Not that I have seen.Quote:
Speaking of Schiff4Brains, we have never received an explanation of how he got the phone records of Devin Nunes, John Solomon and Rudy Guiliani have we?
He won't. The lies are not going to stop.fasthorse05 said:
Schiff may received a censure, but I can''t imagine Pelosi allowing him to get punishment much worse.
Which made short-circuiting Flynn right after the inauguration such a high priority. Rogers, at NSA was still playing ball with the Obama administration but he also didn't have a National Security Advisor breathing down his neck hell bent on finding out what all was going on.Quote:
I think most on here have suspected something like this, but this revelation is making lightbulbs go off in my head. I thought the IC had files on certain people. Hell, they have files on everyone. They just have to do a query and a person's secrets are there. It explains the actions and inactions of so many people. The list is endless. Here are some that come to mind: McCain, Ryan, McConnell, Graham, Romney, Roberts, Sessions, et al. It explains the two years of inaction when the Repubs controlled everything.
I don't know much about the legal system but have a question. Sidney Powell represented Flynn for this criminal trial, would she also handle any civil cases brought by Flynn or would she defer to a lawyer that handles civil lawsuits. Pardon my ignorance. This is not a slight on Sidney Powell at all, she did what I thought was impossible in getting the DOJ to drop the charges.Secolobo said:
Likely she would hand it off to people with legal malpractice and Bivens action practices. Of course, she might have such specialists within her own firm, too, IDK.Quote:
I don't know much about the legal system but have a question. Sidney Powell represented Flynn for this criminal trial, would she also handle any civil cases brought by Flynn or would she defer to a lawyer that handles civil lawsuits. Pardon my ignorance. This is not a slight on Sidney Powell at all, she did what I thought was impossible in getting the DOJ to drop the charges.
Thanks for the response.aggiehawg said:Likely she would hand it off to people with legal malpractice and Bivens action practices. Of course, she might have such specialists within her own firm, too, IDK.Quote:
I don't know much about the legal system but have a question. Sidney Powell represented Flynn for this criminal trial, would she also handle any civil cases brought by Flynn or would she defer to a lawyer that handles civil lawsuits. Pardon my ignorance. This is not a slight on Sidney Powell at all, she did what I thought was impossible in getting the DOJ to drop the charges.
You are welcome. I was once a party to a case that involved both legal malpractice and multiple crimes. My malpractice attorneys (boutique plaintiffs practice) immediately called in an outside criminal lawyer to advise us.richardag said:Thanks for the response.aggiehawg said:Likely she would hand it off to people with legal malpractice and Bivens action practices. Of course, she might have such specialists within her own firm, too, IDK.Quote:
I don't know much about the legal system but have a question. Sidney Powell represented Flynn for this criminal trial, would she also handle any civil cases brought by Flynn or would she defer to a lawyer that handles civil lawsuits. Pardon my ignorance. This is not a slight on Sidney Powell at all, she did what I thought was impossible in getting the DOJ to drop the charges.
I tend to agree. Why would indictments really make it better.....??? They (the Swamp people) will just say they are politicized indictments. We have been saying that the Flynn situation was just a politicized (albeit true) circus. They will just say the same things regarding any indictment that comes down from Barr and team.MooreTrucker said:And that's the part of all this that makes me sad/mad/crazy. Obamagate is bad, etc. but the fact that it's so easily covered up and the truth ignored and the facts manipulated is worse than anything Obama, et al. did. And add to that we have very few on our side to counter, I don't think even the indictments of higher levels will make it better. And the higher we go, the worse they'll make it sound. Indict Obama and the roof will blow off.4stringAg said:
Its not so much Rothschild and his 64K followers. Its that the message he's stating is the exact message the Dem Party and most of the MSM is and will use: that Trump is a kook and going after conspiracies with politicizing the DOJ and Barr, all the while ignoring the body count on Covid. Its of course a lie and the truth is essentially the exact opposite, but the pushback on this from all of the Dems, deep state, media is going to be like nothing we've ever seen.
That's why there must be indictments of high level people and actually very soon so more of the facts can start to get out in the public domain. Currently the only thing getting through is the Dem narrative and because the only people covering this are people like Hannity, Tucker, Ingraham, Limbaugh, it is seen as right wing conspiracists aiding Trump.
Tend to agree with this also. I have a 35 year old daughter with a bit of TDS. I have talked to her about it many times. I'm really not sure WHAT it would take to make her think otherwise....and I'm serious.AG 2000' said:MooreTrucker said:And that's the part of all this that makes me sad/mad/crazy. Obamagate is bad, etc. but the fact that it's so easily covered up and the truth ignored and the facts manipulated is worse than anything Obama, et al. did. And add to that we have very few on our side to counter, I don't think even the indictments of higher levels will make it better. And the higher we go, the worse they'll make it sound. Indict Obama and the roof will blow off.4stringAg said:
Its not so much Rothschild and his 64K followers. Its that the message he's stating is the exact message the Dem Party and most of the MSM is and will use: that Trump is a kook and going after conspiracies with politicizing the DOJ and Barr, all the while ignoring the body count on Covid. Its of course a lie and the truth is essentially the exact opposite, but the pushback on this from all of the Dems, deep state, media is going to be like nothing we've ever seen.
That's why there must be indictments of high level people and actually very soon so more of the facts can start to get out in the public domain. Currently the only thing getting through is the Dem narrative and because the only people covering this are people like Hannity, Tucker, Ingraham, Limbaugh, it is seen as right wing conspiracists aiding Trump.
It's being covered up only so far in the context that the media is bought and paid for by the DNC/China and happy to provide cover.
I will worry if nothing has happened by mid-October this year. But provided indictments (and arrests?) start happening, there will be no avoiding this regardless of media spin.
Why? By necessity, reality, and given the obvious media spin sure to come, the charges and evidence must be air tight on this. And to prevent this country from fracturing completely, the messaging will have to be up front about why these indictments are happening and how strong the evidence is. Barr and his team know that and will have it accounted for.
Barr's most recent interviews in the past two weeks where he talks both about the scope and scale of this, and even went so far as saying that this kind of thing must never happen again, tell me he's going to be seeing through the indictment, prosecution, and punishment of this group.
The next four months and largely the fate of the future of this country lie in his hands. Is he a swamper talking the talk, or a patriot who is going to walk the talk?
I'll tell you why indictments would change things. Why did Team Mueller go after Manafort, Cohen, Stone and Flynn? To get dirt on Trump or try to bait Trump into an obstruction charge.Quote:
I tend to agree. Why would indictments really make it better.....??? They (the Swamp people) will just say they are politicized indictments. We have been saying that the Flynn situation was just a politicized (albeit true) circus. They will just say the same things regarding any indictment that comes down from Barr and team.
I know you're being genuine with the "strict rules" statement, but my cynicism about DC right now just makes me believe every lawyer in DC would just blow right by any "strict rules" rule/law of conduct.aggiehawg said:You are welcome. I was once a party to a case that involved both legal malpractice and multiple crimes. My malpractice attorneys (boutique plaintiffs practice) immediately called in an outside criminal lawyer to advise us.richardag said:Thanks for the response.aggiehawg said:Likely she would hand it off to people with legal malpractice and Bivens action practices. Of course, she might have such specialists within her own firm, too, IDK.Quote:
I don't know much about the legal system but have a question. Sidney Powell represented Flynn for this criminal trial, would she also handle any civil cases brought by Flynn or would she defer to a lawyer that handles civil lawsuits. Pardon my ignorance. This is not a slight on Sidney Powell at all, she did what I thought was impossible in getting the DOJ to drop the charges.
It was an embezzlement case and there are strict rules about the potential to use a criminal prosecution as leverage in a civil suit for damages. The criminal lawyer advised we needed to contact law enforcement and he would set that up as soon as possible.
Two days later, I was in a conference room with two Special Agents of the FBI. Ironically, one of them was a year behind me in law school and immediately recognized me.
Still might be too high. The blog battles going back and forth between the execrable lawfare blog and other legal analysts demonstrate that even the lawyers at that blog don't grasp what the motion to dismiss actually said, much less all of the other motions Sydney filed and the bases thereto.MouthBQ98 said:
I wonder how many of that 2000, if asked right now on the spot, could accurately describe what has happened with the case and what specific actions Barr took?
Maybe 10%?
Good to know. I have always liked McFarland. Smart articulate gal.Quote:
McFarland was on one of the Fox shows, and explained how these types of DC fiascoes are normally handled by stating that several of the underlings usually receive some form of punishment, and the folks in upper management are just allowed to fade away, which I agree with.
She also stated that Trump had personally promised her, on several occasions, this case won't end until we absolutely know who was responsible.
Quote:
The case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn
Attorney General Bill Barr appointed the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri Jeff Jensen to review the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Justice Department officials told Fox News that Jensen will work hand-in-hand with Brandon Van Grack the lead prosecutor on the Flynn case during his review.
Quote:
Ukraine information
Barr last week confirmed that the Justice Department is reviewing information about Ukraine coming from President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and others. Barr has tapped U.S. Attorney from the Western District of Pennsylvania Scott Brady to handle that Ukraine information.
That review comes after the president was acquitted on charges abuse of power and obstruction of Congress stemming from the Ukraine controversy.
Quote:
Durham probe into origins of Russia investigation
Last year, Barr appointed U.S. Attorney from Connecticut John Durham to review the events leading up to the 2016 presidential election and through Trump's January 20, 2017 inauguration. But, as Fox News first reported, Durham has since expanded his investigation to cover a post-election timeline spanning the spring of 2017 when Mueller was appointed as special counsel.
Quote:
Clinton Foundation, Uranium One
In November 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions directed U.S. Attorney for Utah John Huber and other senior prosecutors to evaluate "certain issues" involving the sale of Uranium One and alleged unlawful dealings related to the Clinton Foundation.
The status of the Huber probe, and whether he is still investigating, is unclear.
Quote:
FISA warrant, Clinton server document release
In April 2018, the Justice Department appointed U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois John Lausch to oversee the gathering of documents in response to a subpoena issued by the House Judiciary Committee in an effort to obtain materials related to the FBI's probe into Hillary Clinton's private email server and potential Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuses.
They most certainly will say those things, but the government employees of the FBI, DOJ, IC & State Dept. just might think twice about acting illegally. But this would depend on any sentencing. If just probation, getting fired or reprimands this would have little deterrent, there would need to be jail time in orange jumpsuits.CT75 said:I tend to agree. Why would indictments really make it better.....??? They (the Swamp people) will just say they are politicized indictments. We have been saying that the Flynn situation was just a politicized (albeit true) circus. They will just say the same things regarding any indictment that comes down from Barr and team.MooreTrucker said:And that's the part of all this that makes me sad/mad/crazy. Obamagate is bad, etc. but the fact that it's so easily covered up and the truth ignored and the facts manipulated is worse than anything Obama, et al. did. And add to that we have very few on our side to counter, I don't think even the indictments of higher levels will make it better. And the higher we go, the worse they'll make it sound. Indict Obama and the roof will blow off.4stringAg said:
Its not so much Rothschild and his 64K followers. Its that the message he's stating is the exact message the Dem Party and most of the MSM is and will use: that Trump is a kook and going after conspiracies with politicizing the DOJ and Barr, all the while ignoring the body count on Covid. Its of course a lie and the truth is essentially the exact opposite, but the pushback on this from all of the Dems, deep state, media is going to be like nothing we've ever seen.
That's why there must be indictments of high level people and actually very soon so more of the facts can start to get out in the public domain. Currently the only thing getting through is the Dem narrative and because the only people covering this are people like Hannity, Tucker, Ingraham, Limbaugh, it is seen as right wing conspiracists aiding Trump.
Thank you ....that makes me feel a bit more optimistic. Only just a bit though!!!aggiehawg said:I'll tell you why indictments would change things. Why did Team Mueller go after Manafort, Cohen, Stone and Flynn? To get dirt on Trump or try to bait Trump into an obstruction charge.Quote:
I tend to agree. Why would indictments really make it better.....??? They (the Swamp people) will just say they are politicized indictments. We have been saying that the Flynn situation was just a politicized (albeit true) circus. They will just say the same things regarding any indictment that comes down from Barr and team.
If indictments start getting handed out, the periphery players will be much more inclined to go for immunity deals. Breaks the cone of silence.
That's why.
Lawfareblog is still in cleanup mode and now the hallways @ the NYT must be very messy after this complete evisceration of Mary McCord.drcrinum said:
https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/05/11/834832/
This is the third article I've posted in the last several days by this chap. In the first two, he destroyed posts at Lawfare. Now he destroys Mary McCord's Op Ed in the NYT/Slimes.
Yes. Yates wrote something like a 47 page opinion justifying the blockage. Of course what we know now, that seems much more nefarious. To avoid any oversight of the ongoing FISA abuse.akm91 said:
Didn't they block the IG office from DOJ's NatSec Division? I could've sworn that I read that somewhere.
Quote:
The best defense is a good offense. That was my first thought on learning that former president Barack Obama has decided to make himself heard on the dismissal of the prosecution of Michael Flynn. As I've been noting for years, notwithstanding his pretensions about never interfering in FBI investigations, Mr. Obama was smack in the middle of his administration's investigation of the Trump campaign. This week, in the exhibits appended to the Justice Department's Flynn dismissal motion, it was revealed that Obama was neck-deep in the investigation of Flynn, concocted into a collusion caper by his intel advisers and the FBI. It is not a spotlight the former president covets, so he's lashing out . . . and the usual wagons are circling.
My friend Joe Connor, whose father was killed by FALN, reminds me that in one of his last official acts, Obama granted clemency to Oscar Lopez Rivera, one of that Marxist terrorist organization's front-men. Ben Domenech put it well at the time: LopezAfter quoting that excerpt from Ben, the Heritage Foundation's Mike Gonzalez recounts that Lopez was a fugitive for five years at the time of his 1981 arrest, when police found six pounds of dynamite in his Chicago apartment. After he was originally sentenced to 55 years' imprisonment, another 15 years were tacked on in 1988, when Lopez conspired to escape from a federal penitentiary.Quote:
recruited and trained a small army of terrorists to murder his fellow Americans. He built bomb factories. He taught the young and impressionable how to make devices that would kill and maim. . . . When he was put on trial, he admitted to doing all he had been accused of he showed no remorse.
Lopez could have been sprung years earlier, when President Clinton granted clemency to other FALN terrorists (in order to help his wife, Hillary, who was planning a run for the Senate in New York and hoping to court the Puerto Rican vote). But Lopez declined Clinton's offer, which included the condition that the imprisoned militants renounce terrorism as a method of seeking Puerto Rican independence.
LINKQuote:
So by all means, Mr. President, go ahead and fret about how the "rule of law" is threatened by the dismissal of a politicized case against a decorated combat commander of the United States a case the Justice Department would not have a prayer of winning if it were tried in court. It's touching. But some of us will remember that you figured the rule of law would get along just fine despite the get-out-of-jail card you doled out to a righteously convicted anti-American terrorist.
