Reply With Quote
What do you say his story is, TSA?
"General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the cir stances permit," Mr Kelner said
What do you say his story is, TSA?
Can't wait.Flynn is scheduled in court this Friday for sentencing.
Pavlov: "Why would Flynn have to refuse to cooperate if Trump did nothing wrong?"
Flynn cooperated and got slapped with a perjury charge and threats to his family. Do you understand how that doesn't make any sense?
Flynn could-- he agreed to delay the sentencing twice.
If he didn't lie and his son did no wrong, why admit to lying?
He clearly stated there were no threats in his statement of offense.
Why did he lie again?
The WSJ reported he wanted full immunity to give testimony in March 2017.
Why ask for that if he did nothing wrong and doesn't want to cooperate?
Chris, if he's not cooperating (He is) he wouldn't be allowed to walk the street free. See Manafort.
Let's imagine lying to the FBI is all Mueller has on Flynn, well then that's not enough to make one flip and he would make Flynn serve that sentence, however small in an actual jail.
Your opinion article is trash.
"This case is a reminder that ultimately, our system of checks and balances and limitations on each branch’s powers, although exquisitely designed, ultimately works only if people of virtue, sensitivity, and courage, not affected by the winds of public opinion, choose to work within the confines of the law. Let us hope that the people in charge of this prosecution, including the Special Counsel and the Assistant Attorney General, are such people. Although this case will continue, those involved should be sensitive to the danger unleashed when political disagreements are transformed into partisan prosecutions."
Yes, the Republican Special Counsel appointed by the Republican DAG appointed by the Republican POTUS is obviously working for the Democrats.
lol
'I don't see what relation this indictment has with what the special counsel is authorized to investigate,' the judge says.all that and then..."There’s no mention in the indictment of any Russian individuals or any Russian bank or any payment to Manafort by the Russians,” the judge noted.
“Our investigative scope covers the activities that led to this case,” Dreeben said at one point.
“It covers bank fraud in 2005 and 2007?” Ellis replied incredulously.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...rt-case-568935
to summarize:
You missed one
... judge who doesn't like mueller begrudgingly applies the law but wants you to know he's not happy about it!
what's next TSA, are you going to try to pass sotomayor's dissenting opinion on the travel ban case as law?
also, the parties have to give an update on Flynn's sentencing by no later than this Friday
You never explained how this Manfort's prosecution is partisan.
Good old Judge Ellis took his time.
drafted a 31 page ruling
lol had his clerks try like to find a way to rule against Mueller.
his ruling has a lot of complaining about the special counsel and that whole process... he talks about how he thinks the russia investigation should have been handled, etc
though he ultimately says it's legal. and that's really his role here.
Yeah, getting all salty can't hurt his chances for advancement at this point.
Ellis is always hard on the prosecutors from what I have read.
Ya don't say.
Alas, figuring that he was playing with the house money, Mueller made a reckless bet: He charged not only Russian individuals but three Russian businesses. A business doesn’t have the same risks as a person. A business can’t be thrown in jail. And while members of Mueller’s prosecutorial stable have a history of putting real businesses out of business, a business that is run by a Putin crony and serves as a front for Kremlin operations is not too worried about that either.
So . . . guess what? One of those Russian businesses, Concord Management and Consulting, wants its day in court. It has retained the Washington law firm of Reed Smith, two of whose partners, Eric Dubelier and Katherine Seikaly, have told Mueller that Concord is ready to have its trial — and by the way, let’s see all the discovery the law requires you to disclose, including all the evidence you say supports the extravagant allegations in the indictment.
Needless to say, Mueller’s team is not happy about this development since this is not a case they figured on having to prosecute to anything more than a successful press conference. So, they have sought delay on the astonishing ground that the defendant has not been properly served — notwithstanding that the defendant has shown up in court and asked to be arraigned.
Understand, service of process is simply the means by which a party seeks what Mueller has already got: the opposing party’s appearance in the lawsuit. But Mueller’s argument is so priceless we can’t let it go unstated: In order to serve the defendants in a criminal case in which Mueller alleges that Russia is an adversary government that conducted espionage operations against the American election, the Justice Department sought the assistance of . . . yes . . . the government of Russia. I know you’ll be shocked to hear this, but DOJ says Russia never got back to them.
Something tells me that Concord’s appearance in court is Russia’s way of getting back to them.
The federal court in the District of Columbia has scheduled Concord’s arraignment for Wednesday, so Mueller filed his papers late last Friday to try to get the matter postponed. But, as Politico’s Josh Gerstein reports, on Saturday evening, Judge Dabney Friedrich curtly denied Mueller’s request. Mueller’s prosecutors had suggested that weeks of briefing were necessary to probe the question of whether Concord had been served properly. As Concord has voluntarily appeared, however, it is not apparent why that question needs examination — if he wants to stand on ceremony, Mueller could just hand the lawyers a copy of the indictment when they see each other in court this week.
In fact, though, Concord’s lawyers have been scrutinizing the indictment very carefully, and making demands for discovery that they say Mueller has ignored for weeks. To put it mildly, this is not a case the special counsel is anxious to try; he is even less thrilled at the prospect of disclosing his evidence and investigative files to a business controlled by Yevgeny Prigozhin. Apart from being close to Putin, Prigozhin is personally charged as a defendant in the case — he controls not just Concord but all three businesses charged in the indictment.
By indicting Russian businesses that belong to a Kremlin-connected defendant who cannot be forced to leave Russia, Mueller risked exactly what has happened: one of the businesses showing up to contest the case at no risk, in effect forcing Mueller to show this Kremlin-connected defendant what he’s got, even though he has no chance of getting the Kremlin-connected defendant convicted and sentenced to prison.
The surest way to put an end to this unwelcome turn of events would be to dismiss the indictment — or at least drop the charges against the three businesses so Prigozhin and the Kremlin can’t use them to force Mueller’s hand. Of course, that would be very embarrassing. But as all prosecutors are taught from their first day on the job: Never indict a case unless you are prepared to try the case.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...ourt-manafort/
may 7
here's a more recent update on the concord case
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/polit...ler/index.html
Last edited by spurraider21; 06-27-2018 at 01:43 PM.
There are currently 14 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 14 guests)
Posting Permissions
