Remember when Obama's wingman dropped the case against the philly thugs the entire country saw on video intimidating voters at an election booth?

Good times. The type of honest leadership this country needs again...

aggiehawg said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Something happened or someone got to Sullivan a while back, in my opinion.

---

Actually, I agree. When Strzok's buddy, Judge Contreras as yanked from the case and it was reassigned to Sullivan, have to wonder if that was prearranged?

---

Wow. Didn't expect you and Rockdoc to say that.

There are some judges I can make an easy judgment (no pun) from their actions. To me, Sullivan has either been quite stealthy, or reasonably consistent. However, since my experience with Sullivan is nonexistent, and Hawg (among others) are quite familiar with his opinions, I'm now on board, but I never considered the thought.The only time I got sideways with Sullivan was the "treason" outburst.

aggiehawg said:

---

...consciousness of guilt...

---

Is that a real legal thing?

fasthorse05 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Something happened or someone got to Sullivan a while back, in my opinion.

---

Actually, I agree. When Strzok's buddy, Judge Contreras as yanked from the case and it was reassigned to Sullivan, have to wonder if that was prearranged?

---

Wow. Didn't expect you and Rockdoc to say that.

There are some judges I can make an easy judgment (no pun) from their actions. To me, Sullivan has either been quite stealthy, or reasonably consistent. However, since my experience with Sullivan is nonexistent, and Hawg (among others) are quite familiar with his opinions, I'm now on board, but I never considered the thought.The only time I got sideways with Sullivan was the "treason" outburst.

---

Let's just say the Judge Sullivan who presided over the Ted Stevens' case is not the same Judge Sullivan who has presided over the Flynn case. When I expected him to zig, he zagged and vice versa. The old Judge Sullivan wouldn't have tolerated such attorney antics in his courtroom.

Plus the extraordinary number of ex parte proceedings and sealed filings in this case which isn't even based on a solid 302 or an actual transcript of the call in question is just ludicrous to me.

boulderaggie said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

...consciousness of guilt...

---

Is that a real legal thing?

---

Yes. It is circumstantial evidence of intent.

What happens if Sullivan refuses to sign off and close this thing out quickly? They don't want to retry it.

Rockdoc said:

---

What happens if Sullivan refuses to sign off and close this thing out quickly? They don't want to retry it.

---

Well, Sullivan would first have to rule that Flynn can withdraw his guilty plea for that to happen.

Right now, I'm more concerned Sullivan has been so compromised that he is under pressure to instead sentence Flynn. Obama speaking out in the manner he did makes me wonder about that.

Rockdoc said:

---

What happens if Sullivan refuses to sign off and close this thing out quickly? They don't want to retry it.

---

I would guess Sidney Powell would begin requesting documents and the DOJ under Barr would begin dropping more documents. With that jackass Obama spewing BS aimed at Barr he may suffer fools even less than before.

Wouldn't the DOJ have given the Judge a heads up about their dropping the case before announcing? Seems they would have been able to gauge what his reaction and probable course of action would be.

Larry S Ross said:

---

Wouldn't the DOJ have given the Judge a heads up about their dropping the case before announcing? Seems they would have been able to gauge what his reaction and probable course of action would be.

---

Not really, no.

Yeah, I wondered about that too. My first thought was a marriage of two attorneys like the Rosenstein's or Van Grack's.

Those "family disagreements" should be legendary. I'm not a big fan of Barsoomian physically, but Ms. Van Grack is a looker, and has probably had a few behind the door comments from the males at Brunswick.

Hmm. Seems Team Mueller knew within a few days after the Trump Tower meeting became public that nothing untoward had happened. They interviewed the translator. And later, Schiff4Brains knew too.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1258874096999424000.html

rab79 said:

---

Bunkhouse96 said:

---

My point is that lying is not a crime unless he's under oath.

---

how about if he lies to the fbi?

---

Has to be material to a valid investigation, so not always

More on the fallout over the motion to dismiss the Flynn case.

Quote:

---

"Attorney General Barr's politicization of justice knows no bounds," Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement Thursday evening.

Critics see the abrupt reversal in the Flynn case as a fresh example of Barr's willingness to bend the Justice's norms to appease Trump, who had criticized the case against his former national security adviser during the Mueller probe.

"Overruling the special counsel is without precedent and without respect for the rule of law," Pelosi said in remarks echoed by other Democrats.

---

What a load of crap.

Quote:

---

Eyebrows were raised when career prosecutor Brandon Van Grack, who had helped secure Flynn's plea agreement, abruptly withdrew from the case less than an hour before the charges were dropped. He reportedly also withdrew from other cases, but has not resigned.

---

Good. Fire his ass.

Quote:

---

It quickly drew comparisons to the decision by prosecutors handling the case against Trump's political ally Roger Stone to withdraw from that case, after top DOJ officials overruled career prosecutors and sought a lighter sentence against Stone.

"I think we lost 50 years worth of ground in solidifying the independence of the Justice Department after Watergate," House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Thursday night on MSNBC. "The common denominator between these two cases Roger Stone and Mike Flynn is this: Both men lied on behalf of the president."

---

Typical Schiff4Brains.

Quote:

---

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) vowed to ask the department's Inspector General to investigate the matter and called on Barr to testify about his Flynn decision as soon as possible

But it's unclear when that will happen. A hearing with the attorney general was postponed during the coronavirus pandemic, and the House has no immediate plans to return to the Capitol.

---

Oh, please, please, please. I want to watch Barr tear Nadler a new one.

LINK

Quote:

---

9. No deception. The FBI agents who interviewed Flynn, including Peter Strzok, did not believe Flynn intended to lie or be deceptive in his interview. "Strzok provided his view that Flynn appeared truthful during the interview," a memo from Mueller's team stated. https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/yates-other-obama-doj-officials-sounded-alarm-about-fbis-treatment

10. No actual denial. The FBI agents who interviewed Flynn indicated in a draft report that Flynn did not directly deny talking to Kislyak about sanctions, as he was accused by Mueller. Instead they noted he couldn't remember, wasn't sure and even conceded it was possible. Here's a direct quote from the draft interview memo. "FLYNN stated it was possible that he talked to KISLYAK on the issue, but if he did, he did not remember doing so." That's a far cry from a direct denial. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6936-michael-flynn-motion-to-dismiss/fa06f5e13a0ec71843b6/optimized/full.pdf

---

[url=https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6936-michael-flynn-motion-to-dismiss/fa06f5e13a0ec71843b6/optimized/full.pdf][/url]

GreyhoundDad said:

---

I try not to comment on this thread because I don't want to clutter it up and rarely have anything material to add. But if y'all don't mind, I want to vent after reading Solomon's article. Reading that made me incredibly mad and very sad. It should make any American mad regardless of political leanings. I can't believe people are still defending the previous administration's actions. The points in the article are facts. There is no doubt Flynn was railroaded. Barr has got to come through for us or the rest of my time on earth in the USA will be severely tarnished. I hope Flynn and Powell get rich off of this. I would pay serious money to see a round table of Carter and Solomon questioning and commenting with Flynn and Powell. I wish they would do tour in a theater type setting. It would be worth it just to be able to give them a standing O. Thanks for your time.

---

Yeah, and you may be sadder still if it turns out that Obama is one of the central plotters.

Sorry if this has been asked. What do they think is in grand jury material that would be detrimental to Trump?

Nothing...if there was something it would have leaked already. Libs live for something.

Larry S Ross said:

---

Sorry if this has been asked. What do they think is in grand jury material that would be detrimental to Trump?

---

Overall, there is likely nothing of value except perhaps instances of bad judgement, which of course will be spun out of context.

Also, the Democrats will selectively leak parts of it, which when taken out of context, will be spun by the media to be as harmful as possible.

As an example.

X testified that Trump said to his son "I would still like to build the Trump Tower in Moscow."

Democrats and Media: SEE! This is proof Trump was colluding with Russia, not just to steal the election, but for his own personal benefit!

Real statement: "When I am no longer President and as part of our future growth, I would still like to build the Trump Tower in Moscow, but we cannot even consider or plan for it until I have left office, so for the foreseeable future, it is a dead project. We'll review the possibility at some point in the future."

They also would release any kind of salacious innuendo to try to harm anyone connected with Trump. Watch there be stores about Hope Hick's dating life, or someone's sexual proclivities.

Thanks! Kind of what I thought, but wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something in my old age!!

ccatag said:

---

GreyhoundDad said:

---

I try not to comment on this thread because I don't want to clutter it up and rarely have anything material to add. But if y'all don't mind, I want to vent after reading Solomon's article. Reading that made me incredibly mad and very sad. It should make any American mad regardless of political leanings. I can't believe people are still defending the previous administration's actions. The points in the article are facts. There is no doubt Flynn was railroaded. Barr has got to come through for us or the rest of my time on earth in the USA will be severely tarnished. I hope Flynn and Powell get rich off of this. I would pay serious money to see a round table of Carter and Solomon questioning and commenting with Flynn and Powell. I wish they would do tour in a theater type setting. It would be worth it just to be able to give them a standing O. Thanks for your time.

---

Yeah, and you may be sadder still if it turns out that Obama is one of the central plotters.

---

If?

Larry S Ross said:

---

Sorry if this has been asked. What do they think is in grand jury material that would be detrimental to Trump?

---

The main issue (other than what hawg addressed) is that it is supposed to be sealed to ensure folks cooperate with a grand jury in providing testimony. The flip side of that cooperation however is the right of the accused (indicted) to confront their accusers. The special counsel is really a hybrid role where they have no 'subject' or target in this case (mueller sham show) so they collected a lot of data/testimony which was not used against any prosecuted individuals.

The fine line is that we want cooperation so that grand juries can be informed who to indict, but we don't want folks to refuse to talk to grand juries. It may seem like a silly line, but the great thing about the grand jury system is that witnesses aren't compelled to 'lawyer up' as in other situations.

Quote:

---

The fine line is that we want cooperation so that grand juries can be informed who to indict, but we don't want folks to refuse to talk to grand juries. It may seem like a silly line, but the great thing about the grand jury system is that witnesses aren't compelled to 'lawyer up' as in other situations.

---

They can't have counsel present when testifying before a grand jury anyway.

Brennan is unhinged.

Random thought but it seems that anytime a candidate went up against the establishment they were immediately branded as "tied to Russia."

Happened toTrump. Happened to Tulsi. Happened to Bernie.

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/05/812186614/how-russia-is-trying-to-boost-bernie-sanders-campaign

aggiehawg said:

---

Brennan is unhinged.

---

If someone wanted to write a tweet on how not to endear public favor ahead of a likely public trial, this would be a good start.

Andy McCarthy's latest:

Quote:

---

The FBI coordinated very closely with the Obama White House on the investigation of Michael Flynn, while the Obama Justice Department was asleep at the switch. That is among the most revealing takeaways from Thursday's decision by Attorney General Bill Barr to pull the plug on the prosecution of Flynn, who fleetingly served as President Trump's first National Security Advisor. Flynn had been seeking to withdraw his guilty plea to a false-statements charge brought in late 2017 by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

While working on the Trump transition team in December 2016, Flynn spoke with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, in conversations that were intercepted by our government (because Russian-government operatives, such as Kislyak, are routinely monitored by the FBI and other U.S. intelligence agencies). Among the topics Flynn and Kislyak discussed was the imposition of sanctions against Russia, which President Obama had just announced.

---

Quote:

---

That these conversations took place has been known for over three years ever since a still-unidentified government official leaked that classified information to the Washington Post. For almost as long, it has been known that the FBI became aware of the FlynnKislyak discussions very shortly after they happened. What was not known until this week was that thenacting attorney general Yates was out of the loop. She found out about the discussions nearly a week afterwards from President Obama, of all people.

This was at a White House pow-wow on January 5, 2017. That was the day when the chiefs of key intelligence agencies briefed top Obama White House officials on their assessment of Russia's meddling in the campaign. After the main briefing, the president asked Yates and FBI director James Comey to stick around to meet with him, along with Vice President Biden and National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Yates was taken aback when Obama explained that he had "learned of the information about Flynn" and his conversation with Kislyak. She was startled because, she later told investigators, she "had no idea what the president was talking about."

---

Quote:

---

According to an FBI report, which was appended (as Exhibit 4) to the Justice Department's motion to dismiss the Flynn case, Yates later said she was "so surprised by the information she was hearing that she was having a hard time processing it and listening to the conversation at the same time."
I'll bet.

That Yates was in the dark was not the FBI's fault. Two days earlier, the bureau's thendeputy director, Andrew McCabe, had briefed Assistant Attorney General Mary McCord, the head of DOJ's National Security Division, about the FlynnKislyak discussions. Evidently not appreciating what the FBI regarded as the urgency of the matter, McCord did not pass the information along to the acting AG before her White House meeting.

Ms. Yates's astonishment at how well-informed the bureau was keeping the president calls for revisiting something to which I've called attention before. It now seems even more significant.

---

Quote:

---

When General Flynn was forced to resign as national-security adviser after just three weeks on the job, the New York Times did its customary deep dive, in which seven of its best reporters pressed their well-placed sources for details. It was a remarkable report, which recounted as if it were totally matter-of-fact that Flynn's communications with Kislyak had been investigated by the FBI in real-time consultation with President Obama's aides. For example (my italics):

Quote:

---

Obama advisers heard separately from the F.B.I. about Mr. Flynn's conversation with Mr. Kislyak, whose calls were routinely monitored by American intelligence agencies that track Russian diplomats. The Obama advisers grew suspicious that perhaps there had been a secret deal between the incoming Trump team and Moscow, which could violate the rarely enforced, two-century-old Logan Act barring private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers in disputes with the United States.

---

---

Quote:

---

The FBI tells Obama "advisers" about Flynn's discussions with Kislyak. Between this and their surprise that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin did not retaliate when Obama imposed sanctions, the Obama "advisers" dream up a non-existent pact between Trump and the Kremlin collusion! And they're already thinking about nailing Flynn on the Logan Act . . . an obsolete, unconstitutional vestige of the President John Adams administration that has never, ever been prosecuted in the history of the Justice Department (the last case appears to have been in 1852; DOJ was established 18 years later).

---

Quote:

---

Who came up with that? Well, Ms. McCord (whose interview is Exhibit 3 in DOJ's Flynn dismissal motion) later told investigators that the Logan Act flyer originated in the office of Obama's director of national intelligence, James Clapper specifically proposed by ODNI's general counsel, Bob Litt. Obviously, by January 5, Comey was already discussing it with Obama.

---

Quote:

---

Let's look at some more of that Times report on Flynn's downfall. For the legal analysis of Flynn's exchanges with Kislyak, the president's aides consulted the FBI, not DOJ:

Quote:

---

The Obama officials asked the F.B.I. if a quid pro quo had been discussed on the call, and the answer came back no, according to one of the officials, who like others asked not to be named discussing delicate communications. The topic of sanctions came up, they were told, but there was no deal.

---

---

Quote:

---

Meanwhile, with Yates at the helm, the Justice Department had major reservations about the FISA warrants' reliance on the Steele dossier, but swallowed hard and went along with it. The Justice Department had major reservations about the Logan Act as a predicate for investigating Flynn, but Yates was too startled to speak up at the White House meeting. The Justice Department wanted Comey to alert the Trump White House about the FlynnKislyak discussions, but the FBI refused . . . and Yates did nothing. By the time, after days of temporizing, she finally decided to put her foot down, Comey told her he had already dispatched agents to do an unauthorized ambush interview of Flynn. Yates was "dumbfounded," McCord recalled.

---

Comey and McCabe were incorrigible.

Quote:

---

Susan Rice, decided that her last official act, moments after Trump was inaugurated, would be to craft 15 days after the fact an email memorializing Obama's directive at the January 5 meeting:

Quote:

---

President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming Trump team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.

---

Hmm, you mean a reason like "Trump and his minions just might be colluding with the Kremlin"?

You'd almost think the Obama White House and its intelligence apparatus was weaving a political narrative out of . . . nothing.

---

Obama and Biden were in this thing up to their eyeballs.

LINK

blindey said:

---

Go dig up my posts from the beginning of this and see I've been asking all along: why Russia? They're irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The real threat is China.

No one seems worried about whose strings the Chinese are pulling.

---

Ours....and the rest of the Free World. But mainly ours.

To paraphrase Fred Thompson in Red October, "The Chinese don't take a dump without a plan, Son."

They've been planning this for a loooong time, and Trump has been the first to piss on their pants leg about intellectual property theft. It is all about Status... their Status...#1 in the world.

And the whole Impeachment sham...not ripe, then ram-rod it through for a pre-Christmas vote, then slow walk it...Nancy wanted it ready, but not to release it until the news cycle was about to get concerned about the Virus.

I know, I know, conspiracy, but forget that, just think of the timing...very much like a double reverse hand-off pass to the QB...odd sequence of events, perfectly timed... and now we wake up to find most of our drug / medicine production happens in China, right along side a lot of our finished goods and raw materials for advanced electronics.