So they got their delay till election day.

With clear evidence that this charge is false and the DOJ wishes to drop the case.

And now Sullivan gets to decide the case? (Results pending)

aggiehawg said:

---

So what is going on with this?

Quote:

---

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is warning his country's citizens against interfering in foreign elections, calling it "unacceptable" under any circumstance.

Zelensky also rejected any possibility that Ukraine is involved in attempts to interfere in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The comments came just a day after a top U.S. counterintelligence official said that a pro-Russian Ukrainian lawmaker was participating in a Kremlin effort to meddle in the November election.

"Once again, I assure our partners that Ukraine did not allow and will not allow itself to intervene in the future in the elections and thereby harm our trustworthy and sincere partnerships with the United States," Zelensky said in a statement shared on Facebook on Saturday.

He added that preventing Ukraine's domestic policy from interfering in U.S. affairs was a "matter of our national security."

---

Quote:

---

William Evanina, the director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, said Friday that foreign adversaries including Russia, China and Iran are targeting the upcoming U.S. presidential election. In his report, he said that Russia was deploying a range of measures to "primarily denigrate" presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and boost President Trump.

"Some Kremlin-linked actors are also seeking to boost President Trump's candidacy on social media and Russian television," Evanina said.

He said that Ukrainian parliamentarian Andriy Derkach, whom he described as "pro Russia," was "spreading claims about corruption including through publicizing leaked phone calls to undermine Biden's candidacy and the Democratic Party."

---

The Hill

---

Going back to this. I've heard Pelosi and Swallwell and a few others lately spew that Russia is trying to influence the election and that certain Senators are carrying their water for them by criticizing Biden. Is this article the genesis of this latest Dem Russia stuff?

I guess any criticism of Biden from a Republican is now going to be met with "you are spewing Russian propaganda!!!!"

I just thought it was extraordinary that Zelensky felt the need to make that public statement. He must know who is behind it.

nortex97 said:

---

will25u said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

So I am lost in all this talk. What happens next if they don't issue the writ?

---

Back to Judge Sullivans 3 ringed circus, to do just about whatever he pleases.

---

I think it is most likely that the majority is written by the chief judge (srinivasan). If so, I think it is likely he punts on most issues and remands the case to a different trial judge. None of the judges really want this, it's an obstacle to their SCOTUS hopes.

If another judge gets it, it's over in late September or early October.

---

I am hoping you are right, Flynn has been screwed around by these evils scumbags long enough.

Cannot believe the BS they are putting this man through.

It just makes you wonder what they are so scared of vis a vis Flynn. They are trying desperately to get him convicted of something whether its the original crime of lying to FBI, or whatever new trumped up nonsense Sullivan and his buddy Gleeson proposed about contempt for filing a false plea or something of that nature. They want him convicted so Trump has to pardon him I guess. Maybe that would prevent him from working in Trump's admin in the future if convicted/pardoned?

The end of the questioning really put a sour taste in my mouth. I think it was Pillet (?) asking/leading Wilkinson To essentially throw blame at Flynn for not asking for a quicker resolution.

I guess a speedy trial/outcome is no longer an important component to the Bill of Rights. Let's just let this drag on forever.

nortex97 said:

---

will25u said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

So I am lost in all this talk. What happens next if they don't issue the writ?

---

Back to Judge Sullivans 3 ringed circus, to do just about whatever he pleases.

---

I think it is most likely that the majority is written by the chief judge (srinivasan). If so, I think it is likely he punts on most issues and remands the case to a different trial judge. None of the judges really want this, it's an obstacle to their SCOTUS hopes.

If another judge gets it, it's over in late September or early October.

---

Well, since he was the author of the Fokker decision and is currently Chief Judge, he'd be the best one to write the opinion that would do the least violence to that decision. I was kind of surprised when he was questioning Sidney's legal analysis of what Fokker did and didn't say. Seemed to me he was looking for an out, that is a distinction, where Fokker was not controlling precedent.

So again, since he wrote it, he would be in a better position to make that distinction in denying the writ, if that's where the majority ends up deciding.

But another off-ramp such as you suggest might also garner enough votes to leave Fokker mostly out of it and undisturbed.

One of the great things about the end of this fiasco was my knowing Flynn was going to get $100 million on what is clear evidence of abuse and corruption.

However, since my view of nearly every judge alive today, certainly in DC, is they do the bidding of the flavor of the month in Dem circles. It also makes me want BLM and Antifa to believe that all law professors at Stanford, every Ivy League law school, and most likely 75% of the rest of America's law schools, had quite a bit of racial writings somewhere in their past, so they could do their job.

I couldn't listen to the proceedings as I am with grandchildren. Anyone else hear this? If this is true, it strongly suggests that the Flynn fiasco is under DOJ investigation.

Edit: Someone else said the actual comment was: "It may be possible that the AG had before him information that he was not able to share with the Court."

drcrinum said:

---

I couldn't listen to the proceedings as I am with grandchildren. Anyone else hear this? If this is true, it strongly suggests that the Flynn fiasco is under DOJ investigation.

---

That caught my attention also. He alluded to investigating the behind the scenes DOJ activities would bring up things that have not been made public. That the AG has information the public (and court?) does not. Interesting to say the least...

drcrinum said:

---

I couldn't listen to the proceedings as I am with grandchildren. Anyone else hear this? If this is true, it strongly suggests that the Flynn fiasco is under DOJ investigation.

Edit: Someone else said the actual comment was: "It may be possible that the AG had before him information that he was not able to share with the Court."

---

This would be tremendous if true... how does that work? The AG can compel dismissal?

drcrinum said:

---

I couldn't listen to the proceedings as I am with grandchildren. Anyone else hear this? If this is true, it strongly suggests that the Flynn fiasco is under DOJ investigation.

---

Yes, it is true. Wall specifically mentioned Barr making the decisions as to what could and could not be divulged to the court in the motion to dismiss. He also stated there were other reasons besides the ones stated in the MTD that warranted taking that action.

Remember my pet theory about the Inovo deal? Might be a connection?

"Could" Wall confide that info to Sidney?

Secolobo said:

---

"Could" Wall confide that info to Sidney?

---

Not at this stage. What I think Wall is referring to is not Brady material. So no requirement to disclose.

aggiehawg said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

"Could" Wall confide that info to Sidney?

---

Not at this stage. What I think Wall is referring to is not Brady material. So no requirement to disclose.

---

Alternative...it's Brady material that is sensitive enough the public interest is served by dismissal rather than disclosure. Probably not the case here, but in an appeal setting, you might raise such an issue to cover future possibilities.

Good point.

will25u said:

---

---

"... may ..."

All the better!

will25u said:

---

---

I'm afraid that Sperry is confused. This chronology, a hand-written note recently obtained by Judicial Watch via FOIA, refers to activities of Bruce Ohr, not Strzok.

drcrinum said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

I'm afraid that Sperry is confused. This chronology, a hand-written note recently obtained by Judicial Watch via FOIA, refers to activities of Bruce Ohr, not Strzok.

---

Wasn't Pientka Ohr's handler?

Yes. Ohr usually reported to Pientka.

What Sperry is referring to is the below FOIA dump to Judicial watch. You have to scroll through the entire list as the handwritten note about a chronology is the last item. It lays out contacts that date-wise correlate with Ohr & Steele.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/jw-v-doj-nellie-ohr-steele-fusion-prod-14-01854/

Thanks! Got confused for a moment as I thought Strzok was present for a few of the Pientka/ Ohr meetings.

West is looking pretty damned good after the motorcycle wreck.

Damned glad to see that. Wasn't that just a couple of months ago?

BTW, I love the open speculation Herridge' message leaves for everyone. I have zero idea what it is, but I LOVE the thought it may make 1 or 2 judges wonder what Barr may have.

Sarge 91 said:

---

will25u said:

---

That's a beautiful photo.

---

No masks. Zero feet apart.

---

I'm sure Governor blackface has been alerted to this lawless transgression.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/08/11/igor-danchenko-and-a-34-month-long-doj-fbi-cover-up-operation/

Detailed article about the intentional coverup of the FBI interview of Danchenko & its importance to continue the surveillance of the Trump Campaign/Admin & then to provide leverage for the Mueller Investigation, ultimately tying in the coverup of the James Wolfe leak of Carter Page's FISA. Remember, the public has only ever seen one of the FISA applications, & that being highly redacted. If you've been closely following our thread, you already knew about most of this. Embedded in the article is a professional video production (7+ minutes) compiled by a different author which explores the same topic but takes an entirely different approach through coordinating video clips.

Margot Cleveland's take on yesterday's Flynn en banc hearing. No really hot takes that haven't already been discussed here but interesting.

LINK

aggiehawg said:

---

Margot Cleveland's take on yesterday's Flynn en banc hearing. No really hot takes that haven't already been discussed here but interesting.

---

Link to MC's take was well written in layman's "plain speak". Thanks!

Quote:

---

and then reassign the case to avoid the appearance of impropriety Sullivan created by seeking rehearing.

---

This statement at the end was kind of interesting. I guess it's human nature to limit your industry's exposure to any impropriety, but there isn't any competition from another government like there would be with regular competition.

But, the statement sounded like she hoped five judges (a tie) could render a decision, and also limit Sullivan's exposure for exacerbated legal decisions.

Maybe it's not that big a deal.

CBS Segment from Catherine Herridge. First time I have heard her speak. She is very well spoken, and knows her ***** She thinks the en banc will remand back to Judge Sullivan with VERY narrow instructions on how to finish the case.

Talking about the Flynn en banc, and subpoena of FBI Dir. Wray.