Disagree. They have bled this man dry. He's hasn't been of use to Mueller for months.HTownAg98 said:
The evidence has nothing at all to do with the status report. The most likely reason is that Flynn is continuing to talk to the FBI as part of his plea agreement. Once he stops talking or is no longer useful to the special prosecutor, he will be sentenced.
Mueller dismisses top FBI agent in Russia probe for anti-Trump texts
7,547,779 Views |
49291 Replies |
Last: 3 hrs ago by fullback44
Other plausible reasons then please, because Flynn's plea isn't going away.
HTownAg98 said:
Other plausible reasons then please, because Flynn's plea isn't going away.
That when Mueller made the plea he didn't tell Flynn that Pete the Cheat had been reassigned and why he had been reassigned. If that is the case Mueller just showed he is complete bs partisan **** so I am hoping he did tell Flynn but he seems to be fighting the release of stuff.
Proof it's not going away?
Ass in crack for Mueller. He has Sullivan for a judge now, not Strzok's bestie, Contreras. Flynn's lawyers are happy to kick the sentencing down the road and sit back and watch as things unfold with the OIG report(s).HTownAg98 said:
Other plausible reasons then please, because Flynn's plea isn't going away.
The saying I was told by a very experienced criminal defense lawyer, "These things age, like a fine wine, for the defense. Let sleeping dogs lie."
ThunderCougarFalconBird
Joined:
Oct 10, 2006
Posts:
49,079
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
When Sullivan put his standing order for criminal cases on the docket, it gave Flynn some leverage. The real, ugly underbelly of the whole special prosecutor and the FISA spying fiasco are all unravelling like pulling a thread on a sweater.
So Flynn is in no rush and Muller is scrambling for cover. If I'm Flynn and I'm a vindictive mother****er (which, for the record I would be and he has every right to be) I would be slow playing the hell out of this to let as much information as possible to bleed out.
Here's why: from a political standpoint, Muller can't agree to a voluntary dismissal of the indictment. His credibility is completely gone the second he dismisses the indictment even if its the right thing to do. So the status quo is the only workable path for Muller politically.
But it kicks harder than it shoots. Flynn gets to face his accusers. He gets to know a lot of information. And if what went down is as bad as a lot of reliable sources have alluded to, he's going to have a lot of incriminating evidence in his hands. That gives him a lot of firepower to proceed civilly against people, participate as a witness in the criminal fallout, and -- as a personal "**** you and I hope you die" -- he can lead the charge on getting a lot of peoples' bar cards clipped.
So Flynn is in no rush and Muller is scrambling for cover. If I'm Flynn and I'm a vindictive mother****er (which, for the record I would be and he has every right to be) I would be slow playing the hell out of this to let as much information as possible to bleed out.
Here's why: from a political standpoint, Muller can't agree to a voluntary dismissal of the indictment. His credibility is completely gone the second he dismisses the indictment even if its the right thing to do. So the status quo is the only workable path for Muller politically.
But it kicks harder than it shoots. Flynn gets to face his accusers. He gets to know a lot of information. And if what went down is as bad as a lot of reliable sources have alluded to, he's going to have a lot of incriminating evidence in his hands. That gives him a lot of firepower to proceed civilly against people, participate as a witness in the criminal fallout, and -- as a personal "**** you and I hope you die" -- he can lead the charge on getting a lot of peoples' bar cards clipped.
HTownAg98 said:
Other plausible reasons then please, because Flynn's plea isn't going away.
Pretty simple, but you keep wishing for the resistance
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
This is some of the most fascinating stuff I've ever followed
So what if Mueller did not tell Flynn about Pete? What are your thoughts on that?
Nor can he survive court dismissal of the charges. Remember, Flynn was not indicted, he was charged by Mueller. And that was after his matter had been pulled from a Virginia based grand jury and reassigned to a DC one. How many bites at the apple had Mueller had vis a vis Flynn?Quote:
When Sullivan put his standing order for criminal cases on the docket, it gave Flynn some leverage. The real, ugly underbelly of the whole special prosecutor and the FISA spying fiasco are all unravelling like pulling a thread on a sweater.
So Flynn is in no rush and Muller is scrambling for cover. If I'm Flynn and I'm a vindictive mother****er (which, for the record I would be and he has every right to be) I would be slow playing the hell out of this to let as much information as possible to bleed out.
Here's why: from a political standpoint, Muller can't agree to a voluntary dismissal of the indictment.
If Peter Strzok altered the 302s on Flynn, Mueller has to know it by now. A person of integrity would do the right thing, call, "My bad, didn't know until now" and dismiss.
But that's not Mueller's SOP. He will push a bad position until he is squashed like a bug. And that is his flaw that Flynn's lawyers are likely exploiting, now.
Judge Sullivan's patience will wear thin at some point and he'll order Mueller to sh** or get off of the pot.
Well you must be new at this.HTownAg98 said:
All that says is that Flynn is a good liar.
Flynn has every reason to cooperate and appears to have done so.
I suggest you read this. This comes from someone who spent 24 years as a federal prosecutor, and spends his time now defending people in federal cases.
The 302 and the two investigators doing the interview are the only possible evidense to prove that General Flynn lied during the said interview. There is no tape, there is no video, just the 302 and the two investigators that wrote the 302. That document is the summary finding of direct testimony of the two investigators and the corresponding 302.
When Judge Sullivan requested all exculpatory evidense produced involving the plea deal, things came to a screeching halt. Anyone thinking this is strictly routine is being disingenuous, or is clueless. I don't know who this pope hat person is, but that tweet alone, brings their expertise in question almost immediately. There are several experienced jurists in this thread for you to be throwing around the credentials of an anonymous tweeter.
But go ahead and hold out for impeachment, they've got Trump cornered
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Go blindey!
I feel better already!
When I get too wrapped up in this ridiculous cluster****, it's always nice to see professionals (like you, Hawg, et al) bring reality back into the picture.
Gracias!
I feel better already!
When I get too wrapped up in this ridiculous cluster****, it's always nice to see professionals (like you, Hawg, et al) bring reality back into the picture.
Gracias!
Hate is how progressives sustain themselves. Without hate, introspection begins to slip into the progressive's consciousness, threatening the progressive with the truth: that their ideas and opinions are illogical, hypocritical, dangerous, and asinine.
This is backed by data.
This is backed by data.
RoscoePColtrane said:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/27/fbi-undercover-agent-was-in-car-behind-terrorists-and-failed-to-stop-attack/
Quote:
FBI Undercover Agent Was In Car Behind Terrorists And Failed To Stop Attack
The Last Refuge/TCTH is now saying that the FBI SA cited in the OIG Report, and for whom prosecution was denied, is the FBI undercover agent involved in the above story. The Last Refuge/TCTH initially thought it was Srzok but suddenly came out with the above...I suspect his deep cover contact sent him a message to set the record straight.
HTownAg98 said:
All that says is that Flynn is a good liar.
Flynn has every reason to cooperate and appears to have done so.
I suggest you read this. This comes from someone who spent 24 years as a federal prosecutor, and spends his time now defending people in federal cases.
Sounds like the stuff going on is unprecedented, even for a 24 year vet. He could be right but I just hope justice prevails as there has been a thumb on the scale for far too long.
Threat of going after his son could certainly lead one to sing
And I don't think the full picture is known, altered 302s
He might have remembered correctly but when confronted with fraudulent info from the FBI,SC via altered 302 he had no recourse. His word vs a false FBI document.
And I don't think the full picture is known, altered 302s
He might have remembered correctly but when confronted with fraudulent info from the FBI,SC via altered 302 he had no recourse. His word vs a false FBI document.
Comey's crimes exactly. Or McCabe?
Because they drained his bank accounts, he had to mortgage his home to continue to fight and his resources had run out. And if what is being revealed by the delay in Mueller producing ALL exculpatory evidense in the Flynn plea deal, is likely number one, he has none, and is most likely reason Flynn was never indicted in the first place. Had Flynn's case been before a grand jury, the exculpatory evidense would already be part of the record, however it is not. And now Mueller is having trouble producing it, especially since direct under oath testimony by the two investigators giving the interview he is accused of lying in, directly contradict what Mueller charged him with.HTownAg98 said:
News flash dingus: I don't think they are going to get Trump on anything. In fact, I'm more on your side of this than you think. But the fact remains that Flynn pled guilty to being a liar after that interview. So why do you plead guilty if (a) you know you aren't guilty and can prove it, or (b) your ass is in a sling because of other things you may have done?
Your move skippy
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Which wasn't "an interview". He was working with the FBI on security clearances. He had spoken with the FBI before on that very subject. He was essentially ambushed by the FBI obfuscating the reason they were meeting with him.Quote:
But the fact remains that Flynn pled guilty to being a liar after that interview.
There is also the issue of how information was obtained. Standing warrant on Kislyak? Wiretap on Flynn? Two hop from the dubious Carter Page FISA warrant??
It's not worth it.
By the way we often hear from the left that non guilty people plea out to save money, get out of jail, because they feel like they have no choice but for some reason that must only apply to poor minorities
By the way we often hear from the left that non guilty people plea out to save money, get out of jail, because they feel like they have no choice but for some reason that must only apply to poor minorities
Did you read this thread? It's by a pro-Trump attorney.HTownAg98 said:
News flash dingus: I don't think they are going to get Trump on anything. In fact, I'm more on your side of this than you think. But the fact remains that Flynn pled guilty to being a liar after that interview. So why do you plead guilty if (a) you know you aren't guilty and can prove it, or (b) your ass is in a sling because of other things you may have done?
Btw, the hat pope guy is Ken White, out of Los Angeles. He spent 5 years as an AUSA and 24 years total doing white collar crimes in state and federal court, among other things. He MIGHT just know how federal criminal cases typically go.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/991424948739584000.html
There was already an order in place to turn over material exculpatory evidence. The order that was in place was to turn over "material" exculpatory evidence. When Judge Sullivan took over the case, he had gone to the lesser standard of "any and all" exculpatory evidence, based on some recent court decisions. The order was done in all the other cases Sullivan was handling, but didn't happen in Flynn's case. Once the court realized the error, they issued the "any and all" order. Now, I don't know what the degree of difference between "material" and "any and all" is, but it's obvious that there's a difference, and "any and all" is a lower standard. And I don't know how much difference that is. It is entirely possible that they turned everything over in the first go round, and don't have anything else to turn over with the lower standard in place.
Not exactly the way you relate it. Here's another thread by an attorney that explains it correctly:HTownAg98 said:
There was already an order in place to turn over material exculpatory evidence. The order that was in place was to turn over "material" exculpatory evidence. When Judge Sullivan took over the case, he had gone to the lesser standard of "any and all" exculpatory evidence, based on some recent court decisions. The order was done in all the other cases Sullivan was handling, but didn't happen in Flynn's case. Once the court realized the error, they issued the "any and all" order. Now, I don't know what the degree of difference between "material" and "any and all" is, but it's obvious that there's a difference, and "any and all" is a lower standard. And I don't know how much difference that is. It is entirely possible that they turned everything over in the first go round, and don't have anything else to turn over with the lower standard in place.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/991455298828230656.html
You do realize that Sullivan didn't take the plea right? The plea was taken by Rudolph Contreras who upon the release of the text messages by Strzok/page that revealed he was compromised and had a conflict, was immediately recused from the case and it was reassigned to Sullivan, and the first order of business was asking for all exculpatory evidense be produced. All of a sudden the brakes are applied by Mueller and Flynn and his lawyers are just waiting on the clock to run out and have his plea thrown out and case dismissed. Can anyone produce the order from Contreras asking for material exculpatory evidense? No one has seen it and it should be public record in an open court.HTownAg98 said:
There was already an order in place to turn over material exculpatory evidence. The order that was in place was to turn over "material" exculpatory evidence. When Judge Sullivan took over the case, he had gone to the lesser standard of "any and all" exculpatory evidence, based on some recent court decisions. The order was done in all the other cases Sullivan was handling, but didn't happen in Flynn's case. Once the court realized the error, they issued the "any and all" order. Now, I don't know what the degree of difference between "material" and "any and all" is, but it's obvious that there's a difference, and "any and all" is a lower standard. And I don't know how much difference that is. It is entirely possible that they turned everything over in the first go round, and don't have anything else to turn over with the lower standard in place.
Edit; having read your Pope Hat lawyers timeline makes it pretty clear he's a left wing clown, and any lawyer that gives Michael Avenatti props as being a great lawyer loses all credibility.
Not a Verified account
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
That is inaccurate as I recall. Judge Sullivan's standard order was entered. But then he came back and issued a new more expansive order.Quote:
The order was done in all the other cases Sullivan was handling, but didn't happen in Flynn's case. Once the court realized the error, they issued the "any and all" order. Now, I don't know what the degree of difference between "material" and "any and all" is, but it's obvious that there's a difference, and "any and all" is a lower standard
The circumstances surrounding Judge Contreras' removal from the case has never been made public, either. Likely there are some problematical issues involved with that action, as well.
Personally, I think Flynn isn't that bright when it comes to legal matters, got himself into a FARA crack (which is almost never prosecuted with jail time involved, just fines) and then got caught up in a rolling legal barrage from Mueller to exert the highest possible pressure to get him to "turn" on Trump.
The question I have is...will Gen Flynn ever be given the chance to tell "his story"? As I recall, that is what he wanted to do when all this began.
Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and myself founded empires; but upon what foundation did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force! But Jesus Christ founded His upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him. - Napoleon Bonaparte
ThunderCougarFalconBird
Joined:
Oct 10, 2006
Posts:
49,079
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think you're right that It all turns on the judge. Flynn's team keeps pulling on the thread and the sweater keeps unraveling. Muller is hoping it will stop but the thread keeps coming. At one point or another Sullivan will basically say, "your disclosure needs to speed up from a slow roll to all of it now or I will dismiss sua sponte for failure to follow my orders."aggiehawg said:Nor can he survive court dismissal of the charges. Remember, Flynn was not indicted, he was charged by Mueller. And that was after his matter had been pulled from a Virginia based grand jury and reassigned to a DC one. How many bites at the apple had Mueller had vis a vis Flynn?Quote:
When Sullivan put his standing order for criminal cases on the docket, it gave Flynn some leverage. The real, ugly underbelly of the whole special prosecutor and the FISA spying fiasco are all unravelling like pulling a thread on a sweater.
So Flynn is in no rush and Muller is scrambling for cover. If I'm Flynn and I'm a vindictive mother****er (which, for the record I would be and he has every right to be) I would be slow playing the hell out of this to let as much information as possible to bleed out.
Here's why: from a political standpoint, Muller can't agree to a voluntary dismissal of the indictment.
If Peter Strzok altered the 302s on Flynn, Mueller has to know it by now. A person of integrity would do the right thing, call, "My bad, didn't know until now" and dismiss.
But that's not Mueller's SOP. He will push a bad position until he is squashed like a bug. And that is his flaw that Flynn's lawyers are likely exploiting, now.
Judge Sullivan's patience will wear thin at some point and he'll order Mueller to sh** or get off of the pot.
That order was SOP in all of Sullivan's cases. When he took over the case, he filed a standing order that said to turn over material evidence that is favorable to the defendant. That occurred on December 12, after Flynn had already pled. The court realized that the wrong Brady order had been filed, and filed the amended order in February that all exculpatory evidence had to be turned over. So the defense has had whatever was material evidence that was material to the defendant since December, and then got whatever else, if any, in February. And no request for withdraw the plea has happened.
Now, Flynn has all the time in the world to see how this all plays out, and he should, because you never know what can happen. But I'm not betting on that happening.
Now, Flynn has all the time in the world to see how this all plays out, and he should, because you never know what can happen. But I'm not betting on that happening.
aggiehawg said:That is inaccurate as I recall. Judge Sullivan's standard order was entered. But then he came back and issued a new more expansive order.Quote:
The order was done in all the other cases Sullivan was handling, but didn't happen in Flynn's case. Once the court realized the error, they issued the "any and all" order. Now, I don't know what the degree of difference between "material" and "any and all" is, but it's obvious that there's a difference, and "any and all" is a lower standard
The circumstances surrounding Judge Contreras' removal from the case has never been made public, either. Likely there are some problematical issues involved with that action, as well.
Personally, I think Flynn isn't that bright when it comes to legal matters, got himself into a FARA crack (which is almost never prosecuted with jail time involved, just fines) and then got caught up in a rolling legal barrage from Mueller to exert the highest possible pressure to get him to "turn" on Trump.
I went back and checked the timeline, and amended what order was in place. Thank you for catching that.
I still don't get why anyone has talked to the FBI.
Are you sure about that?? Has Flynn's attorneys said that?Quote:
So the defense has had whatever was material evidence that was material to the defendant since December, and then got whatever else, if any, in February. And no request for withdraw the plea has happened.
aggiehawg said:Are you sure about that?? Has Flynn's attorneys said that?Quote:
So the defense has had whatever was material evidence that was material to the defendant since December, and then got whatever else, if any, in February. And no request for withdraw the plea has happened.
I imagine Judge Sullivan might want to know. And you are correct, Flynn's attorneys haven't said anything, but I would think that competent counsel would be asking where the hell this stuff is.
Shades of Mike Nifong?blindey said:
When Sullivan put his standing order for criminal cases on the docket, it gave Flynn some leverage. The real, ugly underbelly of the whole special prosecutor and the FISA spying fiasco are all unravelling like pulling a thread on a sweater.
So Flynn is in no rush and Muller is scrambling for cover. If I'm Flynn and I'm a vindictive mother****er (which, for the record I would be and he has every right to be) I would be slow playing the hell out of this to let as much information as possible to bleed out.
Here's why: from a political standpoint, Muller can't agree to a voluntary dismissal of the indictment. His credibility is completely gone the second he dismisses the indictment even if its the right thing to do. So the status quo is the only workable path for Muller politically.
But it kicks harder than it shoots. Flynn gets to face his accusers. He gets to know a lot of information. And if what went down is as bad as a lot of reliable sources have alluded to, he's going to have a lot of incriminating evidence in his hands. That gives him a lot of firepower to proceed civilly against people, participate as a witness in the criminal fallout, and -- as a personal "**** you and I hope you die" -- he can lead the charge on getting a lot of peoples' bar cards clipped.
HTownAg98 said:aggiehawg said:Are you sure about that?? Has Flynn's attorneys said that?Quote:
So the defense has had whatever was material evidence that was material to the defendant since December, and then got whatever else, if any, in February. And no request for withdraw the plea has happened.
I imagine Judge Sullivan might want to know. And you are correct, Flynn's attorneys haven't said anything, but I would think that competent counsel would be asking where the hell this stuff is.
So she's corrected two of your speculations in two posts.
Only one, but thanks for keeping track.
ThunderCougarFalconBird
Joined:
Oct 10, 2006
Posts:
49,079
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
not quite. The problem in a case like this is that the production of potentially exculpatory evidence has to happen on a rolling basis because much of it is not in mueller's hands yet, much of it is yet to come to light, and much of it is just straight up being resisted.HTownAg98 said:
So the defense has had whatever was material evidence that was material to the defendant since December, and then got whatever else, if any, in February.
Just because a judge says "hand over the documents" doesn't mean it happens instantly. You have to keep in mind that there are self interested actors on both sides.
That said, those of us that practice in federal court know that when you shoot, you shoot once. A motion to withdraw the plea won't be filed until they're ready (and until they've bled sufficient documents out of mueller). Once filed, the judge will ask for briefing on pertinent issues and make a ruling. After that, Flynn's ability to bleed more documents out of mueller stops. So there's no rush to do anything.
Featured Stories
See All
21:11
18h ago
1.9k
Payne makes Reed debut as Aggies host East Texas A&M on Friday night
by Olin Buchanan
38:43
1d ago
2.7k
Scouting Report: No. 13 Texas A&M vs. East Texas A&M
by Tom Schuberth
Three Things: FAQs answered, eyes on 2025 prospects & more
by Jason Howell