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

7,604,793 Views | 49329 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by JFABNRGR
Bird Poo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 3 Toed Pete • 7:38a, 5/13/20
AG
3 Toed Pete said:
To the lawyers: any chance it makes a difference that sullivan and eric holder are old friends? What about holder's potential role as a partner in the law firm that originally represented Flynn (and in an unethical manner)? What I'm asking is do you think it's possible these are factors influencing sullivan.
It could be anything. I'm not a lawyer but Sullivan is no longer ruling on the side of justice. I don't care how long he has been on the bench thumping govt agencies. His decision-making is a complete travesty and could possibly ruin his career. It's certainly calling into question his integrity, which is something that judges at this level HAVE to have.

This is what he's hanging his hat on:

Quote:
entrapment into a coerced guilty plea cannot be undone

Yeah, he's FOS.
Reply Quote
3
Patentmike
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bird Poo • 7:45a, 5/13/20
AG
PearlJammin said:
3 Toed Pete said:
To the lawyers: any chance it makes a difference that sullivan and eric holder are old friends? What about holder's potential role as a partner in the law firm that originally represented Flynn (and in an unethical manner)? What I'm asking is do you think it's possible these are factors influencing sullivan.
It could be anything. I'm not a lawyer but Sullivan is no longer ruling on the side of justice. I don't care how long he has been on the bench thumping govt agencies. His decision-making is a complete travesty and could possibly ruin his career. It's certainly calling into question his integrity, which is something that judges at this level HAVE to have.

This is what he's hanging his hat on:

Quote:
entrapment into a coerced guilty plea cannot be undone

Yeah, he's FOS.
The "evidence" behind the guilty plea is the 302 and agent testimony corroborated by the 302. I don't know how he ignores the tampering done to the 302, and he'll have to ignore it if he wants to deny the motion the dismiss.

My gut tells me the Judge sees the DOJ motion as an attack on people he likes/trusts/supports and he is having a hard time doing anything that appears to support that perceived attack.
PatentMike, J.D.
BS Biochem
MS Molecular Virology


Reply Quote
5
1 edit
Bird Poo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Patentmike • 7:51a, 5/13/20
AG
Quote:
My gut tells me the Judge sees the DOJ motion as an attack on people he likes/trusts/supports and he is having a hard time doing anything that appears to support that perceived attack.
That's a good theory and probably what is going on. Justice is blind (or should be). Regardless, I have no empathy for his personal situation. He works for the taxpayer.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:52a, 5/13/20


Reply Quote
6
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Patentmike • 7:55a, 5/13/20
AG
My gut tells me he doesn't like that Obama is critical of the motion any normal judge would simply accept given all of the prosecutorial misconduct, and entrapment involved in this sham. His peers in that circuit, as well as himself, really don't like betraying their DC party.

He did wind up apologizing to Flynn for calling him a traitor, but his treatment of the whole case, and Powell's motions throughout betray his vitriol for how this should be called at this point.
Reply Quote
4
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:56a, 5/13/20
Reply Quote
6
Claverack
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:59a, 5/13/20
Could be an ego thing at work here.

Judge Sullivan called Flynn a traitor. That is a difficult thing to walk back in a public forum.

It could also represent the fact that the unusual circumstances of this case merit a public input that Judge Sullivan would not normally grant.

Doesn't change where this is headed. The Obama Administration lied and put the full weight of the law illegally upon an innocent man who was forced to plead guilty based on his personal circumstances and the threats made against his family.

To argue that this plea remains acceptable, as the Watergate Group does, represents a claim that the Federal Government can do to any citizen whatever it wants, whenever it wants, without any consequence for the fraud it has knowingly perpetrated upon justice so long as the result is a guilty plea.

Classic case of the end justifying the means.

This is why we have ended up with scum like Comey and Mueller habitually abusing high positions of power in our law enforcement agencies.

Reply Quote
8
ThunderCougarFalconBird
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:02a, 5/13/20
AG
how do these watergate people possibly have standing as amicii in a criminal case? Their case is basically, "reality makes us look bad."
Reply Quote
7
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Patentmike • 8:07a, 5/13/20
AG
Quote:
The "evidence" behind the guilty plea is the 302 and agent testimony corroborated by the 302. I don't know how he ignores the tampering done to the 302, and he'll have to ignore it if he wants to deny the motion the dismiss.

My gut tells me the Judge sees the DOJ motion as an attack on people he likes/trusts/supports and he is having a hard time doing anything that appears to support that attack.
Just read the Notice for Leave to File from the inaptly named "Watergate Prosecutors." and ignoring the problems with the 302 is exactly what they are proposing. Their theory is that once a guilty plea under Rule 11 is accepted by the court* that decision cannot be altered. They also misread the DOJ Motion to Dismiss as one based on a factual basis, not a legal basis. It is quite a galling pleading, practically insulting the Judge telling him what he can and cannot do.

My concerns about Judge Sullivan have manifested in the absolute worst way. Wherein this same judge has refused to allow any amicus curiae briefs from Flynn's proponents, over a dozen times, he's now going to allow them from nongovernmental entities seeking to further prosecute Flynn?

*In the original hearing wherein Sullivan accused Flynn of treason, he also expressed some misgivings as to the materiality of the false statement and never made a finding as to that element of the offense of false statement but accepted the plea anyway, in contravention of Rule 11. IOW, there may already be reversible error in his acceptance of the plea.
Reply Quote
11
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:08a, 5/13/20


I don't know what she is asking, can anyone here shed some light?
Reply Quote
1
Claverack
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ThunderCougarFalconBird • 8:09a, 5/13/20
blindey said:
how do these watergate people possibly have standing as amicii in a criminal case? Their case is basically, "reality makes us look bad."
Because they themselves played some of these games against Nixon and his staff.

https://www.hughhewitt.com/james-rosens-eye-opening-look-at-watergate-through-the-eyes-of-john-mitchell/


Quote:
JR: These were the special prosecutors in Watergate. What did they know about Watergate? And when did they know it? And chiefly about their star witnesses whose testimony helped bring down Nixon and Mitchell, John Dean and Jeb Magruder? The internal memos flying back and forth by the staff lawyers on the Watergate special prosecution staff, including Richard Ben Veniste, who later became famous as a member of the 9/11 Commission, showed that the Watergate special prosecutors knew very early on that their chief witnesses, Dean and Magruder, were peddling deeply flawed testimony, and that that testimony would need to be reshaped, reworked actively by the prosecutors in order to secure a conviction against the person everyone regarded as the big enchilada in the case, John Mitchell.

HH: I will foreshadow something here, James, is I put down certain chapters, I thought to myself some ethics professors in the legal academy are going to have to look here and come to a conclusion about whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred here, because you've laid a predicate for assuming that it has. What's your sense of that?

JR: I think I agree with you that it deserves that kind of examination. At a minimum, exculpatory materials were withheld from John Mitchell and his defense team.
Reply Quote
2
tremble
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 8:12a, 5/13/20
AG
I don't think anything like this has EVER happened before, honestly.

I could maybe buy the argument on the case being "adjudicated" but I have no idea how the law would not allow for a plea to be withdrawn after evidence showing prosecutorial misconduct comes to light.
Reply Quote
6
K188Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:17a, 5/13/20
AG
In my "non-legal" opinion, this is simply a delay tactic. They want to keep Flynn out of the Trump administration. Keep this thing going as long as possible, so Trump cannot appoint him to anything. A Trump pardon would also make him ineligible.
Reply Quote
3
VegasAg86
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 8:17a, 5/13/20
AG
will25u said:


I don't know what she is asking, can anyone here shed some light?


DC Circuit is the appellate court above him. Writ of mandamus directs one to do something he is obligated to do (doesn't work if there is discretion). If he doesn't have the power under the rules to allow amicus briefs, the circuit court could short-circuit the process and say "you can allow them".
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 8:18a, 5/13/20
AG
will25u said:


I don't know what she is asking, can anyone here shed some light?
Writ of mandamus is application to an appeals court to tell a lower court they are screwing up and need to get back on track. Sullivan has steadfastly refused to allow any amicii briefs offered on Flynn's behalf. Now actively soliciting such briefs of behalf of the government prosecutors is erroneous and an abuse by the court.
Reply Quote
18
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:19a, 5/13/20
Thanks everyone for the replies. I got it now. I was reading on the web, but was having a bit of trouble understanding what exactly it was.
Reply Quote
MouthBQ98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 8:24a, 5/13/20
AG
I don't know what he is doing, but what it LOOKS LIKE he is doing to the casual observer is asking for cover to excuse a "questionable" decision he knows he is about to make.
Reply Quote
4
FbgTxAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:30a, 5/13/20
AG
I have a different take.

Seems to me that this whole "amicus brief submission" thing is more likely bait. Throw it out there and watch the sharks circle. Get a bunch of liberal "legal minds" on the record defending injustice, defending entrapment, defending prosecutorial misconduct. Sullivan is just letting the left "double-down" on impropriety. Let's have a national debate and let's see who shows up to publicly defend injustice and corruption.

All the media laps it up like they do, pundits spin their spin, and literally THE MESSAGE that is spread is that the left defends jackbooted thuggery.

Maybe I'm wrong, but the optics of this whole thing are very poor for the left and the media. And as more and more information and facts come out, those who were adamantly defending the misconduct and injustice will be exposed as frauds, liars, and contemptible crooks.
The greatest argument ever made against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.
Reply Quote
4
CT75
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to K188Ag • 8:30a, 5/13/20
AG
K188Ag said:
In my "non-legal" opinion, this is simply a delay tactic. They want to keep Flynn out of the Trump administration. Keep this thing going as long as possible, so Trump cannot appoint him to anything. A Trump pardon would also make him ineligible.
My non-legal mind thinks this too. Sullivan doesn't want to call it off (he wants cover) he wants Trump to pardon him. Trump wants Sullivan to end it so he doesn't get crucified by the liberals and their lackey MSM for pardoning 'a traitor'.

A political standoff at a patriot's expense. Sad
Reply Quote
12
CT75
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FbgTxAg • 8:35a, 5/13/20
AG
FbgTxAg said:
I have a different take.

Seems to me that this whole "amicus brief submission" thing is more likely bait. Throw it out there and watch the sharks circle. Get a bunch of liberal "legal minds" on the record defending injustice, defending entrapment, defending prosecutorial misconduct. Sullivan is just letting the left "double-down" on impropriety. Let's have a national debate and let's see who shows up to publicly defend injustice and corruption.

All the media laps it up like they do, pundits spin their spin, and literally THE MESSAGE that is spread is that the left defends jackbooted thuggery.

Maybe I'm wrong, but the optics of this whole thing are very poor for the left and the media. And as more and more information and facts come out, those who were adamantly defending the misconduct and injustice will be exposed as frauds, liars, and contemptible crooks.
I like this take and hope Sullivan is this brilliant (fingers crossed). I have my doubts though.

As to the bolded part, I'm really not sure that the average Joe pays that much attention.
Reply Quote
drcrinum
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:41a, 5/13/20


https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/13/instead-of-dismissing-michael-flynn-judge-opens-his-court-to-litigate-russiagate/

Professor Cleveland thinks Judge Sullivan will eventually regret his decision to allow amicus briefs.
Reply Quote
6
drcrinum
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:53a, 5/13/20
Reply Quote
19
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:57a, 5/13/20
In response to Mrs. Clevelands question earlier.

Reply Quote
5
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MouthBQ98 • 9:02a, 5/13/20
AG
MouthBQ98 said:
I don't know what he is doing, but what it LOOKS LIKE he is doing to the casual observer is asking for cover to excuse a "questionable" decision he knows he is about to make.
Then he is no longer fit to be on the bench. Judges make hard decisions all of the time. But legally, dismissing the case against Flynn is not one of them now that the prosecution has agreed with the defense that the case is fatally flawed.

The argument by the Watergate Prosecutors that once a guilty plea is accepted the strength of the underlying factual case becomes irrelevant is disingenuous at best.

Rule 11 requires a judge to find that the facts underlying the plea support every element of the offense before the court accepts the plea. Judge Sullivan didn't actually do that as he accepted the plea while twice expressing doubts about the materiality of Flynn's alleged false statement.

Materiality is an element of the offense. Thus his acceptance of the plea was legally flawed.
Reply Quote
9
3 Toed Pete
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to K188Ag • 9:03a, 5/13/20
AG
K188Ag said:
In my "non-legal" opinion, this is simply a delay tactic. They want to keep Flynn out of the Trump administration. Keep this thing going as long as possible, so Trump cannot appoint him to anything. A Trump pardon would also make him ineligible.
I agree and will add that today's liberal sees EVERYTHING in a binary matter: every action/event is either good for Trump or bad for Trump. The DOJ dropping the Flynn prosecution is seen as good for Trump and must be stopped by any means necessary.

Screw justice, integrity, honor, laws, etc. It's all about the stop Trump agenda.
Reply Quote
4
VaultingChemist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:09a, 5/13/20
AG


Reply Quote
2
End Of Message
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:11a, 5/13/20
AG
That's Barnes, right?
Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.
Reply Quote
4
Tailgate88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to End Of Message • 9:12a, 5/13/20
AG
Pinche Abogado said:
That's Barnes, right?
Yes, and does anyone have any idea how he could come to that conclusion?
Reply Quote
2
FbgTxAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FbgTxAg • 9:12a, 5/13/20
AG
FbgTxAg said:
I have a different take.

Seems to me that this whole "amicus brief submission" thing is more likely bait. Throw it out there and watch the sharks circle. Get a bunch of liberal "legal minds" on the record defending injustice, defending entrapment, defending prosecutorial misconduct. Sullivan is just letting the left "double-down" on impropriety. Let's have a national debate and let's see who shows up to publicly defend injustice and corruption.

All the media laps it up like they do, pundits spin their spin, and literally THE MESSAGE that is spread is that the left defends jackbooted thuggery.

Maybe I'm wrong, but the optics of this whole thing are very poor for the left and the media. And as more and more information and facts come out, those who were adamantly defending the misconduct and injustice will be exposed as frauds, liars, and contemptible crooks.


Well great. Barnes agreed with me so now I don't know what to think. He has been pretty nails on this subject though, as we peel back the onion.

Who knows?
The greatest argument ever made against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.
Reply Quote
4
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 9:18a, 5/13/20
AG
He's not going to put Barr and Jensen on trial, lol, but he could appoint a firm/attorneys to represent the prosecution side of the case since the DoJ has decided not to. Yes, to do so would be maddening but saint Obama had to weigh in on this so he is under some pressure from the left, and he lives around DC so he really doesn't want to be in trouble with that group.
Reply Quote
1
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 9:22a, 5/13/20
nortex97 said:
He's not going to put Barr and Jensen on trial, lol, but he could appoint a firm/attorneys to represent the prosecution side of the case since the DoJ has decided not to. Yes, to do so would be maddening but saint Obama had to weigh in on this so he is under some pressure from the left, and he lives around DC so he really doesn't want to be in trouble with that group.
No putting them on ACTUAL trial. It would be allowing them to be drug through the mud.
Reply Quote
1
MouthBQ98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:22a, 5/13/20
AG
If someone falsely confesses to a murder for whatever reason, and gets to sentencing, and then it comes out they were pressured to confess for some reason, so they then receive the sentence for the murder they didn't commit, or the only possible crimes they actually did commit, which is false reporting and maybe perjury?

Is it justice to complete sentence on someone for a crime they didn't commit simply because the 'process' is at a certain point, when it is clear that the process has been abused?
Reply Quote
9
1 edit
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 9:23a, 5/13/20
AG
nortex97 said:
He's not going to put Barr and Jensen on trial, lol, but he could appoint a firm/attorneys to represent the prosecution side of the case since the DoJ has decided not to. Yes, to do so would be maddening but saint Obama had to weigh in on this so he is under some pressure from the left, and he lives around DC so he really doesn't want to be in trouble with that group.
But Sullivan can't exclude DOJ, either. They can fight the appointed attorneys' arguments and standing. Private citizens do not have prosecutorial authority, nor matter what some dips*** federal judge says. Separation of powers is in play if Sullivan tries to take that step.
Reply Quote
7
MouthBQ98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Tailgate88 • 9:25a, 5/13/20
AG
Tailgate88 said:
Pinche Abogado said:
That's Barnes, right?
Yes, and does anyone have any idea how he could come to that conclusion?


Apparently asking a bunch of their political allies to Rationalize and justify the process they used will have this effect?
Reply Quote
1
drcrinum
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:26a, 5/13/20



What does this mean?
Reply Quote
First Page Last Page
Page 1102 of 1410 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.