Reply With Quote
I know?
Hes supposedly a really nice liar who did not even tell Trump he was a registered foreign agent helping Turkey.
No one made him lie.
He's a security risk and there is no way in he should've been National Security Adviser for the United States of America.
Don't know why you're so invested in being his apologist.
I know?
Hes supposedly a really nice liar who did not even tell Trump he was a registered foreign agent helping Turkey.
2000 pages lawdy where is djohn??
He was a national security risk? Based on what?
You don’t know?
Sullivan said it himself.
Under Rule 11, before Judge Sullivan could “enter judgment” on Gen. Flynn, he needed to determine that there was a factual basis — as to EACH element of the charged offense.
Here’s the part where he screwed up.
He didn’t do that — which he confirmed with his own comments, not once, but twice.
"P. 19
Mr. Flynn admitted that his false statements or omissions impeded and had a material impact on the investigation, and when I ask questions of the government, I need to know answers about how he impeded the investigation and what the material impact on the investigation was."
Judge Sullivan states in open court and on the record he still does not know how the false statements were material. Without knowing that, he can’t determine if there actually is a factual basis for Gen. Flynn’s guilty plea because Judge Sullivan MUST KNOW that factual basis BEFORE he can adjudge Gen. Flynn to be guilty of the offense to which he is pleading guilty.
But Judge Sullivan didn’t just say he didn’t know if the statements were material one time — he came back to it at the end of the hearing and confirmed a second time that he didn’t know if Gen. Flynn’s statements were material.
"P. 50
THE COURT: Let me just throw this out. Let me just share this with you. What I could do, and maybe it’s not appropriate to do it now, and maybe it’s not appropriate to do it in March. At some point — it probably won’t surprise you that I had many, many, many more questions, and at some point what I may do is share those questions with counsel so you can give some thought, maybe do some additional research to be prepared for an eventual sentencing. I’m not sure if I want to do that. I was not going to spend another hour and share those questions with you in open court today, had you decided to postpone sentencing, but I may do that. I’m not sure. These are questions that you would be prepared to answer anyway, such as, you know, how the government’s investigation was impeded? What was the material impact of the criminality? Things like that.
So, when discussing what might take place at the next hearing, Judge Sullivan reaffirms that he still needs to hear from both sides why Gen. Flynn’s statements were “material.”
Judge Sullivan entered judgment on a guilty plea without first finding that a factual basis existed. That violated the requirements of Rule 11, and makes the guilty plea unsound.
Judge Sullivan now says this is not over.
Based on his lying to the investigators and administration about his foreign contacts.
It’s unfortunate the lead prosecutor lied to the judge and hid evidence from the defense, I too wanted to see Sullivan rule on the case.
Fitting we are on page 2000 and that broke welshing got still owes me $20002000 pages lawdy where is djohn??
he said one thing to the russians
he said something different (about the same conversation) to pence
pence publicly revealed what fynn said - which was not what flynn told the russians
the russians knew flynn lied to his own boss and they now knew they could blackmail flynn or expose his lies
the fbi listened to the conversation because they always listen to the russian spies and the russians listen to our calls
sally yates did her duty and reported it to the white house- thinking it might be an honest administration
in a clean - non- criminal white house - flynn would have been immediately fired and yates would get a thank you
in a corrupt - russian compromised trump white house
they kept flynn for three weeks - until the wapo or ny times exposed the truth
then the lies/cover up began
and here we are
Did you completely miss what Jensen uncovered?
he's going to allow amicus briefs... interesting
Lost in all this is the recent revelation from Crowdstrike testimony that they never had proof Russia exfiltrated any emails. No one even attempted to touch that one
does that mean? Allowing a third party to do what what the DOJ refused to do?
Asked by the head of the committee, Adam Schiff, when the emails from the DNC were exfiltrated, Henry replied: "We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated."Lost in all this is the recent revelation from Crowdstrike testimony that they never had proof Russia exfiltrated any emails. No one even attempted to touch that one
And in response to another query, Henry said: "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."
https://www.itwire.com/security/crow...nc-emails.html
Sounds reasonable.
What's your theory?
Also unfortunate the FBI never had a properly predicated investigation going when they went around WH/DOJ protocol and Comey sent two agents in to “interview”Flynn after persuading him WH counsel was not needed and the proceeded to not write up a 302 in five days as is required but then only completed the 302 3 weeks later and one of the agents edited so much he was worried about keeping the same voice of the agent who actually wrote it, and sent it to a DOJ lawyer who was never in the room for the interview and shouldn’t ever touch it to edit further.
Flynn shouldn't have lied.
King Sp
amicus briefs are more common in high profile supreme court cases... basically when outside parties can chime in and give arguments before a ruling is made
you just
flat out lie
make up
and you are always 100% wrong
just like pizzagate
ing liar - just like your heroes
Yeah, what's wrong with it? These are a number of agents that have evidence in their possession and the person they're interviewing doesn't know about it. You don't think they're going to prepare for the interview?
We should, however, point out that this is a fairly exceptional cir stance, both for criminal cases and in this particular situation.
While it's true that the DOJ move was also exceptional, I don't recall a similar motion.
Not Van Grack's fault that Sullivan isn't ruling on the case, tbh... nor on the merits on the DOJ's allegations.
From the same group that wants porous borders
From the same group that wants porous borders
You can't talk about any actual topic anymore. We broke you.
^hive mind
You can't talk about any actual topic anymore. We broke you.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions