• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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.

Reminds me of the joke about the Russian being arrested for handing out leaflets in Red Square. At the station the police noticed the flyers were blank so they asked the Russian why he was handing out blank flyers. "Why say anything when everybody knows what's going on," was the leafleter's reply.

You guys have your own "facts" that you haven't been able to establish for almost 4 years despite your unrelenting determination to persuade and convince us you have the "facts."

You guys have your tiddlywinks new "facts" and your tiddlywinks old "facts" dropped into several thousand posts over the past 36-plus months all of which go nowhere as you've failed to persuade or convince anyone who continues to bother with 'em. And there are always more and unseen tiddlywinks revelations and 'exposes' that also go nowhere. You remind me of the warhorse general who needs to keep the war going because without the war the general considers that he has nothing.

Yet with the Putin Trump Rowers nothing is what it's been from the outset, nothing is what it continues to be and nothing is what it will be always. Unrelentingly.
 
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?

Because there are multiple incidents of bad actions stemming from the FBI investigations. Leaking, falsifying documents, hiding exculpatory information, and more just keeps coming to light that the Trump investigation relied upon shaky justification.

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.

No matter how bad a character, it doesn't justify what looks more and more like an illegal investigation for political gain filled with illegal actions.

But you do not trust the FBI. Why is that?
Because they have done everything to make me not trust them.

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?

That's a blind accusation that is impossible and unprovable. Orange man bad apparently knows no bounds.

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.
It would appear he has good reason to have no respect for the rule of law---it was used against him illegally.

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

Sigh. Hate isn't convincing. No matter what you think of him, the FBI shouldn't be weaponized against a political campaign. Innocent people shouldn't have their entire lives ruined because of who they support for political office.


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.

RICO is a ****ing farce and you know it.
 
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

Indeed, sort of. The actual terms of the order require him to respond to the application for an order that he rule on the motion to dismiss.

That's not quite the same thing as requiring him to rule on the motion to dismiss.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Read the 302 and read Flynn's guilty plea.



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.



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.

You have to put "they were conducting active measures intelligence operations against the U.S." into context.

IF "they were conducting active measures intelligence operations against the U.S." that benefited "MY PARTY'S (American) Guy", THEN there is absolutely nothing wrong with them doing so;

HOWEVER

IF "they were conducting active measures intelligence operations against the U.S." that benefited "THE OTHER PARTY'S (American) Guy", THEN what they were doing is totally unacceptable and "THE OTHER PARTY'S (American) Guy" must be pilloried

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

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.
Please don't try to analyze what I'm doing and only respond to what the post says. Assigning blame or motive for something which never happened is what got the country into this turmoil, and you're still feeding on those fabricated conspiracies. It's time to stop.
Yeah...it's in his guilty plea.
So you can't answer the question.

If Flynn is telling Russia how to vote at the next UN security council meeting...he's conducting foreign policy.
"If"? Do you really think Flynn had that influence at that point, and the Russians would believe it without Putin even confirming with the President?
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.
Are you referring to a physical attack this time or your previous definition? How the Obama administration responded to the Russian disinformation campaign during their final days in office is what's at issue here. It was during this period that Russia became the enemy and Obama finally got his '80's foreign policy back.

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.
So Hillary Clinton is now the politician, and former Obama favorite, whose name can no longer be mentioned. Stalin would be proud.
 
Last edited:
Just on this one point

. . .

No matter how bad a character, it doesn't justify what looks more and more like an illegal investigation for political gain filled with illegal actions.

. . .

Your position (which I admit that I am paraphrasing - so don't come back at me with the standard "I didn't say exactly that thing, using exactly those words, so you are lying." crap) that

there MUST be an investigation BECAUSE there is there is, at least, some hint that something nefarious was going on

doesn't quite line up with your position (which I admit that I am paraphrasing - so don't come back at me with the standard "I didn't say exactly that thing, using exactly those words, so you are lying." crap) that

there SHOULD NEVER have been any investigation of "Team Trump" because there was only some hint that something nefarious was going on.

Mind you, that doesn't surprise me.
 
Last edited:
Just on this one point



Your position (which I admit that I am paraphrasing - so don't come back at me with the standard "I didn't say exactly that thing, using exactly those words, so you are lying." crap) that

there MUST be an investigation BECAUSE there is there is, at least, some hint that something nefarious was going on

doesn't quite line up with your position (which I admit that I am paraphrasing - so don't come back at me with the standard "I didn't say exactly that thing, using exactly those words, so you are lying." crap) that

there SHOULD NEVER have been any investigation of "Team Trump" because there was only some hint that something nefarious was going on.

Mind you, that doesn't surprise me.

Oh sure, there should have been some investigation but we have more and more indicators that it should have stopped at multiple points due to lack of guilt. But, that it was pushed forward for political reasons.

Look at Papadopoulos, its a third hand rumor about some dirt that he had no idea where it would come from (meaning a point of contact) or the legitimacy of the information. He had no actual information, no person attempting to sell it, no real concrete information. And they launched a counter intelligence operation based on that?

Look at the Steele dossier, funded through cutouts, secretly, sent through unofficial channels to state and the FBI, shopped to news sites, written at least partially by Russians, also uncertain if there are some Ukrainian sources but somehow that's perfectly okay. The DNC hack itself has been admitted to be circumstantial evidence by CrowdStrike under oath.

Then we move onto the Flynn portion, altered agent interviews used as principle evidence, threatened prosecution to Flynn's son unrevealed to the court, hidden exculpatory information.

Then we have Gates, where an agent of the FBI outright lied about his status as an asset to the CIA to justify surveillance on him and through him, the Trump campaign.

Please, tell me, what were the "solid" predicates for the investigation?
 
Oh sure, there should have been some investigation but we have more and more indicators that it should have stopped at multiple points due to lack of guilt. But, that it was pushed forward for political reasons.

Two points on that one:

  1. at present, almost everything that happens in the US government is happening "for political reasons";
    *
    and
    *
  2. I agree, just like the multiple investigations into Benghazi should have stopped at multiple points due to lack of guilt, but were pushed forward for political reasons - right?

Oh wait, I forgot that the rule regarding "presumption of innocence" (as applied to someone who might be a member/supporter of "Their Guys") is that

"At the very first moment that it is first rumoured that there might conceivably be something that resembles an accusation of something that could possibly be considered to be faintly similar to an act that theoretically amounts to a breach of the law, then that person is **G*U*I*L*T*Y** and any court finding otherwise is a perversion of justice."

this, of course, is in contrast to the rule regarding "presumption of innocence" (as applied to someone who might be a member/supporter of "Our Guys") which is

"Until such time as the person has been indicted, has been tried, has been convicted, has exhausted all appeals (regardless of how frivolous) without overturning the unjustly and illegally obtained verdict AND it has been 100% conclusively proved that there is a 0.00% chance that that unjust and illegally obtained verdict was NOT the result of a huge, vast, enormous, hidden, secret, covert, conspiracy to destroy America by making same-sex/inter-racial marriages mandatory, forcing women to have abortions, compelling fluoridation and vaccination, imposing Sherry Law, and making all the Cheerleaders wear Burke Hats, then the person is ***I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T***."


Look at Papadopoulos, . . .

See above

Look at the Steele dossier, . . .

See above

Then we move onto the Flynn portion, altered agent interviews used as principle evidence, threatened prosecution to Flynn's son unrevealed to the court, hidden exculpatory information.

"Altered" does not mean "falsified" and the extent (and import) of the alterations would have come out at trial - which Mr. Flynn most strenuously resists ever happening.

"Threatened prosecution" and "If you cooperate with us we will not prosecute" don't have the same meaning UNLESS you know that the prosecution would likely be successful.

"Hidden exculpatory evidence" and is a possibility, and all that has to be done to rectify that is to release the evidence so that it can be tested at trial to see if it IS "exculpatory" - which both Mr. Flynn and Mr. Trump most strenuously resist.

Now, since that "hidden exculpatory evidence" COULD be released if Mr. Trump was not prohibiting its release, I would be much more sympathetic to your position if Mr. Trump were to admit that the flaws in the DOJ position were flaws that he had, personally, created and which he, personally, was responsible for, and which he, personally, could have rectified, and which he, for personal reasons, refuses to rectify.

Then we have Gates, where an agent of the FBI outright lied about his status as an asset to the CIA to justify surveillance on him and through him, the Trump campaign.

See above.

Please, tell me, what were the "solid" predicates for the investigation?

I didn't say anything about "solid" and, in fact, your insistence on "solid" appears to vary depending on whether the subject of the investigation is "one of US" or "one of THEM".
 
Two points on that one:

  1. at present, almost everything that happens in the US government is happening "for political reasons";
    *
    and
    *
  2. I agree, just like the multiple investigations into Benghazi should have stopped at multiple points due to lack of guilt, but were pushed forward for political reasons - right?

Oh wait, I forgot that the rule regarding "presumption of innocence" (as applied to someone who might be a member/supporter of "Their Guys") is that

"At the very first moment that it is first rumoured that there might conceivably be something that resembles an accusation of something that could possibly be considered to be faintly similar to an act that theoretically amounts to a breach of the law, then that person is **G*U*I*L*T*Y** and any court finding otherwise is a perversion of justice."

this, of course, is in contrast to the rule regarding "presumption of innocence" (as applied to someone who might be a member/supporter of "Our Guys") which is

"Until such time as the person has been indicted, has been tried, has been convicted, has exhausted all appeals (regardless of how frivolous) without overturning the unjustly and illegally obtained verdict AND it has been 100% conclusively proved that there is a 0.00% chance that that unjust and illegally obtained verdict was NOT the result of a huge, vast, enormous, hidden, secret, covert, conspiracy to destroy America by making same-sex/inter-racial marriages mandatory, forcing women to have abortions, compelling fluoridation and vaccination, imposing Sherry Law, and making all the Cheerleaders wear Burke Hats, then the person is ***I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T***."




See above



See above



"Altered" does not mean "falsified" and the extent (and import) of the alterations would have come out at trial - which Mr. Flynn most strenuously resists ever happening.

"Threatened prosecution" and "If you cooperate with us we will not prosecute" don't have the same meaning UNLESS you know that the prosecution would likely be successful.

"Hidden exculpatory evidence" and is a possibility, and all that has to be done to rectify that is to release the evidence so that it can be tested at trial to see if it IS "exculpatory" - which both Mr. Flynn and Mr. Trump most strenuously resist.

Now, since that "hidden exculpatory evidence" COULD be released if Mr. Trump was not prohibiting its release, I would be much more sympathetic to your position if Mr. Trump were to admit that the flaws in the DOJ position were flaws that he had, personally, created and which he, personally, was responsible for, and which he, personally, could have rectified, and which he, for personal reasons, refuses to rectify.



See above.



I didn't say anything about "solid" and, in fact, your insistence on "solid" appears to vary depending on whether the subject of the investigation is "one of US" or "one of THEM".

If you want to have a real discussion, you need to ditch that font and acronym trolling bull****. Because by definition you aren't having one if you are using it.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

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.
Correct, it didn't dismiss it outright as are the vast majority of W of M's. That alone is a significant and telling victory.

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.

Nonsense. Powell did not ask for stay. She asked for the court to order the DOJ motion to dismiss, vacate its order to appoint the amicus curiae, and to appoint another judge. As the Sullivan has already made his appointments there isn't any stay that has a material outcome. Moreover, the very prompt deadlines make such a stay, even if it were appropriate and requested, unneeded.

So ya, "the good news" is that Powell didn't bother to ask for just a half measure, and the court didn't issue, an unneeded and unrequested stay.

As stated, the circuit court is interested in immediately hearing from Judge Sullivan on why he did not grant the dismissal - period. Of course they are going to appear as "objective" as possible, but even so the manner in which they handled it is about as negative towards Sullivan as one can get.

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.

Excuse us? That they did not invite him, but ordered him, to justify his decision personally WITHOUT an option to use an a.c. isn't a forecast for good weather; you don't narrow someone's options and tell them to personally report because you are happy with their actions. For all the reasons I listed previously, which you dodge acknowledging, its clear the circuit court is very unhappy with the judge.

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.

The court is, as it should in extraordinary circumstances, giving Sullivan an opportunity, or the appearance of an opportunity (aka moving "gingerly"), to explain himself. But as your take is dependent on the absurd proposition that if the appellate court didn't act outrageously high handed, it must be a good sign for Sullivan, then you need to cease immersing yourself in the Tony Robbins seminars.

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.

I'm sorry, you are the one that is finding political import to what is nothing more than an observation of the near term legal winds; Sullivan had better come up with something very persuasive or he's likely to be humbled (or worse).

I didn't make any predictions about a potential en banc or subsequent Scotus hearing.
 
Last edited:
Because there are multiple incidents of bad actions stemming from the FBI investigations. Leaking

We don't know who leaked what.

falsifying documents

There were some problems with the Page-related FISA-warrant applications, that's true. That does not mean there was no articulable factual basis to initiate and sustain Crossfire Hurricane.

It was a legitimate and justified investigation. You just like Trump a lot, and don't like it when he is called out on his bad behavior:

alone.jpg

hiding exculpatory information

This is something you believe that no one has been able to prove. The hiding of exculpatory information is an ACCUSATION. It's not a FACT.

The fact that the 302 went through a revision or was edited (most likely for grammatical mistakes), doesn't NECESSARILY mean there was some conspiracy to frame Flynn. That's a huge leap that the evidence does not in any way support. But you believe it anyway because Hannity told you to believe it. And like a gullible person, you accept it without any question.

and more just keeps coming to light that the Trump investigation relied upon shaky justification.

Except there wasn't a shaky justification. There were numerous strands of evidence indicating that not only was Crossfire Hurricane justified, but that it was an absolutely necessary investigation. For instance, the fact that Russia did attack is not in dispute. What is the FBI supposed to do in a situation like this? Not investigate what Russia is doing?

No matter how bad a character, it doesn't justify what looks more and more like an illegal investigation for political gain filled with illegal actions.

I don't disagree, but when I am talking about Trump's bad character and the fact that he is habitually lying, I'm not talking about the investigation. I'm talking about you. It really doesn't make any sense to me why you'd trust anything Trump says. Why do you give Trump every benefit of the doubt? The truth is, you are biased in favor of Trump. I don't think it's some great revelation to point that out.

Because they have done everything to make me not trust them.

That's a blind accusation that is impossible and unprovable. Orange man bad apparently knows no bounds.

But, isn't this outrageous assertion on your part that the FBI hid exculpatory information just an accusation? You haven't been able to prove it, yet you believe it. "FBI bad" apparently knows no bounds.

It would appear he has good reason to have no respect for the rule of law---it was used against him illegally.

Nope. Trump is not above the law, and if Trump does things that indicate some sort of criminality or some sort of counterintelligence threat he should be investigated just like anyone else.

Sigh. Hate isn't convincing. No matter what you think of him, the FBI shouldn't be weaponized against a political campaign. Innocent people shouldn't have their entire lives ruined because of who they support for political office.

The FBI wasn't weaponized against a political campaign. This is a lie. This is a lie that Trump and Trump propagandists like Hannity tell you to cover up Trump's mistakes and misdeeds.

If you don't want the FBI to investigate you then don't talk to Russian agents, especially when there is an active measures campaign against the U.S.

It's really not that complicated.

Basic stuff here.

Like stuff you'd most people learn at very early age.

RICO is a ****ing farce and you know it.

In what regard is a RICO a "****ing farce"?

I always find it amusing that the portion of the population that is sympathetic to the mafia, is also sympathetic towards Trump. It never ceases to amaze me.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Correct, it didn't dismiss it outright as are the vast majority of W of M's. That alone is a significant and telling victory.

Which is why the consensus of the bar is that for a lawyer to file for a Writ of Mandamus is pretty much of a desperation move.

Nonsense. Powell did not ask for stay. She asked for the court to order the DOJ motion to dismiss, vacate its order to appoint the amicus curiae, and to appoint another judge. As the Sullivan has already made his appointments there isn't any stay that has a material outcome. Moreover, the very prompt deadlines make such a stay, even if it were appropriate and requested, unneeded.

So ya, "the good news" is that Powell didn't bother to ask for just a half measure, and the court didn't issue, an unneeded and unrequested stay.

In short "Bluster and puffery" in the application?

As stated, the circuit court is interested in immediately hearing from Judge Sullivan on why he did not grant the dismissal - period. Of course they are going to appear as "objective" as possible, but even so the manner in which they handled it is about as negative towards Sullivan as one can get.

Indeed they are going to attempt to appear "objective" and that is going to be pretty much impossible to do if they reject a set of reasons for the delay which include "preserving the court's jurisdiction over its own processes", "ensuring that the law is properly applied", "avoidance of even the appearance of bias", "complexity of issues", "potential constitutional conflicts", and "protecting the constitutional rights of the persons appearing before the court" (amongst quite a few others.

Mind you, it really doesn't matter WHAT the Circuit Court does, those who like the decision will applaud it and those who don't like it will accuse the Circuit Court of bias.


ACTIVIST JUDGE

"ad – tiv – ist ju – d - ge"

NOUN PHRASE

"a judicial officer who makes a decision that I do not like, regardless of how well founded that decision is in law and how closely that decision bears on the actual facts of the case"

[See also – “LEARNED JUDGE”]

[From the AKME Dictionary of Current American Political Usage - still in pre-press preparation]


LEARNED JUDGE

"lear - ned ju – d - ge"

NOUN PHRASE

"a judicial officer who makes a decision that I do like, regardless of how poorly founded that decision is in law and how little that decision bears on the actual facts of the case"

[See also – “ACTIVIST JUDGE”]

[From the AKME Dictionary of Current American Political Usage - still in pre-press preparation]

Excuse us? That they did not invite him, but ordered him, to justify his decision personally WITHOUT an option to use an a.c. isn't a forecast for good weather; you don't narrow someone's options and tell them to personally report because you are happy with their actions. For all the reasons I listed previously, which you dodge acknowledging, its clear the circuit court is very unhappy with the judge.

Or with the whole situation.

The court is, as it should in extraordinary circumstances, giving Sullivan an opportunity, or the appearance of an opportunity (aka moving "gingerly"), to explain himself. But as your take is dependent on the absurd proposition that if the appellate court didn't act outrageously high handed, it must be a good sign for Sullivan, then you need to cease immersing yourself in the Tony Robbins seminars.

At this remove, and without the Circuit Court having given its reasons for judgment, it's really hard to say WHAT it's "motivations" were - isn't it?

I'm sorry, you are the one that is finding political import to what is nothing more than an observation of the near term legal winds; Sullivan had better come up with something very persuasive or he's likely to be humbled (or worse).

See above.

I didn't make any predictions about a potential en banc or subsequent Scotus hearing.

And that, given the situation, is a very wise course of action.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Please don't try to analyze what I'm doing and only respond to what the post says.

Okay. Why do you think the 302s matter? Why are you and others constantly bringing it up?

So you can't answer the question.

I posted what Flynn plead guilty to several times in this thread. I have no problem posting it again, if that's what you want.

Here you go:

https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download

False Statements Regarding FLYNN's Request to the Russian Ambassador that Russia Refrain from Escalating the Situation in Response to U.S. Sanctions against Russia

a. On or about December 28, 2016, then-President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13757, which was to take effect the following day. The executive order announced sanctions against Russia in response to that government's actions intended to interfere with the 2016 presidential election ("U.S. Sanctions").

b. On or about December 28, 2016, the Russian Ambassador contacted FLYNN.

c. On or about December 29, 2016, FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential Transition Team ("PTT official"), who was with other senior ·members of the Presidential Transition Team at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian Ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions. On that call, FLYNN and the PTT official discussed the U.S. Sanctions, including the potential impact of those sanctions on the incoming administration's foreign policy goals. The PIT official and FLYNN also discussed that the members of the Presidential Transition Team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the situation.

d. Immediately after his phone call with the PTT official, FLYNN called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.

e. Shortly after his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with the PTT official to report on the substance of his call with the Russian Ambassador, including their discussion of the U.S. Sanctions.

f. On or about December 30, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin released a statement indicating that Russia would not take retaliatory measures in response to the U.S. Sanctions at that time.

g. On or about December 31, 2016, the Russian Ambassador called FLYNN and informed him that Russia had chosen not to retaliate in response to FL YNN's request. h. After his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with senior members of the Presidential Transition Team about FL YNN's conversations with the Russian Ambassador regarding the U.S. Sanctions and Russia's decision not to escalate the situation.

False Statements Regarding FLYNN's Request that Foreign Officials Vote Against or Delay a United Nations Security Council Resolution

4. During the January 24 voluntary interview, FLYNN made additional false statements about calls he made to Russia and several other countries regarding a resolution submitted by Egypt to the United Nations Security Council on December 21, 2016. Specifically FLYNN falsely stated that he only asked the countries' positions on the vote, and that he did not request that any of the countries take any particular action on the resolution. FLYNN also falsely stated that the Russian Ambassador never described to him Russia's response to FL YNN's request regarding the resolution. In truth and in fact, however, FLYNN then and there knew that the following had occurred:

a. On or about December 21, 2016, Egypt submitted a resolution to the United Nations Security Council on the issue of Israeli settJements ("resolution"). The United Nations Security Council was scheduled to vote on the resolution the following day.

b. On or about December 22, 2016, a very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team directed FLYNN to contact officials from foreign governments, including Russia, to learn where each government stood on the resolution and to influence those governments to delay the vote or defeat the resolution.

c. On or about December 22, 2016, FLYNN contacted the Russian Ambassador about the pending vote. FLYNN informed the Russian Ambassador about the incoming administration's opposition to the resolution, and requested that Russia vote against or delay the resolution.

d. On or about December 23, 2016, FLYNN again spoke with the Russian Ambassador, who informed FLYNN that if it came to a vote Russia would not vote against the resolution.
 
Two points on that one:

  1. at present, almost everything that happens in the US government is happening "for political reasons";
    *
    and
    *
  2. I agree, just like the multiple investigations into Benghazi should have stopped at multiple points due to lack of guilt, but were pushed forward for political reasons - right?

Oh wait, I forgot that the rule regarding "presumption of innocence" (as applied to someone who might be a member/supporter of "Their Guys") is that

"At the very first moment that it is first rumoured that there might conceivably be something that resembles an accusation of something that could possibly be considered to be faintly similar to an act that theoretically amounts to a breach of the law, then that person is **G*U*I*L*T*Y** and any court finding otherwise is a perversion of justice."

this, of course, is in contrast to the rule regarding "presumption of innocence" (as applied to someone who might be a member/supporter of "Our Guys") which is

"Until such time as the person has been indicted, has been tried, has been convicted, has exhausted all appeals (regardless of how frivolous) without overturning the unjustly and illegally obtained verdict AND it has been 100% conclusively proved that there is a 0.00% chance that that unjust and illegally obtained verdict was NOT the result of a huge, vast, enormous, hidden, secret, covert, conspiracy to destroy America by making same-sex/inter-racial marriages mandatory, forcing women to have abortions, compelling fluoridation and vaccination, imposing Sherry Law, and making all the Cheerleaders wear Burke Hats, then the person is ***I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T***."




See above



See above



"Altered" does not mean "falsified" and the extent (and import) of the alterations would have come out at trial - which Mr. Flynn most strenuously resists ever happening.

"Threatened prosecution" and "If you cooperate with us we will not prosecute" don't have the same meaning UNLESS you know that the prosecution would likely be successful.

"Hidden exculpatory evidence" and is a possibility, and all that has to be done to rectify that is to release the evidence so that it can be tested at trial to see if it IS "exculpatory" - which both Mr. Flynn and Mr. Trump most strenuously resist.

Now, since that "hidden exculpatory evidence" COULD be released if Mr. Trump was not prohibiting its release, I would be much more sympathetic to your position if Mr. Trump were to admit that the flaws in the DOJ position were flaws that he had, personally, created and which he, personally, was responsible for, and which he, personally, could have rectified, and which he, for personal reasons, refuses to rectify.



See above.



I didn't say anything about "solid" and, in fact, your insistence on "solid" appears to vary depending on whether the subject of the investigation is "one of US" or "one of THEM".

Lot's of stuff to unpack there.

Note that the issue is 'potentially exculpatory evidence' and the fact that it was withheld from the defense. A prosecutor can't do that. Such evidence DOES NOT have to be released to the public, but they do have to give it to the defendant. This is important in this case because of the plea bargain, and the fact the case isn't final. The question isn't whether the evidence would have 'proven innocence', but whether Mr. Flynn would have made a different decision. The answer is clearly 'yes', and at the most basic level the remedy is to allow him to withdraw his plea.

That's without even getting into the misconduct issue, and whether the case should be withdrawn or dismissed.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs


That's what Flynn plead guilty to, that's what the government said it recorded. It's more than an "if."

Do you really think Flynn had that influence at that point, and the Russians would believe it without Putin even confirming with the President?

It doesn't matter if he was successful or not, the attempt is still wrong. Notice we still have laws against attempted murder.

Are you referring to a physical attack this time or your previous definition? How the Obama administration responded to the Russian disinformation campaign during their final days in office is what's at issue here. It was during this period that Russia became the enemy and Obama finally got his '80's foreign policy back.

The point I was making is that it is important for the USIC to look into suspected Russian intelligence operations against the U.S.

So Hillary Clinton is now the politician, and former Obama favorite, whose name can no longer be mentioned. Stalin would be proud.

All I'm saying, is stay on topic.
 
Note that the issue is 'potentially exculpatory evidence' and the fact that it was withheld from the defense. A prosecutor can't do that, but they do have to give it to the defendant. This is important in this case because of the plea bargain, and the fact the case isn't final. The question isn't whether the evidence would have 'proven innocence', but whether Mr. Flynn would have made a different decision. The answer is clearly 'yes', and at the most basic level the remedy is to allow him to withdraw his plea. That's without even getting into the misconduct issue, and whether the case should be withdrawn or dismissed.

The defense does not get to simply accuse the prosecution of withholding evidence favorable to the defendant and then get the case thrown out. That's not how it works. The accusation actually has to be true. It is not enough for the defense to merely accuse the prosecution of withholding evidence favorable to the defendant. It actually has to have been favorable to the defendant.

The withheld evidence ACTUALLY has to BE favorable to the defendant. Further, to get a case thrown out, the evidence has to fully exonerate the defendant. In a situation where there is some doubt, more work has to be done by the defense, than to merely suggest it could have altered the trial.
 
Last edited:
We don't know who leaked what.

Actually we do. YOU aren't curious about it but there is evidence about who leaked what.



There were some problems with the Page-related FISA-warrant applications, that's true. That does not mean there was no articulable factual basis to initiate and sustain Crossfire Hurricane.

"problems"--Falsified information and material information withheld from the court. There was every factual basis to stop surveillance on Gates. FFS your statement is dishonest horse****.

It was a legitimate and justified investigation. You just like Trump a lot, and don't like it when he is called out on his bad behavior:
I like due process a hell of a lot more than I like Trump, despite this having been explained to you over and over you still engage in juvenile distraction like this:

View attachment 67281415



This is something you believe that no one has been able to prove. The hiding of exculpatory information is an ACCUSATION. It's not a FACT.



The fact that the 302 went through a revision or was edited (most likely for grammatical mistakes), doesn't NECESSARILY mean there was some conspiracy to frame Flynn. That's a huge leap that the evidence does not in any way support. But you believe it anyway because Hannity told you to believe it. And like a gullible person, you accept it without any question.

Because they did not present ALL drafts to show how the document changed with each edit. This is exculpatory. It does not matter what the rationale is, ALL information is to be turned over in discovery. Not just what the prosecution feels is relevant. For the umpteenth time you stop the Hannity stupidity, I don't listen to Fox, I don't read anything from Fox, I don't use Fox as a source. This is a smear on your part, stop doing it. Not to mention characterizing me personally, stop that asinine **** too. Just because you have a pathetically weak argument doesn't mean you get to characterize me negatively.

Except there wasn't a shaky justification. There were numerous strands of evidence indicating that not only was Crossfire Hurricane justified, but that it was an absolutely necessary investigation. For instance, the fact that Russia did attack is not in dispute. What is the FBI supposed to do in a situation like this? Not investigate what Russia is doing?

Recognize that what Russia was doing was not an excuse to investigate the Trump campaign. Hillary was meeting with Russians, why didn't they investigate her campaign?


I'm talking about you. It really doesn't make any sense to me why you'd trust anything Trump says. Why do you give Trump every benefit of the doubt? The truth is, you are biased in favor of Trump. I don't think it's some great revelation to point that out.

I'm not giving him ANY benefit of the doubt. He is innocent until proven guilty, he and members of his campaign have 4th amendment protections, they have the right to due process. My argument is about how the FBI approached this investigation and how many laws they outright broke to investigate a Presidential campaign based on POLITICS. It shouldn't even be acceptable, it makes Watergate look like taking lunch money.




But, isn't this outrageous assertion on your part that the FBI hid exculpatory information just an accusation? You haven't been able to prove it, yet you believe it. "FBI bad" apparently knows no bounds.

Dammit, sir, they lied to the court about Gates, they lied to Sullivan's court about the 302s, quit trying to revise reality---the FBI lied in the prosecution of the Trump investigation on multiple issues and YES THERE IS PROOF.


Nope. Trump is not above the law, and if Trump does things that indicate some sort of criminality or some sort of counterintelligence threat he should be investigated just like anyone else.

That's the point, he didn't. You need to quit arguing issues you have already lost, its called lying and its doing your argument no good.


The FBI wasn't weaponized against a political campaign. This is a lie. This is a lie that Trump and Trump propagandists like Hannity tell you to cover up Trump's mistakes and misdeeds.
**** your Hannity bull****. The FBI was used to investigate a political campaign. It never should have happened.

If you don't want the FBI to investigate you then don't talk to Russian agents, especially when there is an active measures campaign against the U.S.
It's really not that complicated.

Kislyak was an ambassador. Its beyond ****ing idiotic to insist the incoming NSC advisor cant speak to the Russian ambassador.


Keep it under 3000 characters next time and I wont delete half the idiocy you think deserves an answer.
 
NO! Potentially exculpatory evidence is not enough.

The defense does not get to simply accuse the prosecution of withholding evidence favorable to the defendant and then get the case thrown out.

That's not how it works.

The withheld evidence ACTUALLY has to BE favorable to the defendant. The accusation actually has to be true, and further, it has to fully exonerate the defendant.

It is not enough for the defense to merely accuse the prosecution of withholding evidence favorable to the defendant. It actually has to have been favorable to the defendant.

Whether its favorable or not, you don't get to withhold it, it violates the code of conduct for an officer of the court conducting prosecution. Just doing it can lead to sanctions and a mistrial, and a new prosecutor.
 
Actually we do. YOU aren't curious about it but there is evidence about who leaked what.

Can you prove it?

"problems"--Falsified information and material information withheld from the court.

The investigation as a whole is more important than the little pieces you want to nitpick. That's the bottom line.

There was every factual basis to stop surveillance on Gates. FFS your statement is dishonest horse****.

Can you prove it?

Because they did not present ALL drafts to show how the document changed with each edit.

They don't need to. The idea that the FBI has to show all the drafts to the defense team is pure fiction. This isn't thing. The FBI could write a million drafts, and then give the defense team the last one, the final one. What's happening is that Flynn's defense team is making some sort of accusation against the FBI. And you believe it! You bought it! Hook, line, and sinker!

This is exculpatory.

It's not exculpatory. You are using it as a fact to make the argument that some hidden exculpatory evidence -- that you have not seen -- exists somewhere that has intentionally been hidden away by the FBI.

It does not matter what the rationale is, ALL information is to be turned over in discovery.

I know this to not be true. The FBI does not have to turn over all information. This is a false statement.
 
Whether its favorable or not, you don't get to withhold it, it violates the code of conduct for an officer of the court conducting prosecution. Just doing it can lead to sanctions and a mistrial, and a new prosecutor.

This is not true. The FBI is not obligated to turn over everything to the defense. If it's not favorable to the defense then it's not Brady material. And just because the defense makes an accusation that doesn't mean the accusation is true.

And even if it is favorable to the defense you don't a remedy post-conviction just because some piece of evidence turns up that might have been favorable in some hypothetical trial. The defense would also have to prove some sort of bad faith on part of the FBI.
 
Not just what the prosecution feels is relevant.

This is true, and it also works the other way.

Just because the defendant FEELS like something is unfair, doesn't mean what they are complaining about is actually unfair.

Recognize that what Russia was doing was not an excuse to investigate the Trump campaign. Hillary was meeting with Russians, why didn't they investigate her campaign?

It becomes a justification to investigate the Trump campaign when Russian agents are talking to personnel associated with the Trump campaign about the actual, ongoing active measures campaign the USIC is investigating. It's really not that complicated.

And the USIC did not investigate Hillary or Steele about their spying on Russians, because they weren't working with the Russians, they were spying AGAINST the Russians. Oh, and by the way, when they were done spying they gave all of their information to the U.S. government. And they didn't have to investigate Steele, because Steele told them everything he was doing. What has Trump done throughout this entire process except lie about everything to everyone?
 
Last edited:
Dammit, sir, they lied to the court about Gates, they lied to Sullivan's court about the 302s, quit trying to revise reality---the FBI lied in the prosecution of the Trump investigation on multiple issues and YES THERE IS PROOF.

Show me the proof that the FBI maliciously altered the 302s in an attempt to frame Flynn.

That's the point, he didn't. You need to quit arguing issues you have already lost, its called lying and its doing your argument no good.

Except he did. Apparently you did not read the Special Counsel's report.

Did you know that the day that Trump called -- IN PUBLIC -- for Russia to hack Clinton's servers he told Flynn to run off and find the e-mails?

Why doesn't that seem suspicious to you? Why are not curious about why Trump tried to coordinate with the Russian government just based on this single set of facts alone?
 
Last edited:
Kislyak was an ambassador. Its beyond ****ing idiotic to insist the incoming NSC advisor cant speak to the Russian ambassador.

NOBODY has said Flynn CANNOT speak with Kislyak. What Flynn cannot do, because he does not President Barack Obama's authorization, is to conduct U.S. foreign policy.

Keep it under 3000 characters next time and I wont delete half the idiocy you think deserves an answer.

You don't have to respond to a single post I write. I do not care that much. I mean I do enjoy writing these posts, but you don't have to respond. But when you write stuff I know to be false, I will refute it.

Stop confusing assumptions with facts. They are two entirely different things.
 
Back
Top Bottom