. Feel free to dig up my posts in this thread on Van Grack lying to the court. And lol at “took no action”...there are multiple investigations being run by multiple US Attorneys into the actions of these FBI officials and agents. And Im sure you were one of the ones saying these investigations take time during the Mueller investigation.

So you agree Barr's own DOJ completely shat on any of your arguments about prosecutor wrongdoing with that filing?

And yes lol at took no action. Either you have evidence of wrongdoing and thus the reason to move to dismiss a case, or you do not. If you do, then there's nothing stopping the DOJ from indicting these people. Happened with the Mueller investigation too. As soon as they had evidence on Cohen, Stone, etc they filed the cases and got the bad actors indicted, even if the investigation didn't conclude. Same happened with Flynn.

[spurraider21]

https://thehill.com/policy/national-...motion-to-drop

[ElNono]

https://thehill.com/policy/national-...motion-to-drop

I think this is what TSA doesn't understand. The issue here is that due to the extraordinary nature of the DOJ move to close the case after it won it already, it's the DOJ that's suspect and cannot be taken at it's word.

[TSA]

You keep plastering the same quote I already addressed. See post #50778. You simply cannot claim this is new evidence AND that the lead prosecutor was sitting on it. The lead prosecutor always worked for the DOJ. So pick a lane.



So you agree Barr's own DOJ completely shat on any of your arguments about prosecutor wrongdoing with that filing?

And yes lol at took no action. Either you have evidence of wrongdoing and thus the reason to move to dismiss a case, or you do not. If you do, then there's nothing stopping the DOJ from indicting these people. Happened with the Mueller investigation too. As soon as they had evidence on Cohen, Stone, etc they filed the cases and got the bad actors indicted, even if the investigation didn't conclude. Same happened with Flynn.

So your claim is the DOJ already had the evidence of FBI misconduct?

[TSA]

I think this is what TSA doesn't understand. The issue here is that due to the extraordinary nature of the DOJ move to close the case after it won it already, it's the DOJ that's suspect and cannot be taken at it's word.

When the DOJ won the case did the DOJ know that the Flynn interview was tied to an FBI investigation that was not legally predicated? yes or no

[TSA]

https://thehill.com/policy/national-...motion-to-drop

https://www.redstate.com/shipwrecked.../05/11/834832/

McCord

[DMC]

You keep plastering the same quote I already addressed. See post #50778. You simply cannot claim this is new evidence AND that the lead prosecutor was sitting on it. The lead prosecutor always worked for the DOJ. So pick a lane.



So you agree Barr's own DOJ completely shat on any of your arguments about prosecutor wrongdoing with that filing?

And yes lol at took no action. Either you have evidence of wrongdoing and thus the reason to move to dismiss a case, or you do not. If you do, then there's nothing stopping the DOJ from indicting these people. Happened with the Mueller investigation too. As soon as they had evidence on Cohen, Stone, etc they filed the cases and got the bad actors indicted, even if the investigation didn't conclude. Same happened with Flynn.

Technically it wasn't evidence if it wasn't presented to the court. No evidence is new if you use the concept of it existed already.

[ElNono]

So your claim is the DOJ already had the evidence of FBI misconduct?

There's no proven FBI misconduct so far, that's merely an allegation. I do think when they had to prove materiality to the judge, they did have to review that evidence, and the judge (a third party) concluded it was material.

When the DOJ won the case did the DOJ know that the Flynn interview was tied to an FBI investigation that was not legally predicated? yes or no

The DOJ knew it's case throughout. You don't prosecute a case for 2 years and don't know the details of it. According to the same DOJ, this year, it was legally predicated.

So, again, it's the DOJ that suddenly changed tune here, not the judge or the FBI, and the motion wasn't even presented by the lead prosecutor who has been handling the case.

Which is why the move is extraordinary in itself, and the judge correctly interpreted it as something exceptionally fishy.

[ElNono]

Technically it wasn't evidence if it wasn't presented to the court. No evidence is new if you use the concept of it existed already.

We're talking whether the DOJ had that evidence (and was sitting on it, according to TSA) at any point while the case was ongoing. We already established neither the court or the defense had it.

[ElNono]

The problem here is that the lead prosecutor (who the DOJ itself claims did nothing wrong) disagrees with the DOJ as far as the legality of the interview, and thus the motion to dismiss.

See how this is all a DOJ problem?

[TSA]

There's no proven FBI misconduct so far, that's merely an allegation. I do think when they had to prove materiality to the judge, they did have to review that evidence, and the judge (a third party) concluded it was material.



The DOJ knew it's case throughout. You don't prosecute a case for 2 years and don't know the details of it. According to the same DOJ, this year, it was legally predicated.

So, again, it's the DOJ that suddenly changed tune here, not the judge or the FBI, and the motion wasn't even presented by the lead prosecutor who has been handling the case.

Which is why the move is extraordinary in itself, and the judge correctly interpreted it as something exceptionally fishy.

Again, you’re wrong. That evidence wasn’t presented when Sullivan ruled on materiality. And the DOJ did prosecute the case for 2 years and didn’t know the details of it as they admitted in their motion to dismiss.

[ElNono]

Again, you’re wrong. That evidence wasn’t presented when Sullivan ruled on materiality. And the DOJ did prosecute the case for 2 years and didn’t know the details of it as they admitted in their motion to dismiss.

So the lead prosecutor didn't "sit" on it?