Mueller dismisses top FBI agent in Russia probe for anti-Trump texts

7,761,211 Views | 49423 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by will25u
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Seems most people are having trouble with their feeds now. Lots of static and feed back.
policywonk98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TRM said:

I think it's Sullivan's line causing the feedback.

He needs to mute himself when attorneys are speaking.


That's what i was thinking
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
policywonk98 said:

TRM said:

I think it's Sullivan's line causing the feedback.

He needs to mute himself when attorneys are speaking.


That's what i was thinking
This one is still working I believe (have to hit 'skip to live'). Not sure who is speaking right now.

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1vAxRrBMoeZxl?t=35m14s
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sullivan going to recess for 30 minutes, reconnect at 12:35 ET. Powell says she'll hang on her feed because she has a number of objections she wants to make. She was polite of course but sounds loaded for bear.
EKUAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It crashed. Reconviening at 1235 EDT
policywonk98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
haha. Sidney jumps in.

If our connection is working properly can we stay connected?

My interpretation:

"You government lawyers are imbeciles".

aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This covid crap is just ridiculous. His courtroom is large enough where they can socially distance and conduct a coherent hearing. The transcript will be a mess. And that's the record when it goes back up on appeal (which I think will happen right now.)

Sullivan continued to ascribe the worst possible motives to Flynn, mischaracterized the January 2017 interview that the FBI agents Strzok and Pientka repeatedly tried to "refresh Flynn's memory" by reading back to him his words from the Kislyak transcript. That's not in the 302 of the interview, in fact there is no 302 of the interview that comports with FBI/DOJ proscribed procedure. It was a group effort with McCabe having the final say. And even after of that, they still haven't produced it.
VegasAg86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Sullivan going to recess for 30 minutes, reconnect at 12:35 ET. Powell says she'll hang on her feed because she has a number of objections she wants to make. She was polite of course but sounds loaded for bear.
She was on Levin Friday and said she wasn't sure what kind of record she needed to make, so she was going to cover everything - "Bring your popcorn."
policywonk98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
To me its just doubling and tripling down of the same no matter what.

They want to protect "the institutions" at all cost. If they admit that leaders of these institutions did bad things for bad reasons, people won't "trust" the government anymore.

This type of mindset makes a government this powerful, very very dangerous.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wait the court IT said they could still have problems even if they are just connected yet muted? He also admitted that their video platform they are using craps out more often than not.

Typical government incompetence. Still worried about having a complete and accurate record of this proceeding though. Doubly more so with that revelation.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Okay about to start take two.
Zemira
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Okay about to start take two.
thank you for the play by play and analysis
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Points, DC Circuit en banc decision is not supporting Sullivan's interpretation of it under separation of powers and the lack of an actual controversy between the parties.

Second point is the standard under rule 48(a), court has a role to play but the Executive Branch as whole
has so found not just and individual prosecutor has reached that decision.

Third can't second guess the Executive Branch's decision's, citing the Nixon case. Favoritism or corruption, the only two inquiries the court can make.

The feed is still dropping out on ocassion.

DOJ Cole, from SG's office now on saying there is no political motive underlying the MTD. There simply there isn't a case and that's why they wanted to dismiss.
pagerman @ work
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not to minimize any of the efforts to keep us updated, because I appreciate it very much, but isn't this all just kabuki theater?

I get the decided impression based on Sullivan's actions to this point that he is determined to sentence Flynn and the law be damned. He's going to do what he wants to do and doesn't give a sh/t what anyone or anything says.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Cole talking about the Barnett information and Jensen's investigation resulted in a decision that there was bad faith going after Flynn just to "get Trump." DOJ would always dismiss or refuse to bring charges in the first place.

Citing Comey saying he wasn't sure Flynn lied or not. DOJ doesn't throw things against the wall and hope they stick. At the end of the day they need witnesses to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. We can't call Peter Strzok. IG Horowitz has cast doubt upon his credibility. Citing the insurance policy text. Misled the FISA court regarding Carter Page. We can't call McCabe as a witness because he too is compromised by false statements.

Cole is roasting them all.
policywonk98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sullivan is attacking Sidney's letter?!

Sheesh. This guy is a piece of work.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sullivan is reading from one of "Flynn's counsel" he never uses her name letter to DOJ in June 2019. Sullivan is trying to make some point about Sidney having sent this letter before she was officially entered an appearance on Flynn's behalf.

The letter was filed with the court by Van Grack in October 2019.

Sullivan is asking about legal ethics and propriety of her sending the letter to Barr.
pagerman @ work
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Sullivan is reading from one of "Flynn's counsel" he never uses her name letter to DOJ in June 2019. Sullivan is trying to make some point about Sidney having sent this letter before she was officially entered an appearance on Flynn's behalf.

The letter was filed with the court by Van Grack in October 2019.

Sullivan is asking about legal ethics and propriety of her sending the letter to Barr.
So is he in effect performing the function of prosecutor by attacking the credibility of Flynn's lawyer?
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill
Secolobo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Oh boy. Alinsky is alive and well. going after sidney now.
Can I go to sleep Looch?
pacecar02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
amazing how Sullivan's ethics outlook only runs one way
Secolobo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
wow!
Can I go to sleep Looch?
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
policywonk98 said:

Sullivan is attacking Sidney's letter?!

Sheesh. This guy is a piece of work.
Defense attorneys speak to prosecutors all of the time. Just because her formal entry of appearance wasn't effective at the time doesn't mean crap.

Sidney on now, the only response she received was from Van Grack denying he had any more Brady material and no meetings with DOJ officials occurred.

Now Sullivan is asking about Sidney ever spoke with Trump. She said after the DOJ filed its MTD she spoke to WH counsel and the President.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sullivan is ranging far afield now attacking Sidney. He even alluded to possible bar action against her.
Aggie Jurist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Now Sullivan is asking about Sidney ever spoke with Trump. She said after the DOJ filed its MTD she spoke to WH counsel and the President.
I'm surprised she even answered that. None of the Court's business.
LGB
fasthorse05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
THANK YOU!

The first thing I thought of. Sullivan, to me, sounds like he's writing a piece for TMZ.
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's an irrelevant question, but good luck telling a federal judge that.
policywonk98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
She seemed caught off guard on the line of questioning about Trump. I'm no legal expert, but man it doesn't seem like she should have had any direct contact with the president even if only to tell him not to pardon Flynn.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sidney moves for Sullivan's recusal or disqualifying himself because of his animus towards Flynn. She's blasting Sullivan now.
Aggie Jurist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

It's an irrelevant question, but good luck telling a federal judge that.
I've refused to answer a judge about things done in my representation of my client. It's not that hard.
LGB
fasthorse05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bandit, it would be kinda neat for an attorney who's retiring to just say "kiss mine" to such a question.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
LOL, Sullivan really hates Powell. He's trying to rebutt her request now that he recuse himself. It's all personal to him, including why he chose the last possible date to have this hearing. "I didn't want it to appear that the court was doing anything prior to considering it's first opportunity to consider this case after remand." Your objection to a date...well, that's the reason for the court's delay, because I didn't want it to appear the court was doing anything during a period of time when jurisdiction hadn't returned to the court.

CLOWN SHOW
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggie Jurist said:

Quote:

It's an irrelevant question, but good luck telling a federal judge that.
I've refused to answer a judge about things done in my representation of my client. It's not that hard.


If they are privileged. That's not privileged.

Also, saying she wouldn't answer would be a tacit admission she did. Was in a no-win situation and didn't really hurt to admit it.

aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I realize that the attorneys are on video feed so they are visible to the court but I imagine there are some serious internal eye rolls happening now. Sullivan is so far out there in left field on politics, not a damn thing about the law at all.
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fasthorse05 said:

Bandit, it would be kinda neat for an attorney who's retiring to just say "kiss mine" to such a question.


It would be awesome.

My guess is she was caught off guard. And like I said, really doesn't matter. She's there to represent Flynn and fighting the judge on that would only hurt her client
First Page Last Page
Page 1255 of 1413
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.