• 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!

Federal judge hires high-powered D.C. attorney to defend his actions in Flynn case Judge Emmet G. S

iguanaman said:
He was talking about the FBI documents relating to the Flynn investigation not the tape of the call. Grenell will never release that. Then we would hear Flynn telling Kislyak not to respond to Obama's new sanctions because Trump will remove them as soon as he can. How do I know that? Because that is also exactly what Trump tried to do the week he took office.

Trump White House Made Secret Efforts to Remove Russia Sanctions
Click to expand...

I believe Grenell is speaking of the tapes/transcripts of the calls as not being an IC product. Those tapes were made and gathered by the FBI. Which is a reason why there was no masking of Flynn's name or no request made to NSA for an unmasking in regard to those intercepts. So that would mean those tapes/transcripts would be in the possession of the FBI/DOJ rather than CIA, and AG Barr would have the authority to publicly release them. Which I doubt he will, or if he does he will have them so heavily redacted that no one will be able to make heads or tails of what they mean anyway. But I don't see any reason why Judge Sullivan would then not be provided with unredacted copies of those call tapes/transcripts.
 
Last edited:
Fishking said:
Wait...how is a 2nd party going to explain someone's decision better than the person himself? Yeah, that totally makes sense :roll:
Click to expand...

A man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client. Judge Sullivan is no fool. He knows better than to trust Barr now.
 
ludin said:
facts aren't negative. so this is just meaningless.
facts are facts and do not care about your feelings.
Click to expand...

So i did a little research on this issue.
How has the appeals court rule?
If they havent ruled then how is Sullivan being told what to do?
Flynn's lie was material.
You have two 302s that barr tried to weasel his way around the facts which dont say what you want it to say.
Either flynn lied to the judge or the fbi.or both. You cant have it both ways where he didnt.

The facts dont support you. They never have.
 
Chomsky said:
It's a high profile political case involving the White House & the highest levels of DOJ.

Did you ever see an instance like Sullivan hiring Gleeson? If not, then it seems the judge is setting some precedents here, including with Wilkinson.

BTW, this is the same Wilkinson that was retained by Brett Kavanaugh for his confirmation hearings.
Click to expand...

Comparing going in front of Congress who's sitting there being subjected to gotcha questions vs an appellate court asking a judge why he made a ruling is entirely different things.
 
JANFU said:
Well you read all 19 pages -373 posts - are you calling yourself ignorant & likes trash?
Click to expand...

Lots of posts aren't going to make you anymore relevant to reality.
 
Atomic Kid said:
I believe Grenell is speaking of the tapes/transcripts of the calls as not being an IC product. Those tapes were made and gathered by the FBI. Which is a reason why there was no masking of Flynn's name or no request made to NSA for an unmasking in regard to those intercepts. So that would mean those tapes/transcripts would be in the possession of the FBI/DOJ rather than CIA, and AG Barr would have the authority to publicly release them. Which I doubt he will, or if he does he will have them so heavily redacted that no one will be able to make heads or tails of what they mean anyway. But I don't see any reason why Judge Sullivan would then not be provided with unredacted copies of those call tapes/transcripts.
Click to expand...

Flynn should have been masked. But with the numerous unmasking being requested of him by the Obama Admin (and remember, this is an administration who had already concluded Flynn was not a national security threat), the FBI probably decided not to bother.

The transcript should be released. It should have been released three years. Flynn's original defense team should have demanded that it be released, since after all, its the evidence of the alleged crime.

Sullivan had ordered that the transcript be handed over. The DOJ refused (that is to say, the Mueller folks refused) to turn over the transcript. They argued that the Flynn plea deal was not dependent upon the transcript. Sullivan then reversed the order.
 
Atomic Kid said:
A man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client. Judge Sullivan is no fool. He knows better than to trust Barr now.
Click to expand...

He's not on trial. He's been asked to explain his actions to colleagues.
 
Rawley said:
A dismissal.
Click to expand...

No that is when someone is found not guilty by a jury. When a convicted felon is let off the hook it's called a pardon. A convicted man cannot be "dismissed".
 
iguanaman said:
No that is when someone is found not guilty by a jury. When a convicted felon is let off the hook it's called a pardon. A convicted man cannot be "dismissed".
Click to expand...

Well, you should inform the DOJ, Judge Sullivan and the Appeals Court of your legal opinion that they all have it wrong. I'm sure they will all change their minds once they hear from you.
 
Fishking said:
He's not on trial. He's been asked to explain his actions to colleagues.
Click to expand...

Is it or is it not before a court? And he hadn't been 'asked' anything. He's been ordered to. Enough with the naivete, alright?
 
Athanasius68 said:
Flynn should have been masked. But with the numerous unmasking being requested of him by the Obama Admin (and remember, this is an administration who had already concluded Flynn was not a national security threat), the FBI probably decided not to bother.

The transcript should be released. It should have been released three years. Flynn's original defense team should have demanded that it be released, since after all, its the evidence of the alleged crime.

Sullivan had ordered that the transcript be handed over. The DOJ refused (that is to say, the Mueller folks refused) to turn over the transcript. They argued that the Flynn plea deal was not dependent upon the transcript. Sullivan then reversed the order.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. There are two common instances for when Americans’ names are included in the reports. One is because the intelligence only makes sense if you know who the identity of the U.S. person is. That's an exception to the minimization requirements. The other being if it’s evidence of a crime. And remember that list of unmaskings contained a caveat that the people authorized to receive those unmaskings may not have even seen them, or they may not have even contained Flynn's identity. I think it's pretty safe to say that that none of those on that list had anything to do with the Flynn and Kislyak calls. It was just a red herring.

And yes, the transcripts should be released. Flynn's defense team had asked for them, and yes, Sullivan did indeed order that they be released, but the DOJ under Barr, not Mueller, reneged. Saying that they were not relying on those recordings for sentencing, effectively pointing out that no claims entered into evidence had relied on the transcripts (by that time Flynn pled guilty, he himself had provided evidence that he lied, and so they didn’t need to rely on the transcripts). But now however those transcripts are central to the claims the government is making and Sullivan would be totally within his authority to require the actual evidence upon which the government is basing those claims.
 
Last edited:
charliebrown said:
He is a judge who needs a lawyer to state his case!!!! Smart could be a slight overstatement.
Click to expand...

Think of it as a back-door amicus. Pretty smart if you ask me, even if I might have concerns.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Is it or is it not before a court? And he hadn't been 'asked' anything. He's been ordered to. Enough with the naivete, alright?
Click to expand...

He's not going to sit in deposition in their court.
 
Fishking said:
He's not going to sit in deposition in their court.
Click to expand...

for all intent and purposes everything i have heard and read by multiple different legal experts from watergate lawyers to modern ones sullivan is in a world of trouble.

hence the defense lawyer.
 
ludin said:
for all intent and purposes everything i have heard and read by multiple different legal experts from watergate lawyers to modern ones sullivan is in a world of trouble.

hence the defense lawyer.
Click to expand...
I don't believe you know a single "legal expert" who has said Sullivan is in "a world" of trouble.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
What "ethical rules" has Sullivan violated?

I'm at least passingly familiar with the Canons.
Click to expand...

1. he violated his own precedent and other scotus rulings on his amicus hunting.

2. he stood in front of the court and said that flynn should be charged for treason. that right there is cause for mistrial or a new judge.

3. he is in violation of a dc court ruling that said it is up to the executive to prosecute. not him.

4. he purposely ignored evidence that proved flynn innocent.

5. for all his ranting about perjury he sure doesn't hold the prosecutor that lied to him for months accountable.
 
Fishking said:
He's not going to sit in deposition in their court.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter where you give a deposition. You will still have the same legal exposure as if you were in a courtroom. And where is the ruling on that deposition going to come from? A court.
 
ludin said:
1. he violated his own precedent and other scotus rulings on his amicus hunting.

2. he stood in front of the court and said that flynn should be charged for treason. that right there is cause for mistrial or a new judge.

3. he is in violation of a dc court ruling that said it is up to the executive to prosecute. not him.

4. he purposely ignored evidence that proved flynn innocent.

5. for all his ranting about perjury he sure doesn't hold the prosecutor that lied to him for months accountable.
Click to expand...

Talk about perjury every one of those, from 1 to 5 is a lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom