Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[TSA]

except it doesn't raise any ing questions

a) "the order is entered regardless of the posture of the case when it is assigned to the court"

b)

Could this provide General Flynn with factual grounds of which he was previously unaware to seek to have his plea vacated?
Would he have a viable legal basis to undo the plea agreement that he and his lawyer signed on November 30?

[spurraider21]

you rely on horse analysis from hackjobs like mccarthy and grocery store managers

[spurraider21]

Could this provide General Flynn with factual grounds of which he was previously unaware to seek to have his plea vacated?
Would he have a viable legal basis to undo the plea agreement that he and his lawyer signed on November 30?

No one said it proved the withdrawal was still in play but you.

pick a lane. are you saying this order does put plea withdrawal in play or are you saying it doesn't.

[TSA]

you rely on horse analysis from hackjobs like mccarthy and grocery store managers

Could this provide General Flynn with factual grounds of which he was previously unaware to seek to have his plea vacated?
Would he have a viable legal basis to undo the plea agreement that he and his lawyer signed on November 30?

[TSA]

pick a lane. are you saying this order does put plea withdrawal in play or are you saying it doesn't.

I'm not claiming to know the answer. Can you answer both questions knowing you are 100% correct?

[clambake]

Could this provide General Flynn with factual grounds of which he was previously unaware to seek to have his plea vacated?
Would he have a viable legal basis to undo the plea agreement that he and his lawyer signed on November 30?

where did you lift that one?

[spurraider21]

I'm not claiming to know the answer.

yes, these all sound like somebody who doesn't know the answer

Not only did Flynn not commit treason but there is also a chance he gets cleared. First time I've heard Judge Sullivan filed an order directing Mueller to provide Flynn with any evidence in the special counsel’s possession that is favorable to Flynn.

You have some catching up to do. Mueller agreed to have the court provide all evidence used against him. His previous plea with the judge who was recused May now be void.

Not in the clear yet but looks to be getting closer day by day.

==============

General Flynn Should WITHDRAW His Guilty Plea. His New Judge Is A Government Misconduct Expert

lol

Can you answer both questions knowing you are 100% correct?

here's what i can say knowing that i am 100% correct

a) that judge sullivan's order doesn't move the needle at all, and all your pimping to the contrary is either ignorant or dishonest. i'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt if you own up to it now.

b) to date, the only basis for your 302 theory is mike. ing. cernovich. fellow pizzagate nutjob conspiracy theorist who blamed antifa for sutherland springs.

edit: sarah carter is pimping that too

[TSA]

yes, these all sound like somebody who doesn't know the answer







lol

chance he gets cleared.
may now be void.

here's what i can say knowing that i am 100% correct

a) that judge sullivan's order doesn't move the needle at all, and all your pimping to the contrary is either ignorant or dishonest. i'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt if you own up to it now.

b) to date, the only basis for your 302 theory is mike. ing. cernovich. fellow pizzagate nutjob conspiracy theorist who blamed antifa for sutherland springs.

edit: sarah carter is pimping that too

Can you answer the 2 questions knowing you are 100% correct yes or no?

What changed in the 9 months after Comey said the agents who interviewed Flynn did not think he lied to them?

[spurraider21]

chance he gets cleared.
may now be void.

you posted an article led: GENERAL FLYNN SHOULD WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA

Can you answer the 2 questions knowing you are 100% correct yes or no?

your two questions are moving the goalposts. the point i made today was specifically about sullivan's order, and dispelling the myth that somehow his order was connected to some avenue for a plea withdrawal

What changed in the 9 months after Comey said the agents who interviewed Flynn did not think he lied to them?

i have no clue what happened ever since some anonymous sources revealed what comey allegedly said. when there is no other information available, anonymous sources are the best we have, particularly when cited to by generally reliable publications. but there's plenty on the record about this. even your boy POTUS seems to be aware that flynn lied

and here's the big catch. if flynn didn't lie, why did he plead guilty to lying?

[Spurminator]

Brilliant move by Trump.

[Chris]

and here's the big catch. if flynn didn't lie, why did he plead guilty to lying?

...because perjury traps are common. FBI was convinced he didn't lie or didn't mean to lie. Prosecution came after Mueller's prosecutors smelled blood in the water. This was all done to validate and perpetuate Russia collusion.

[TSA]

your two questions are moving the goalposts. the point i made today was specifically about sullivan's order, and dispelling the myth that somehow his order was connected to some avenue for a plea withdrawal

The two questions are completely relevant to Sullivan’s order and the fact that you can’t answer them with 100% certainty shows you have not dispelled the myth that Flynn may be able to withdraw his plea.

Could this provide General Flynn with factual grounds of which he was previously unaware to seek to have his plea vacated?
Would he have a viable legal basis to undo the plea agreement that he and his lawyer signed on November 30?

Can you answer the 2 questions knowing you are 100% correct yes or no?

[spurraider21]

...because perjury traps are common. FBI was convinced he didn't lie or didn't mean to lie. Prosecution came after Mueller's prosecutors smelled blood in the water. This was all done to validate and perpetuate Russia collusion.

flynn's conviction isn't really about collusion during the election process. its based on a meeting he took with kislyak after the election but prior to inauguration

[TSA]

flynn's conviction isn't really about collusion during the election process. its based on a meeting he took with kislyak after the election but prior to inauguration

Which conviction is about collusion during the election process?

[Pavlov]

Which conviction is about collusion during the election process?

[spurraider21]

The two questions are completely relevant to Sullivan’s order and the fact that you can’t answer them with 100% certainty shows you have not dispelled the myth that Flynn may be able to withdraw his plea.

my point in this entire conversation has been that sullivan's order does not move the needle and doesn't raise any red flags.

i proved in a previous post that

a) sullivan ALWAYS gives that order. in every case he has
b) it was pointed out that its fishy since the order came after the plea deal... but again, the court confirmed that they always give that order, regardless of where they are in the case
c) it was pointed out here that the revised order in february, with new footnotes, meant something must be up. but the court confirmed that they were just updating their standing order because they inadvertently used the older one

all that to show that Sullivan's order would not raise any red flags. this was the point i made a few pages ago when i rehashed this old topic. if you continue pushing this angle, you are being dishonest. wouldn't surprise me.

Could this provide General Flynn with factual grounds of which he was previously unaware to seek to have his plea vacated?
Would he have a viable legal basis to undo the plea agreement that he and his lawyer signed on November 30?

Can you answer the 2 questions knowing you are 100% correct yes or no?

if there was actual 302 tampering that would somehow exonerate flynn, then that would exonerate him regardless of sullivan's order. while obviously not the norm, people have convictions overturned while serving their sentences.

[TSA]

my point in this entire conversation has been that sullivan's order does not move the needle and doesn't raise any red flags.

i proved in a previous post that

a) sullivan ALWAYS gives that order. in every case he has
b) it was pointed out that its fishy since the order came after the plea deal... but again, the court confirmed that they always give that order, regardless of where they are in the case
c) it was pointed out here that the revised order in february, with new footnotes, meant something must be up. but the court confirmed that they were just updating their standing order because they inadvertently used the older one

all that to show that Sullivan's order would not raise any red flags. this was the point i made a few pages ago when i rehashed this old topic. if you continue pushing this angle, you are being dishonest. wouldn't surprise me.


if there was actual 302 tampering that would somehow exonerate flynn, then that would exonerate him regardless of sullivan's order. while obviously not the norm, people have convictions overturned while serving their sentences.

You aren’t dispelling any myths by avoiding the question.

Could this provide General Flynn with factual grounds of which he was previously unaware to seek to have his plea vacated?
Would he have a viable legal basis to undo the plea agreement that he and his lawyer signed on November 30?

Can you answer the 2 questions knowing you are 100% correct yes or no?

[spurraider21]

You aren’t dispelling any myths by avoiding the question.

your questions are moving the goalposts.

the myth i dispelled is that:

a) sullivan's act of issuing that order is indicative of the existence of exculpatory evidence

do you think this is true yes or no

b) issuing such an order after the plea deal is fishy and lends credibility to the theory that something is afoot

do you think this is true yes or no

c) revising the order effective february to add new case law/footnotes means that sullivan is really pressing on this, and it indicates that something is afoot

do you think this is true yes or no


If you answer no to all these questions, then yes, I dispelled that myth. If you answer yes to any of these questions, let me know how you've reached that conclusion.


You then brought up the fact that sentencing had been continued as a sign that something is afoot. It was demonstrated to you that there are very obvious reasons why you would not sentence a cooperating witness, and that papadopolous also had his sentencing similarly postponed. Unless you show something to the contrary, then that myth has been dispelled.


As to your two questions:

is it possible that some magic exculpatory evidence exists? Sure. That's possible for just about any conviction. People have convictions overturned not only after guilty pleas, but even after sentencing, or while serving their sentence.

but there isn't much to suggest that exculpatory evidence does exist. sullivan's orders aren't indicative of that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didnt give you an exact date because no one outside Hillarys inner circle knows the exact date. You knew that when you asked your stupid question.

If you honestly think she never knew then you are as gullible and stupid as fuzzy blumpkin.

Given what went on with her emails, you cannot believe that she would not know who the head of a subcontractor that the firm her campaign had contracted to do opposition research was?

I doubt you put much thought into it because you are essentially parroting Hannity talking points.

[CosmicCowboy]

Given what went on with her emails, you cannot believe that she would not know who the head of a subcontractor that the firm her campaign had contracted to do opposition research was?

I doubt you put much thought into it because you are essentially parroting Hannity talking points.

You watch Hannity? Funny. I don't. Guys almost a bigger tool than you are.

[CosmicCowboy]

Given what went on with her emails, you cannot believe that she would not know who the head of a subcontractor that the firm her campaign had contracted to do opposition research was?

I doubt you put much thought into it because you are essentially parroting Hannity talking points.

You watch Hannity? Funny. I don't. Guys almost a bigger tool than you are.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You watch Hannity? Funny. I don't. Guys almost a bigger tool than you are.

Then you really show a penchant for not thinking for yourself. You parrot his talking points. You are getting it from somewhere. Think about it, fattie.

[TSA]

your questions are moving the goalposts.

the myth i dispelled is that:

a) sullivan's act of issuing that order is indicative of the existence of exculpatory evidence

do you think this is true yes or no

b) issuing such an order after the plea deal is fishy and lends credibility to the theory that something is afoot

do you think this is true yes or no

c) revising the order effective february to add new case law/footnotes means that sullivan is really pressing on this, and it indicates that something is afoot

do you think this is true yes or no


If you answer no to all these questions, then yes, I dispelled that myth. If you answer yes to any of these questions, let me know how you've reached that conclusion.


You then brought up the fact that sentencing had been continued as a sign that something is afoot. It was demonstrated to you that there are very obvious reasons why you would not sentence a cooperating witness, and that papadopolous also had his sentencing similarly postponed. Unless you show something to the contrary, then that myth has been dispelled.


As to your two questions:

is it possible that some magic exculpatory evidence exists? Sure. That's possible for just about any conviction. People have convictions overturned not only after guilty pleas, but even after sentencing, or while serving their sentence.

but there isn't much to suggest that exculpatory evidence does exist. sullivan's orders aren't indicative of that

You need to re-read McCarthy’s article because his questions weren’t about finding exculpatory evidence to clear Flynn but about Flynn not having the same access to evidence under Contreras as he does under Sullivan

Because Sullivan’s orders came after Flynn plead guilty under Contreras...

Could this provide General Flynn with factual grounds of which he was previously unaware to seek to have his plea vacated?

Would he have a viable legal basis to undo the plea agreement that he and his lawyer signed on November 30?

[Chris]

After the IG report comes out we will know who has been working with Horowitz who has been cleared to investigate all areas including FISA abuse. Then we will see the first wave of arrests and subpoenas for agents who haven't resigned yet through Sessions or Rosenstein.

[djohn2oo8]

Hmm kinda falls in with the thread le. What a stupid er