Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[Winehole23]

^^^reading the tea leaves and ridiculing nay sayers

[TSA]

^^^reading the tea leaves and ridiculing nay sayers

go e the football on another FISA review you failed to understand

[Winehole23]

go e the football on another FISA review you failed to understand

^^^inhaling the Pythian vapors on the oracle's tripod

[ElNono]

Every single one of them besides McCabe was on the declassified list Grenell released of who unmasked Flynn. Rice already admitted she unmasked Trump aides. A single investigation I mentioned covers 4 of 5 I named.

If one were to investigate both the genesis and the conduct of intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign during 2016...who would be the target of said investigation? This is a really stupid series of questions coming from someone like you.

you're asking me to connect dots, so that's a non-answer. Basically, you agree you're just jumping to conclusions and guessing...

Why is it a stupid question? Because I'm pointing out the obvious, that some of these investigations have gone on for a while now, and there's been no indictments or mentions of those involved?

Furthermore, we've yet to hear the legal angle for this "unmasking"... what's the US Code violated here?

On the other hand, it takes no leap of faith at all to see how Papadapolous, Gates, Cohen, Manafort, Stone were all actually investigated, indicted, and some of them found guilty.

[ElNono]

Some context

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

As you might imagine, there was a good deal of back-and-forth on this, particularly between the judges and Jeffrey Wall, the acting solicitor general, who argued the case for the Justice Department. This discussion shifted from (a) hypotheticals about how little the government could theoretically get away with disclosing about its reasoning, to (b) how much it had actually disclosed in the Flynn case. Wall made it clear that, whatever might in the abstract be the base level of required disclosure, the Justice Department had gone well above it in Flynn’s case. Here, Judge Sullivan was given a submission arguing that the case should not have been brought in the first place; it posited a legal theory that there was no crime, supported by factual disclosures that were, in turn, backed up by witness statements and other evidence.

As the discussion between Wall and the judges unfolded, a question arose about whether the prosecutor is obliged to tell the court all of its reasons for dropping a case, or if it is sufficient to impart just enough information to satisfy the court that the dismissal is not sought for an improper purpose. (The Justice Department argues that the court’s inquiry into improper purpose is limited to ensuring that the defendant agrees with the dismissal.) In explaining why there is no requirement to tell the court everything the prosecutor knows, Wall pointed out that very often the prosecutor will be aware of information from the investigation that might inform the decision to dismiss but that, for a host of good reasons, should not be disclosed.

In this vein, Wall added, it was entirely possible that Attorney General Barr might be aware of non-public information from the Flynn investigation and related investigations that should not be publicized, and that there would be no need to reveal it because the court had already been given more than enough information to be satisfied that the dismissal motion was proper.

In context, Wall seemed to be speaking theoretically, not based on personal knowledge of the investigations and what the attorney general knows about them. That’s not just the way I heard it; the judges plainly heard it the same way because there was no follow-up. It was a point worthy of making, but not one that called for probing.

Wall was not saying that Barr was in possession of or had relied on “secret information” that is being withheld from Judge Sullivan. Nor was he saying Barr had no such information, as it would be normal to have it. In fact, Wall did not seem to have the Flynn case in mind at all. He was in the position of the Justice Department’s lawyer looking out for the ins utional interests of prosecutors. It is commonplace for prosecutors to be aware of non-public information that is not disclosed in relevant court proceedings — maybe it’s grand-jury material, maybe disclosure would compromise an informant, maybe revealing it would hurt investigators’ ability to conduct effective interviews of witnesses, etc.
2

None of this is similar. There are well-known rules of the road. Prosecutors must disclose exculpatory information. And there is a duty of candor toward the tribunal. If a prosecutor makes a statement that could be misleading if other information is not disclosed, then that information must be disclosed. If a judge asks a question, the prosecutor must either answer it or inform the judge that the government declines to answer it — the court must not be placed under a misimpression. But all that said, the prosecutor simply needs to show that his reasoning satisfied any legal requirement, not to disclose every fact that informed his reasoning.

All the acting solicitor general was saying is that there is no legal obligation to inform the court of everything the prosecutor knows. He was not signaling that there is some explosive secret information somehow bearing on the Flynn dismissal motion that has been withheld from Judge Sullivan.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ynn-dismissal/

lol Mccarthy, speculating on the speculation.

And he's wrong too. If there's exculpatory evidence, but it's privileged or classified, then they must still let the parties know, and the judge has a procedure called in-camera review where he/she can review such information in secret. Otherwise, if that information ever sees the day of light, via declassification, for example, it could end up in a mistrial.

[TSA]

you're asking me to connect dots, so that's a non-answer. Basically, you agree you're just jumping to conclusions and guessing...

Why is it a stupid question? Because I'm pointing out the obvious, that some of these investigations have gone on for a while now, and there's been no indictments or mentions of those involved?

Furthermore, we've yet to hear the legal angle for this "unmasking"... what's the US Code violated here?

On the other hand, it takes no leap of faith at all to see how Papadapolous, Gates, Cohen, Manafort, Stone were all actually investigated, indicted, and some of them found guilty.

You became accustomed to the leaking from Comey's FBI and Mueller's team. You aren't hearing anything now because these are properly run investigations.

[ChumpDumper]

[Spurs Homer]

Henchmen installed in high positions to cover up crimes are

”properly run investigations”

[TSA]

Henchmen installed in high positions to cover up crimes are

”properly run investigations”

Mueller already completed his investigation dip . What crimes are you claiming being covered up?

[ChumpDumper]

TSAnon gon jump back on the bandwagon soon

[Spurs Homer]

Mueller already completed his investigation dip . What crimes are you claiming being covered up?

mueller report still redacted/covered up

barrs investigations are basically russian cover ups- to steer the spotlight away from trumps treason

and onto the russian conspiracy theory that trump is somehow the victim


they dont even have to actually find any crimes (just like those ukraine investigations trump/putin tried to start)
they just have to muddy the water and give the appearance that the “deep state” was somehow the bad guys

again


covering up trumps treason

[TSA]

mueller report still redacted/covered up

barrs investigations are basically russian cover ups- to steer the spotlight away from trumps treason

and onto the russian conspiracy theory that trump is somehow the victim


they dont even have to actually find any crimes (just like those ukraine investigations trump/putin tried to start)
they just have to muddy the water and give the appearance that the “deep state” was somehow the bad guys

again


covering up trumps treason

I’ll ask you again, what crimes are being covered up?

[RandomGuy]

Mueller already completed his investigation dip . What crimes are you claiming being covered up?

Has Trump wished any other child sex predators well this week? Haven't bee paying attention and figured that concern about children being sexually abused as one of your few redeeming qualities.

[Spurs Homer]

I’ll ask you again, what crimes are being covered up?

The Mueller report

The FBI - 13 counter intel investigations that Mueller referred to the FBI during the Mueller report

The SDNY cohen/individual 1 crimes

Barr has done nothing but shield trump from any and all legal danger.

[ElNono]

You became accustomed to the leaking from Comey's FBI and Mueller's team. You aren't hearing anything now because these are properly run investigations.

Nope. All those guys got indicted, that's not a leak. Some of them got indicted before the investigation even concluded, because once you have evidence, you don't need to wait.

But, again, thanks for confirming that you were just jumping to conclusions, and guessing. Could have just answered "yes" and moved on.

[TSA]

The Mueller report

The FBI - 13 counter intel investigations that Mueller referred to the FBI during the Mueller report

The SDNY cohen/individual 1 crimes

Barr has done nothing but shield trump from any and all legal danger.

The Mueller report is complete and all crimes have been charged.

A counterintelligence investigation isn't a criminal investigation.

Cohen cases is over and charged.

Again, what crimes are being covered up?

[boutons_deux]

Trash/Pompeo probably got Israel + UAE to "do us a favor".

How much will geopolitical corruption cost US taxpayers?

I doubt this legit. General principle? don't believe anything mother ing Trash and his mafiya say or do

[TSA]

Nope. All those guys got indicted, that's not a leak. Some of them got indicted before the investigation even concluded, because once you have evidence, you don't need to wait.

But, again, thanks for confirming that you were just jumping to conclusions, and guessing. Could have just answered "yes" and moved on.

You specifically said there hasn't been any mention of those involved as if that means something. This investigation involves many more people at the highest levels of our intelligence agencies and is much more complex then determining something like Papadapolous lying about the date he met someone. You are getting leaks while it's still ongoing, sorry.

[ChumpDumper]

It's so complicated I don't even understand it and no one will care!

[ElNono]

You specifically said there hasn't been any mention of those involved as if that means something. This investigation involves many more people at the highest levels of our intelligence agencies and is much more complex then determining something like Papadapolous lying about the date he met someone. You are getting leaks while it's still ongoing, sorry.

I didn't say it meant anything, I asked you a direct question. Were you guessing that the people you mentioned were involved in any of these investigations. You clearly don't know, so you should just said "yes".

Plus you keep doubling down in making unfounded claims. You don't know who or what is being investigated to make any claims as being more or less complex than any other investigations. You're guessing again.

[TSA]

I didn't say it meant anything, I asked you a direct question. Were you guessing that the people you mentioned were involved in any of these investigations. You clearly don't know, so you should just said "yes".

Plus you keep doubling down in making unfounded claims. You don't know who or what is being investigated to make any claims as being more or less complex than any other investigations. You're guessing again.

It’s not a guess that the heads of the intelligence agencies who ran the ops are under investigation when Barr said Durham was investigating the genesis and the conduct of intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign during 2016.

And yes I can say with 100% certainty that Durham’s investigation is more complex than figuring out if Papadopolous lied about the date he met someone.

[TSA]

[ElNono]

It’s not a guess that the heads of the intelligence agencies who ran the ops are under investigation when Barr said Durham was investigating the genesis and the conduct of intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign during 2016.

of course it is a guess, you have no way of knowing that. You have shown zero proof so far how any of these agencies operate, or how these operations are conducted.

And yes I can say with 100% certainty that Durham’s investigation is more complex than figuring out if Papadopolous lied about the date he met someone.

Even if your guess is plausible, it's still a guess. You couldn't possible say that considering you haven't seen Durham’s investigation and Durham himself has not spoken about it. What you're saying is that you're 100% sure of your guess.

And it's not cir scribed to Papadopolous. You can't assert in any way, shape or form that Durham’s investigation is more complex than, say, Muller. Because you don't know anything at all about what it took to conduct either investigation.

In short, you don't know anything everybody else doesn't already know, which is not much at all.

[Chris]

[TSA]

Nice to see the first domino fall, now on to the bigger fish