botlike behavior running overtime tonight
Only thing botlike is you cynical snarks and:
"lol <insert source here>" posts
you're the only one who's had an account suspended for bot-like behavior
you're the only one who's had an account suspended for bot-like behaviorQhrisbot
just look at your activity here today, chrisbot. how many tweets have you shared with nary a comment?
I know its tough to digest the news when it's not an editorial or a comedy sketch on TV.
Try to keep up, or continue with your cynical snarks. It makes nary a difference to me.
I know its tough to digest the news when it's in more than 280 character bites, chrisbot
BOOM?
Honestly, since you shut the up about it I don't know what you pretend is going to come of this.
Here’s What Could Actually Be Going on with Michael Flynn’s Legal Team Shake-Up
Fired Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn has officially hired former Texas prosecutor and federal appellate lawyer Sidney Powell, who has gone on the record in the past to say that
the “entire Russia collusion narrative was made up.”
Powell also criticized one of then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller‘s prosecutors, Andrew Weissmann, for “wrecking lives with his prosecutorial terrorist tactics.”
All of this raises this question: What is Powell’s hire for?
While some have speculated that Powell’s representation of Flynn signaled that he will be withdrawing his guilty plea,
Powell seemed to quash that when she said the following in a Wednesday statement:
“He is and will continue to cooperate with the government in all aspects.”
He is going to continue to cooperate with the government, pursuant to his plea agreement,”
Flynn “can’t both continue to cooperate and also withdraw his plea because that would violate the plea agreement,”
so that seems to suggest this lawyer change has to do with something else.
“likely rationale for this change in lawyers is twofold: reducing Flynn’s ongoing legal fees and
bringing on a more obvious Trump proponent to push for a pardon.”
“Unless Flynn is legitimately worried about serious prison time being imposed,
it does not make much financial sense for him to be contemplating an expensive appeal like that,”
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile...team-shake-up/
Trash has pardoned not-yet-convicted murderers, aka FF's "origin intent", so why pardon a simple, confessed liar to the FBI about NatSec questions?
Texas Repug? she's a bag.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-12-2019 at 04:41 PM.
I wouldnn't know. That would require you actually being correct about something, pizza-boychik. What does it feel like to get on daily by someone who did?
Explain how Trump isn't guilty of multiple felonies. All three elements of felony obstruction are right there, multiple times.Can you imagine RandomGuy pouring over 400 pages of legalese and bull hoping to find something on Trump?
FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”
Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”
Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”
SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”
Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”
Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”
THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.
Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.
Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.
FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort
Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”
Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”
Are multiple counts of obstruction of justice impeachable?
“In a run of the mill federal case, a change in lawyers this late would signal an attempt to withdraw a plea,” he said.
Law&Crime also asked Moss if the Powell hire was made in anticipation of an inevitable appeal, given her extensive experience in this area of the law.
He said that there “certainly is that possibility,” but it doesn’t make financial sense.
—————————
I want this to happen just to be able to give spurraider21 for the rest of his existence on this board
So if Flynn withdraws his initial guilty plea, doesn't he face several perjury charges for all those court appearances?
a) flynn is free to withdraw his guilty plea at any time. it would just invalidate his plea agreement and then he'd face trial and would not get the light sentencing that has been agreed to. i never denied his legal right to withdraw his plea“In a run of the mill federal case, a change in lawyers this late would signal an attempt to withdraw a plea,” he said.
Law&Crime also asked Moss if the Powell hire was made in anticipation of an inevitable appeal, given her extensive experience in this area of the law.
He said that there “certainly is that possibility,” but it doesn’t make financial sense.
—————————
I want this to happen just to be able to give spurraider21 for the rest of his existence on this board
b) i mostly shat on you because you were parading around judge sullivan's "brady order" as evidence that is going down, and that exonerating evidence was withheld, etc etc
and c)
While some have speculated that Powell’s representation of Flynn signaled that he will be withdrawing his guilty plea, Powell seemed to quash that when she said the following in a Wednesday statement: “He is and will continue to cooperate with the government in all aspects.”
“I’m honored to be representing General Flynn, who I’ve long considered an American hero. The General and his family want to thank everyone across the country for their cards and contributions to his legal defense fund. He is going to continue to cooperate with the government, pursuant to his plea agreement,” Powell told Hill.TV.
Sidney Powell Day 1a) flynn is free to withdraw his guilty plea at any time. it would just invalidate his plea agreement and then he'd face trial and would not get the light sentencing that has been agreed to. i never denied his legal right to withdraw his plea
b) i mostly shat on you because you were parading around judge sullivan's "brady order" as evidence that is going down, and that exonerating evidence was withheld, etc etc
and c)
While some have speculated that Powell’s representation of Flynn signaled that he will be withdrawing his guilty plea, Powell seemed to quash that when she said the following in a Wednesday statement: “He is and will continue to cooperate with the government in all aspects.”
“I’m honored to be representing General Flynn, who I’ve long considered an American hero. The General and his family want to thank everyone across the country for their cards and contributions to his legal defense fund. He is going to continue to cooperate with the government, pursuant to his plea agreement,” Powell told Hill.TV.
There are currently 12 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 12 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote