I can't wait to read Powell's response to this.
Mueller dismisses top FBI agent in Russia probe for anti-Trump texts
7,608,316 Views |
49329 Replies |
Last: 3 days ago by JFABNRGR
I see a huge, best selling book in Flynn's future...Quote:
Agree. Flynn must have or know something big. Why would a process crime case of lying to the fbi garner so much effort to see this guy railroaded? I mean it's been proven that the fbi, prosecution, and his own initial defense team all acted improperly. The judge has as well. Yet they are pushing now to charge him with perjury for a false plea? Whatever this is, it's so far from fair justice that it's staggering.
I wonder why the DOJ declined to release these unmaskers? Did Barr decline because it would interfere with the timing of Durham's investigation? Will this move up indictments from Durham's investigation?
"Freedom is never more than one election away from extinction"
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Am I understanding Sullivan's potential reasoning, anytime a person pleads guilty to a crime they did not commit then they committed perjury? All of the actual innocence organizations and attorneys should be up in arms over this.
And a huge payday from suing the government.stetson said:I see a huge, best selling book in Flynn's future...Quote:
Agree. Flynn must have or know something big. Why would a process crime case of lying to the fbi garner so much effort to see this guy railroaded? I mean it's been proven that the fbi, prosecution, and his own initial defense team all acted improperly. The judge has as well. Yet they are pushing now to charge him with perjury for a false plea? Whatever this is, it's so far from fair justice that it's staggering.
"Freedom is never more than one election away from extinction"
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Fight! Fight! Fight!
I think Flynn is in serious danger. After Seth Rich and Epstein, there are forces in our govt that will do anything to retain power or avoid exposure. For these people to blatantly defy justice in this way tells me they're getting very desperate.stetson said:I see a huge, best selling book in Flynn's future...Quote:
Agree. Flynn must have or know something big. Why would a process crime case of lying to the fbi garner so much effort to see this guy railroaded? I mean it's been proven that the fbi, prosecution, and his own initial defense team all acted improperly. The judge has as well. Yet they are pushing now to charge him with perjury for a false plea? Whatever this is, it's so far from fair justice that it's staggering.
Not to cross threads again, but Q has indicated several times that "Flynn knows where the bodies are buried."fasthorse05 said:
Couple of comments.
Hawg,, how are they going to find out what ails Sullivan? I can't imagine anyone using a phone/text, etc. to threaten or extort. I assume it would have to be in person, or by way of several individuals. That would be EXTREMELY hard to find. I never would have thought he was off the rails, until this action today. Of course, I'm ignorant of the legal profession, but even I know something is wrong.
Secondly, the Left is expending a HELL of a lot of capital (or seems to be) for something that will likely be overturned on appeal, or a new trial. The ONLY reason I can think of, other than pride and ego, is Flynn must have some kind of staggering information he hasn't shared with anyone else.
At least three times, once in Dec, 2017, once each in Mar, 2018 and Apr, 2018.
So, in Trump's Administration, Flynn would know who did what to whom, and when, plus he knew the NSA and whole Security apparatus up and down. That was too much for Obama to take.
In my opinion, the reason they went after him so hard was after [Obama saying "Don't like Flynn, don't use him in your Admin", Trump probably answered, "well, he's gonna be my National Security Advisor".]
That triggered everything...
I wonder when THAT [ conversation ] took place?
The ones who were named are not on the indictment list. The ones who did unmask but are unnamed are on the indictment list.TexAgs91 said:
I wonder why the DOJ declined to release these unmaskers? Did Barr decline because it would interfere with the timing of Durham's investigation? Will this move up indictments from Durham's investigation?
Grennel went to Barr for a solid reason.
So about that blagojevic commutation...when do we see that come into play? I'm assuming trump got something in return that might be beneficial to him.
He's not doing it for his fellow court bros.TexAgs91 said:Or maybe this is what's going on...Que Te Gusta Mas said:
They've got pictures of Sullivan with a dead girl or a live boy.
Dude is basically flushing his career down the tubes.
Gonna be some combo of:
- compromising photos of him with children or something similar
- future Netflix documentary payoff
- Soros/Steyer/Clinton funded gofundme
WatchOle said:
A few questions here: What is the process of requesting an individual to be unmasked? When is it legal to unmask? And, are there any checks in the system?
I wish texags had an unmasking process... nah, j/k
Certainly Gleesen is disqualified to work on this case and must recuse or not accept Sullivan's assignment.
You must be thinking of some other country's justice system.GreyhoundDad said:
Certainly Gleesen is disqualified to work on this case and must recuse or not accept Sullivan's assignment.
I bet Sullivan is compromised and being blackmailed. Appointing a retired judge to do his job???? And one that is clearly biased? Gtfo
He's trying to get himself removed
He's trying to get himself removed
You know he prolly read it on here & recycled it as his own on Twitter.FbgTxAg said: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?
Trump will fix it.
One thought I have on the actions by Sullivan. It sure seems like the deep state wants to drag this out a bit longer. I wonder if they are fearful of Flynn rejoining the Trump Admin.
It sure seems like all of the actions of declass were waiting on Flynn to be exonerated. Once the DOJ dropped the case, then all hell was released on ObamaGate and the storm is upon us. With more to come.
Perhaps, Flynn is supposed to play a role in what is coming next and the swamp knows it. Thus, the delay tactic...
It sure seems like all of the actions of declass were waiting on Flynn to be exonerated. Once the DOJ dropped the case, then all hell was released on ObamaGate and the storm is upon us. With more to come.
Perhaps, Flynn is supposed to play a role in what is coming next and the swamp knows it. Thus, the delay tactic...
Maybe they are trying to draw a parallel with his op ed and Barr's op ed to "justify" Barr's removal.Civil.Savage said:WatchOle said:
A few questions here: What is the process of requesting an individual to be unmasked? When is it legal to unmask? And, are there any checks in the system?
I wish texags had an unmasking process... nah, j/k
Can I go to sleep Looch?
Some Junkie Cosmonaut
Joined:
Apr 13, 2004
Posts:
44,859
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sol Wisenberg was a guest on The Ingraham Angle and here is what he said about the Fokker case as it relates to Flynn.Sarge 91 said:By the way, something is very, very wrong with Sullivan' order. If you read the Fokker case cited by Sullivan as authority for his "inherent power" to appoint amicus, the case says nothing of the kind. In Fokker, the government and the criminal defendant sought to enter a deferred prosecution agreement (think deferred adjudication - be a good boy for 18 months and we dismiss). The Court, on its own, decided that was too good a deal for the defendant and denied the request. So far, the facts are lining up with the Flynn case. The government and the defendant filed a mandamus action with the Court of Appeals, seeking an order vacating the denial of the DPA. The Court of Appeals appointed an amicus attorney, not to advocate on behalf of the government, but to advocate on behalf of the judge, and argue that his decision was reasonable and within his discretion.Sarge 91 said:This will draw a mandamus action from Sydney Powell.drcrinum said:
In short, it was the appellate court that appointed an amicus to "represent" the judge. That does not convey "inherent authority" for a district judge to appoint amicus to argue against a joint motion to dismiss. Further, in Fokker, the appellate court decided the judge was wrong and he should have accepted the DPA. This is exactly want Flynn and DOJ want to happen. A first year law student knows you don't cite a case the result of which was exactly what your opponent wants.
Either Sullivan is grasping at straws for some unfathomable reasons, or he has the most incompetent law clerks ever assigned to a district judge.
Quote:
Under the D.C. circuit binding circuit law, the case has the ungainly name of Fokker. Under the Fokker case, which just came out two years ago, the D.C. circuit which governs Judge Sullivan made it very clear. If the government wants to dismiss a case, the district court cannot refuse to do so because he doesn't like the government's theory because he thinks the government should continue the case. It doesn't matter if the defendant has pled or not.
GreyhoundDad said:
Certainly Gleesen is disqualified to work on this case and must recuse or not accept Sullivan's assignment.
Pick me! Pick me! That dude wrote out a narrative straight out of Lawfare propaganda.
Or some hack lawfare blogger wrote it for him.
That is why it is so strange that Sullivan would cite that case as authority to appoint amicus.VaultingChemist said:Sol Wisenberg was a guest on The Ingraham Angle and here is what he said about the Fokker case as it relates to Flynn.Sarge 91 said:By the way, something is very, very wrong with Sullivan' order. If you read the Fokker case cited by Sullivan as authority for his "inherent power" to appoint amicus, the case says nothing of the kind. In Fokker, the government and the criminal defendant sought to enter a deferred prosecution agreement (think deferred adjudication - be a good boy for 18 months and we dismiss). The Court, on its own, decided that was too good a deal for the defendant and denied the request. So far, the facts are lining up with the Flynn case. The government and the defendant filed a mandamus action with the Court of Appeals, seeking an order vacating the denial of the DPA. The Court of Appeals appointed an amicus attorney, not to advocate on behalf of the government, but to advocate on behalf of the judge, and argue that his decision was reasonable and within his discretion.Sarge 91 said:This will draw a mandamus action from Sydney Powell.drcrinum said:
In short, it was the appellate court that appointed an amicus to "represent" the judge. That does not convey "inherent authority" for a district judge to appoint amicus to argue against a joint motion to dismiss. Further, in Fokker, the appellate court decided the judge was wrong and he should have accepted the DPA. This is exactly want Flynn and DOJ want to happen. A first year law student knows you don't cite a case the result of which was exactly what your opponent wants.
Either Sullivan is grasping at straws for some unfathomable reasons, or he has the most incompetent law clerks ever assigned to a district judge.Quote:
Under the D.C. circuit binding circuit law, the case has the ungainly name of Fokker. Under the Fokker case, which just came out two years ago, the D.C. circuit which governs Judge Sullivan made it very clear. If the government wants to dismiss a case, the district court cannot refuse to do so because he doesn't like the government's theory because he thinks the government should continue the case. It doesn't matter if the defendant has pled or not.
I'm not sure what future role he plays, although he knows where the bodies are and in which closets are the skeletons, but Barr, Durham and Trump need to get past Flynn in order to clear the decks.TurkeyBaconLeg said:
One thought I have on the actions by Sullivan. It sure seems like the deep state wants to drag this out a bit longer. I wonder if they are fearful of Flynn rejoining the Trump Admin.
It sure seems like all of the actions of declass were waiting on Flynn to be exonerated. Once the DOJ dropped the case, then all hell was released on ObamaGate and the storm is upon us. With more to come.
Perhaps, Flynn is supposed to play a role in what is coming next and the swamp knows it. Thus, the delay tactic...
Whatever role he plays, pardoning him will kill that opportunity. He must be exonerated/cleared of all charges to perform it. So probably why there has been no big push by Trump to take that step.
And Sullivan is daring him...I hope this silly sack of ##!t is impeached
Priestap just now saying this? Been known for how long his notes were questionable? Seems like a Hail Mary. Besides it doesn't matter because they had no predicate to interrogate Flynn to begin with.
Somebody badly wants Flynn convicted.
Somebody badly wants Flynn convicted.
Featured Stories
See All
Predictability leads to disappointment in A&M's 17-7 loss to Texas
by Olin Buchanan
27:34
4h ago
7.8k
21:58
4h ago
6.8k
Photo Gallery: No. 3 Texas 17, No. 20 Texas A&M 7
by Zoe Kelton
No. 20 Aggies finish Players Era with a 81-77 victory over Rutgers
by Luke Evangelist