U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outside gr

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

W_Heisenberg said:

1. Trump was informed that Flynn was a risk.



2. And the whole point of an investigation into Flynn is to find out if Flynn was a security risk.

If the FBI already knew Flynn was a security risk there would be no reason to investigate him. There would be no point in doing so. The whole point of an investigation is to find the truth about something.



I think it's suspicious that Flynn lied to Pence about the nature of his calls with Kislyak. It is suspicious that Flynn told Pence that the calls did not involve a discussion on sanctions, when they did, in fact, involve sanctions. That's strange, especially when Russia is attacking us, trying to interfere in our election, so they can sway the election in Trump's favor, a person they thought would be more likely to be helpful with respect to the sanctions on Russia.

Click to expand...

The nature of his calls with Kislyak? And what was that nature?

And so what if they did include sanctions or not? That is not the business of the FBI, it is the responsibility of the new administration.

The US is not under attack by Russia,

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

maxparrish said:

I appreciate that you are engaging in denial and wishful thinking about the Force 5 storm looming, but if Sullivan does not get blown out the courtroom doors he will be very fortunate.

All the signs are there for those who understand how the winds of law are blowing. They are:

A writ of mandamus is very uncommon, even rare, and most don't have a chance. Most are dismissed outright, but the wording of the order for Sullivan to respond directly to the writ shows the court is deeply troubled.

And usually, when writ is not dismissed outright, the appellate court (Rule 21 (b)(4)) might invite the trial court judge or an amicus curiae to address the writ for him. It does not have to order the judge to respond. YET, they did.

And even if the appellate court orders the trial court judge to respond, it could avoid requiring the judge to personally defend the action under challenge by simply appointing a lawyer as amicus curiae to defend the judge's actions. They didn't. They didn't give him that courtesy or option. Why? Because they aren't interested in hearing an Amicus's legal arguments showing why the DOJ's motion should not be granted. Rather, they are interested in hearing directly, from the judge, why the hell he refused to grant the dismissal.

And, by the way, in Fokker at least they allowed the judge to have an amicus to do it for him.

Nope, the DC Circuit is thus making Judge Sullivan--a lifetime federal judge--publicly and directly explain his refusal to grant, personally to them in his own written brief. (Adding salt to the wound by also inviting the DOJ to add his own views of Sullivan's actions).

In short, of all the options available to the DC Circuit for ruling on the writ, the DC Circuit, chose the most extreme, rare, impolite and drastic of them.

They are pissed off. Sullivan better have a hell of a reason or his going to walk out humiliated.




Apparently he is on trial - all three are not happy and won't accept your narrative as sufficient. They aren't interested in hearing what he "could do" as judge, they want to know WHY he didn't do what he should have done.

In short, he's in trouble.

Click to expand...

It is impossible to 'humiliate' people like this. He must have known how it would eventually end when he made his decision and will instead be congratulated for fighting the good fight' when his decision is overturned.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Fred C Dobbs II said:

It is impossible to 'humiliate' people like this. He must have known how it would eventually end when he made his decision and will instead be congratulated for fighting the good fight' when his decision is overturned.

Click to expand...

Well, I believe he thought a writ wouldn't be accepted this early...before he has made any ruling on the pending motions.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Tangmo said:

You've been framing these statements of your own triumph of the will campaign for nearly four years.

Precious few facts are agreed upon while the old fantasy facts keep getting recycled anew for six months or so then new "facts" are always dropped on the table and which while DoA get pushed for another six months or so of it. Then old and newest "facts" are mixed and bled for another six months or so. Rinse and Repeat.

The outstanding fact and the salient reality is that Flynn pleaded guilty and that the major project of Putin Trump & Rowers is to nullify the plea so that justice and the rule of law can be demolished by a thousand cuts to the Constitution on many fronts, Flynn being the neverending one -- until it ends in the triumph of the will.

After all it is clear and unmistakable the Rowers would rather be ruled by Putin's Russia than governed by elected Democrats under the Constitution. Indeed, the worst thing that can happen to the American Armband Right is to be governed by elected Democrats and under the Constitution. Nullifying Flynn's guilty pleas is seen as the strident breakthrough blow to the rule of law and as the Right's greatest success since Trump got elected via the ECV.

Click to expand...

Its certainly true that information being released of late could have been released earlier (the House Intelligence Committee transcripts, the jumbled 302's, the memo from Ms. Rice). The transcript of the phone call should have been released three years ago. Heck, the Mueller grand jury info should be released.
But it is what is. And when information is released which does not support the previous narrative, its not an assault upon the Constitution or some alliance with Putin that is developing.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

W_Heisenberg said:

You are confusing a lack of evidence sufficient to prove a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt with a total absence of any and all evidence.

Those two things are not the same thing.

I don't know if this is a mistake in you being unable to think logically, or if this is an attempt on your part to confuse people.

In any case, you are wrong.

This was the question I asked: "Who among the "Obama" DOJ and DNI have said there was no articulable factual basis to launch Crossfire Hurricane?" This is not something McCabe said in his entire transcript. This is not someone anyone associated with the "Obama" DOJ or DNI ever said at any time. And I challenge you to prove otherwise. I took the time to read Page 207 to 211. And McCabe does not say, "Nobody saw evidence of Trump or his campaign conspiring with Russia."

Let's read the pertinent responses from McCabe that you referenced:

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2020/05/am33.pdf



These are very specific questions put to McCabe about very specific aspects of the investigation. They, in no way, indicate that McCabe thought there was no evidence Trump or his campaign was conspiring with Russia.

With respect to this last question, the Special Counsel was able to later connect the dots and prove the Trump's campaign had foreknowledge of when the e-mails would be published publicly.

To reiterate, my question was: "Who among the "Obama" DOJ and DNI have said there was no articulable factual basis to launch Crossfire Hurricane?"

And this is not something McCabe said in his entire transcript.

Click to expand...

McCabe was asked whether he saw any evidence, any fact, that would cause to him to believe that Trump was conspiring with Russia.
All the other witnesses were asked the same question, if he or she had seen such evidence or facts. They answered the same way.
Conclusion: Nobody in the Obama DOJ and DNI saw evidence and facts that Trump was conspiring with Russia.

W_Heisenberg said:

I'm not arguing that Barr doesn't think the FBI erred.

I am arguing that Barr is wrong about his thoughts about the FBI having erred.

Barr is wrong when he suggests that the lie was not material.

Click to expand...

Ok-- well Barr disagrees.
So that ends that.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

maxparrish said:

Well, I believe he thought a writ wouldn't be accepted this early...before he has made any ruling on the pending motions.

Click to expand...

I'll guess you're right because you'll likely know the law better than I do.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

W_Heisenberg said:

You and others are trying to say that there was not a reasonable basis to conduct an investigation of the Trump campaign, and no therefore no reasonable basis to prosecute Flynn for lying about things related to Crossfire Hurricane. This is FALSE. The FBI had sufficient reason to conduct the investigation.

Click to expand...

This is true that I have been saying this for a few years now.
But we don't have to listen to me on it.
Again-- the Obama DOJ and DNI have testified that THEY SAW NO EVIDENCE of a conspiracy between Trump and Russia.
So-- I will ask again-- what was the evidence that the FBI saw that these other guys didn't see?

And because they could not find sufficient evidence to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia that does not mean there was no evidence. The evidence that inspired enough suspicion to motivate the FBI to investigate the Trump campaign does not cease to exist. And if we already knew the outcome of an investigation before an investigation occurred there would never be any reason to conduct any investigation ever for any question law enforcement officials might be trying to answer.

Click to expand...

Yes-- law enforcement has a right to be wrong.
But they also have to have a good faith reason for thinking they were right, even if it turned out they were wrong.

The reason why we know the Trump campaign likely did not conspire with Russia is because there was a thorough investigation of whether or not the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.

Click to expand...

Did you embezzle for your employer? Beat your wife? Sell drugs on the street?
How would we know if there was no thorough investigation?
How about we start by saying there are no facts to suspect the above.

Click to expand...

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

W_Heisenberg said:

This is not the same thing as Obama, himself, instigating, or somehow managing any of the Russia-related investigations. That is what you're arguing, and it's a false assertion.



This is not an argument I'm making. I am not arguing that Obama would not have been aware of the investigation into Russia or the investigation into Flynn.

Click to expand...

We now know for a fact that the Obama DOJ and DNI folks did not see any evidence to suggest there was a conspiracy between Russia and Trump to fix the 2016 election.

But we know there was such an investigation.

So what are we trying to say now? That the Obama folks perjured themselves? Or that they permitted Mr. Comey to run a rogue operation? Seems kind of far fetched.
The only other answer is that it was run from the White House. That fits the Page -Strzok texts where they say the White House wants to be kept informed.
And it fits the Rice memo-- where she seeks to put the blame on Comey for an investigation which has no facts to support its claim.
So just who are we talking about in the White House? The chief of staff?? White House counsel??

You are suggesting, wrongly, that the USIC did not have any evidence at all and therefore the investigations were somehow bogus. This is a false statement.

Click to expand...

The Obama DNI and DOJ guys are suggesting it.

Click to expand...

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

W_Heisenberg said:

That's for the jury to decide.

And Flynn made the whole process easier for everyone by simply admitting he lied instead of putting everyone through the aggravation of a trial. Flynn did this because he knew he would lose.

And Barr, instead of contradicting Flynn or the prosecution, did not argue that Flynn did not lie in the motion to dismiss. Instead, Barr argued that Flynn's lie was not material.

Click to expand...

Yes-- and if the information was available prior to it would have made a prosecution difficult as it would have made it very difficult to prove that the misleading was material.
And as Barr had said, the standard for the DOJ will be that charges will be brought if the government believes it can can convict beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of the alleged crime.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

The DC Court of Appeals has ordered Judge Sullivan to rule on the motion to dismiss. This is in answer to a mandamus petition, which requires very serious actions by the trial judge.

Appeals court orders Flynn judge to respond to demand to dismiss case

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

W_Heisenberg said:

Yes, the information acquired from an investigation of Flynn would help Obama make a decision as it pertains to whether or not information should be shared with Flynn, but each thing represents two distinct things.

The fact that Obama asked Comey for advice on whether or not information should be shared with Flynn...DOES NOT indicate that Obama instigated or managed the investigation of Flynn

Click to expand...

So Obama is asking for advice whether information should be shared with Flynn.
Which means it his decision. Which means he can shutdown the investigation. Or he can start the investigation.
Which is why Rice wrote her memo-- she seeks to blame Comey for the bad advice.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Fred C Dobbs II said:

The nature of his calls with Kislyak? And what was that nature?

Click to expand...

Read the 302 and read Flynn's guilty plea.

And so what if they did include sanctions or not? That is not the business of the FBI, it is the responsibility of the new administration.

Click to expand...

Flynn did not yet hold an official position and was not delegated any authority by President Barack Obama. He had no business to conduct U.S. foreign policy.

The US is not under attack by Russia,

Click to expand...

Not physical attack, but the U.S. was under attack by Russia in the sense they were conducting active measures intelligence operations against the U.S.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

W_Heisenberg said:

Read the 302 and read Flynn's guilty plea.

Click to expand...

In fact the original 302 is mysteriously missing. Do you know why Flynn plead guilty and what he plead guilty to?

Flynn did not yet hold an official position and was not delegated any authority by President Barack Obama. He had no business to conduct U.S. foreign policy.

Click to expand...

He was not conducting US foreign policy and, as well, that is the job of the President.

Not physical attack, but the U.S. was under attack by Russia in the sense they were conducting active measures intelligence operations against the U.S.

Click to expand...

That 'attack' has been going on for over a century. It seems Hillary's 'reset' and BHO's 'flexibility' did no good whatsoever.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:

McCabe was asked whether he saw any evidence, any fact, that would cause to him to believe that Trump was conspiring with Russia. All the other witnesses were asked the same question, if he or she had seen such evidence or facts. They answered the same way. Conclusion: Nobody in the Obama DOJ and DNI saw evidence and facts that Trump was conspiring with Russia.

Click to expand...

#1 - Again, and I hate to have to keep repeating myself, this was the question I asked: "Who among the 'Obama' DOJ and DNI have said there was no articulable factual basis to launch Crossfire Hurricane?" Again, you avoided answering the question or responding to it, and instead you responded to a different question I had not asked.

#2 - With respect to this other response, your assertion that "Nobody" in the Obama DOJ and DNA "saw evidence and facts that Trump was conspiring with Russia" you referenced McCabe's testimony. And with respect to McCabe's testimony...

You are not being precise.

And you are not being precise to the point of being disingenuous.

And you are being disingenuous to the point of lying.

That's not what Gowdy asked, and that's not what McCabe answered. Gowdy asked him specific questions about Trump's personal involvement as it relates to specific incidents. For instance, Gowdy asked if McCabe had personally seen evidence or information that shows Donald Trump's involvement in the DNC hack. McCabe answered, "No."

Gowdy did not ask McCabe if he saw evidence and facts that Trump was conspiring with Russia. And McCabe did not respond that he did not see evidence and facts that Trump was conspiring with Russia.

It can be true that there was evidence that made McCabe and others suspicious of Trump, and also true that McCabe had not personally seen evidence or information showing Donald Trump was involved in the DNC hack.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:

Again-- the Obama DOJ and DNI have testified that THEY SAW NO EVIDENCE of a conspiracy between Trump and Russia.

Click to expand...

This is your, very, inaccurate characterization of the testimony. Point to a section of testimony where those associated with "Obama" DOJ and "Obama" DNI testified they saw "no evidence" of a conspiracy between Trump and Russia.

So-- I will ask again-- what was the evidence that the FBI saw that these other guys didn't see?

Click to expand...

The best source of information where you can find the answer to your question is the Special Counsel's report. Even at the time of Flynn's interview, there was already a wide array of information indicating Russia was trying to help the Trump campaign and also coordinate with the Trump campaign in 2016, and there was a wide array of information indicating Trump campaign personnel and Trump associates were acting suspiciously in that respect. One good example is the Papadopolous revelations that Alexander Downer conveyed to the USIC. It is within the context of this Russian intelligence operation against the U.S., within the context of the strange and suspicious reactions by Trump campaign personnel, and within the context of Flynn being paid off by the Russians in December 2015, and within the context of Flynn lying to Pence about the nature of his call with Kislyak that the FBI felt compelled to interview Flynn.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

W_Heisenberg said:

#1 - Again, and I hate to have to keep repeating myself, this was the question I asked: "Who among the 'Obama' DOJ and DNI have said there was no articulable factual basis to launch Crossfire Hurricane?" Again, you avoided answering the question or responding to it, and instead you responded to a different question I had not asked.

Click to expand...

That's a retarded question. They aren't going to outright state it. Even if there isn't one, they wont admit it.

#2 - With respect to this other response, your assertion that "Nobody" in the Obama DOJ and DNA "saw evidence and facts that Trump was conspiring with Russia" you referenced McCabe's testimony. And with respect to McCabe's testimony...

You are not being precise.

And you are not being precise to the point of being disingenuous.

And you are being disingenuous to the point of lying.

That's not what Gowdy asked, and that's not what McCabe answered. Gowdy asked him specific questions about Trump's personal involvement as it relates to specific incidents. For instance, Gowdy asked if McCabe had personally seen evidence or information that shows Donald Trump's involvement in the DNC hack. McCabe answered, "No."

Gowdy did not ask McCabe if he saw evidence and facts that Trump was conspiring with Russia. And McCabe did not respond that he did not see evidence and facts that Trump was conspiring with Russia.

Click to expand...

If McCabe couldn't connect him to the DNC hack, he wasn't guilty of that conspiracy. So you are left with no response on any other charge and a no on that one. How do you suppose you have evidence from McCabe of guilt?

It can be true that there was evidence that made McCabe and others suspicious of Trump, and also true that McCabe had not personally seen evidence or information showing Donald Trump was involved in the DNC hack.

Click to expand...

LOL yes yes, suspicions grow like leaves on a tree but you have to prove them to declare a man guilty and you have proven nit.

Athanasius68 said:

Yes-- law enforcement has a right to be wrong.

Click to expand...

It’s not about being right or wrong. An investigation is a process intended to answer a question.

But they also have to have a good faith reason for thinking they were right, even if it turned out they were wrong.

Click to expand...

No. This is incorrect. It’s not about the outcome. It’s about the process. And they don’t need a reason to think they are right. They only need an articulable factual basis. It could be one tiny clue.

Did you embezzle for your employer?

Click to expand...

Were you found driving a lambo on an accountant’s salary the day after the company’s money went missing?

Beat your wife

Click to expand...

Is your wife’s face red and bruised and are your knuckles bleeding?

Sell drugs on the street

Click to expand...

Did the drugs fall out of your pocket as you were running away from the police?

How would we know if there was no thorough investigation?

Click to expand...

It begins with an articulable fact.

OpportunityCost said:

If McCabe couldn't connect him to the DNC hack, he wasn't guilty of that conspiracy. So you are left with no response on any other charge and a no on that one. How do you suppose you have evidence from McCabe of guilt?.

Click to expand...

1. I am not arguing that Trump or anyone associated with Trump likely committed the crime of conspiracy. I am arguing that the investigation into Trump and his associates was justified, including the one with respect to Flynn

2. Absent a RICO related charge, like the kind they do with mafia figures, you would need evidence linking Trump directly to the conspiracy in order to prove, convict, and send him to prison; or to convince Republican Senators to convict him in some impeachment trial. Despite a lack of evidence directly linking Trump there was a lot of different evidence that made Trump himself, and also his campaign, look very suspicious.

W_Heisenberg said:

1. I am not arguing that Trump or anyone associated with Trump likely committed the crime of conspiracy. I am arguing that the investigation into Trump and his associates was justified, including the one with respect to Flynn

Click to expand...

That must be why Wray has started an internal FBI investigation. Because he is sure everything was "justified".

2. Absent a RICO related charge, like the kind they do with mafia figures, you would need evidence linking Trump directly to the conspiracy in order to prove, convict, and send him to prison; or to convince Republican Senators to convict him in some impeachment trial. Despite a lack of evidence directly linking Trump there was a lot of different evidence that made Trump himself, and also his campaign, look very suspicious.

Click to expand...

RICO? That's the most unserious pile of **** you have dumped upon this board yet.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

maxparrish said:

I appreciate that you are engaging in denial and wishful thinking about the Force 5 storm looming, but if Sullivan does not get blown out the courtroom doors he will be very fortunate.

All the signs are there for those who understand how the winds of law are blowing. They are:

A writ of mandamus is very uncommon, even rare, and most don't have a chance. Most are dismissed outright, but the wording of the order for Sullivan to respond directly to the writ shows the court is deeply troubled.

And usually, when writ is not dismissed outright, the appellate court (Rule 21 (b)(4)) might invite the trial court judge or an amicus curiae to address the writ for him. It does not have to order the judge to respond. YET, they did.



And, by the way, in Fokker at least they allowed the judge to have an amicus to do it for him.



In short, of all the options available to the DC Circuit for ruling on the writ, the DC Circuit, chose the most extreme, rare, impolite and drastic of them.





Apparently he is on trial - all three are not happy and won't accept your narrative as sufficient. They aren't interested in hearing what he "could do" as judge, they want to know WHY he didn't do what he should have done.

In short, he's in trouble.

Click to expand...

All I'm getting is wind from a RW blowhard. So let's look at what is happening for real and what isn't happening for real, ie, let's go inside the eye of the storm.

Once Flynn's RW lawyer paid the filing fee the appellate court needed to act so it granted the Writ of Mandamus Hail Mary Pass.

What the appellate court did not do was stay Judge Sullivan's two orders appointing a retired federal judge to file an amicus critiquing the DoJ motion to dismiss and also for the retired judge to show why Flynn should not be held in contempt for perjury.

You as an internet lawyer should know this pass of a stay by the appellate panel in this extraordinary case is not good news for Flynn. Indeed a stay is issued when a court believes the (Flynn lawyers) filing has a foreseeable probability to succeed in further proceedings. Further proceedings in this instance being of course the panel receiving and considering Judge Sullivan's filing as ordered routinely (as extraordinary and exceptional as Mandamus is). When a court does not issue a stay then the outcome remains open in further proceedings, which is the reality here.

It is real that Sullivan set a schedule of events to begin June 10 so it is real the DC Circuit Court acted swiftly and wants Sullivan to act swiftly. Sullivan however has not indicated he is likely to appoint his own lawyer to the appellate court which likely indicates Sullivan is ready to produce his answers to the three judges. The three appellate judges btw come from GHW, Obama, Trump; neither did the panel exercise its option to appoint a lawyer for Sullivan or to suggest / order Sullivan to appoint a lawyer to represent him to the panel. Indeed if appellate judges want you the inferior judge to have a lawyer represent you to them it's then that you might start figuring the fix is in.

Contrary to your political certainties in the post, the reputation and standing of the circuit court of appeals in on the line in the extraordinary Flynn filing and in the court's exceptional Writ of Mandamus. The appellate panel is in fact proceeding gingerly given it could have issued a Writ of Prohibition to Judge Sullivan but it did not do so. An appellate court can at any time initiate a Writ of Prohibition to a district court.

A Writ of Prohibition mandates the district court to cease any action over the case when the appellate court might itself and independently determine a defendant's legal right(s) are being defeated, or if the appellate court has itself and independently determined the district court is acting outside the normal rules and procedures. A criminal defendant can also petition the appellate court to issue a Writ of Prohibition yet Flynn's lawyer the RW Flamethrower Powell did not take this approach -- and for good reason so it would seem.

So your political arguments notwithstanding there are serious legal issues, procedures, options at issue and available, some of which are being exercised extraordinarily and other yet more drastic ones that are not being applied. The option exists for the full appellate court en banc to be petitioned in the case and given no judge cares much to be reversed, the three judges on this panel would be well aware of the rare and hairy legal issues involved. Then there's Scotus where they tend to rule unanimously on narrow technical legal issues and where as Justice RBG has just noted in a unanimous ruling, lawyers need to do lawyering and judges need to do justice.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:

Yes-- and if the information was available prior to it would have made a prosecution difficult as it would have made it very difficult to prove that the misleading was material. And as Barr had said, the standard for the DOJ will be that charges will be brought if the government believes it can can convict beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of the alleged crime.

Click to expand...

Nope. Sorry. You are trying to argue that this incredibly minor issue would have been enough for a prosecutor to suggest not to continue with the prosecution. What would happen is they would get both FBI agents on the stand, and they both would testify as to what happened. If the defense managed to somehow insert this idiotic conspiracy theory you guys keep trying to push the prosecution would explain that 302s are often edited for the purposes of clarity and grammatical mistakes, and so on.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:

So Obama is asking for advice whether information should be shared with Flynn. Which means it his decision. Which means he can shutdown the investigation. Or he can start the investigation. Which is why Rice wrote her memo-- she seeks to blame Comey for the bad advice.

Click to expand...

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Fred C Dobbs II said:

In fact the original 302 is mysteriously missing.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it did. You are assuming, without evidence, that the missing 302 is part of some conspiracy to frame Flynn and that the missing 302 contains evidence that indicates the FBI made up the charges against Flynn. This is a huge stretch.

Do you know why Flynn plead guilty and what he plead guilty to?

Click to expand...

Yeah...it's in his guilty plea.

He was not conducting US foreign policy and, as well, that is the job of the President.

Click to expand...

If Flynn is telling Russia how to vote at the next UN security council meeting...he's conducting foreign policy.

That 'attack' has been going on for over a century

Click to expand...

YES! That's it! You are 100% correct. You win the prize! That's the ticket! The attack has been going on for over a century. That's why when the USIC gets a lead its incumbent upon the USIC to investigate that lead because the assumption is the attack is ongoing, and never stops. So when the USIC receives a lead that the Trump campaign foreign policy advisor was bragging about his contacts with a Russian agent who may have access to hacked e-mails it's necessary for the USIC to follow up on the lead and make sure there is nothing going on.

It seems Hillary's 'reset' and BHO's 'flexibility' did no good whatsoever.

Click to expand...

This is completely irrelevant to the issues we are discussing in this thread related to Clinton, or to the larger Crossfire Hurricane investigation, but you get 2 points for inserting another partisan jab at Clinton. Hannity would be proud.

OpportunityCost said:

That must be why Wray has started an internal FBI investigation. Because he is sure everything was "justified".

Click to expand...

Because Trump is going to fire Wray if he doesn't. If you don't accept that an investigation of Trump and his campaign is indicative of any wrongdoing on Trump's part. Then why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that an internal FBI investigation is indicative of wrongdoing on the FBI's part?

The fact is you trust Trump, a man who has lied over 16,000 times, an incompetent, corrupt, idiotic loser who has filed for bankruptcy multiple times, cheated on his wife with a pornstar, screwed over his subcontractors, scammed people using fake charities, committed tax fraud, violated campaign finance laws, obstructed justice during the Special Counsel's investigation. and tried to coerce Ukraine into helping him win in 2020.

But you do not trust the FBI. Why is that?

Why do you still think anything Trump does is an act of good faith when it's clear by now that everything he does arises out of bad faith?

Trump is not a good person who does good things. Trump is a bad person who does bad things. If Trump were a cop he would be the kind of cop to plant fake evidence on people. Trump is a thug and a bully who has no respect for the Rule of Law. This should be abundantly clear to you by now.

When is it going to dawn on you that Trump is a liar who lies to people...habitually?

RICO? That's the most unserious pile of **** you have dumped upon this board yet.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't think it's that much a leap to consider the RICO approach, but that's not why I brought it up. I was trying to explain the reason why Gowdy's questions were so narrow.