[blackjack21]

Justice Department dropping Flynn’s Trump-Russia case

In court documents filed Thursday, the Justice Department said that after reviewing newly disclosed information and other materials, it agreed with Flynn’s lawyers that his interview with the FBI should never have taken place because his contacts with the Russian ambassador were “entirely appropriate.”

The U.S. attorney reviewing the Flynn case, Jeff Jensen, formally recommended dropping it to Barr last week, the course of action publicly recommended by Trump, who appointed Barr to head the Justice Department.

Barr has increasingly challenged the federal Trump-Russia investigation, saying in an interview last month that it was started “without any basis.” In February, he overruled a decision by prosecutors in the case of Roger Stone, a longtime Trump friend and adviser, in favor of a more lenient recommended sentence.

We haven't even heard from Durham yet, but the whole Russiagate hoax is coming unwound pretty quickly now.

[Hindsite]

Justice Department dropping Flynn’s Trump-Russia case

We haven't even heard from Durham yet, but the whole Russiagate hoax is coming unwound pretty quickly now.

It was really no more than a left-wing radical illusion of the Democrats and their MSM. It is just now that the hidden truth is being made available to most of the public. But I am almost certain that the Democrats and their MSM will stay in denial, even when President Trump is reelected.

[Wulfschilde]

I can't even troll about this one. They wrote down that they were trying to get him to lie so that they could prosecute him, that Strzok guy reopened the case etc.

Sometimes silence is more telling than noise.

[Finfinder]

Drlee and Late said we are all just making it up and this is a fantasty. I don't suppose this thread will get much action. Too many facts.

We haven't even heard from Durham yet, but the whole Russiagate hoax is coming unwound pretty quickly now.

Between this and too many people surviving coronavirus the Dems are going nutz.

[blackjack21]

They wrote down that they were trying to get him to lie so that they could prosecute him, that Strzok guy reopened the case etc.

More specifically, they queried about their objective--whether their goal was to get Flynn fired or to prosecute him. Also, they didn't re-open the case, they prevented it from being closed in the first place when it was recommended it be closed for lack of evidence.

Drlee and Late said we are all just making it up and this is a fantasty.

Godstud uses the prosecution of Roger Stone as some sort of proof that the Russians were involved in the Trump campaign.

The transcripts are coming out now too. The reason they've fought so hard to keep them classified is that everyone testifying under oath--people like James Clapper who lies notoriously--would state that they had not seen any evidence that anyone involved with the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians. In other words, just like the Flynn case, they have used the classification of information to hide exculpatory evidence--and the fact that they knew the whole thing was a hoax to begin with.

Between this and too many people surviving coronavirus the Dems are going nutz.

Yeah, the polls show people trust Trump more on the economy, especially in view of what blue state Dems have done to their local economies with the shelter-in-place orders, which have also doomed elderly people in nursing homes.

[late]

Drlee and Late said we are all just making it up and this is a fantasty.

A fantasty?

Flynn's lawyers tried that idiocy in court and Sullivan blew their BS straight to hell.

Where it belongs.

You love crazy BS, but that doesn't make it stop being crazy. Or BS..

[late]

" Former House impeachment counsel Norman Eisen tells me, “Barr’s latest perversion of [the] DOJ is shocking. Flynn has repeatedly admitted his guilt in U.S. District Court.” Eisen adds, “The four pages of FBI emails and notes revealed last week changed nothing. They did not affect his culpability or undermine [the] DOJ’s and the FBI’s work..."

This is one more instance — along with the misleading presentation of the Mueller report, reversing prosecutors’ sentencing recommendations for Trump confidant Roger Stone and refusing to investigate Trump’s extortion of Ukraine for political gain — in which Barr has acted contrary to his oath of office and to his professional obligations as a lawyer. He continues to serve President Trump’s interests (and, by extension, those of Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom Trump bizarrely discussed the Russia investigation in a phone call last year) and not the fair administration of justice.

“What Barr has done on Trump’s behalf with respect to Flynn, who entered a fully justified guilty plea that the district court duly approved, is blatantly and purely partisan,” constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe tells me. “I know of no similarly corrupt action in the Justice Department’s entire history. This latest outrage, which closes the circle that began with Trump’s attempt to get [then-FBI Director] James Comey to go easy on Flynn and with Trump’s firing of Comey for his failure to do so, just goes to show that a president with a sufficiently unprincipled and compliant Attorney General needn’t even bother to abuse his pardon power to bail out his loyal henchmen.”

Prof Tribe is one of the best legal minds in the country. I posted this because he's almost always worth paying attention to. Beyond that, this is another part of the Rule of Law that has been destroyed, and another step towards Trump as dictator.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/08/next-administration-must-investigate-barr-his-henchmen/

[Finfinder]

A fantasty?

Flynn's lawyers tried that idiocy in court and Sullivan blew their BS straight to hell.

Where it belongs.

You love crazy BS, but that doesn't make it stop being crazy. Or BS..

Yet you can't even name a crime the FBI was investigating Flynn for. Comey decided to trap him so they interview him. Hilarious these libs argue and they never bother to look at the facts against them.

[late]

Yet you can't even name a crime the FBI was investigating Flynn for. Comey decided to trap him so they interview him. Hilarious these libs argue and they never bother to look at the facts against them.

Psst, look at the plea agreement.

[Finfinder]

Psst, look at the plea agreement.

Answer the question what was the crime the FBI was investigating Flynn for ? It is a simple question Late just answer it.

[Finfinder]

More specifically, they queried about their objective--whether their goal was to get Flynn fired or to prosecute him. Also, they didn't re-open the case, they prevented it from being closed in the first place when it was recommended it be closed for lack of evidence.


Godstud uses the prosecution of Roger Stone as some sort of proof that the Russians were involved in the Trump campaign.

The transcripts are coming out now too. The reason they've fought so hard to keep them classified is that everyone testifying under oath--people like James Clapper who lies notoriously--would state that they had not seen any evidence that anyone involved with the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians. In other words, just like the Flynn case, they have used the classification of information to hide exculpatory evidence--and the fact that they knew the whole thing was a hoax to begin with.


Yeah, the polls show people trust Trump more on the economy, especially in view of what blue state Dems have done to their local economies with the shelter-in-place orders, which have also doomed elderly people in nursing homes.

This also destroys the entire premise of the Mueller probe.

[late]

This also destroys the entire premise of the Mueller probe.

That report would have landed Trump in jail, if he wasn't the president.

Love the crazy!

[Finfinder]

That report would have landed Trump in jail, if he wasn't the president.

Love the crazy!

LOL I will note that you refuse to answer why or what crime the FBI was alleging when they interviewed Flynn.

In fact there was no crime at all. Only in an Obama and liberal Democrat administration can you justify the FBI interviewing someone for the sole purpose (unknown to them) of a perjury trap. There was no crime to investigate in the first place the only crime was being Republican and a Trump appointee.

You are exposed and keep doubling down on being wrong. Congrats!

[late]

LOL I will note that you refuse to answer why or what crime the FBI was alleging when they interviewed Flynn.

You like doing stupid pet tricks. For some reason I don't.

"The blistering, 92-page opinion from U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan is a complete strikeout for Flynn’s new legal team, which had demanded access to nearly 50 categories of information they contended could exonerate the former Defense Intelligence Agency chief.

Sullivan turned down every one of those requests and also accused Flynn of trying to wriggle out of a plea agreement that he voluntarily entered and confirmed to two different federal judges. Flynn pleaded guilty two years ago to a felony false statement charge. His new lawyers have since claimed that he was unfairly targeted by the FBI and special counsel Robert Mueller’s team.

“Regardless of Mr. Flynn’s new theories, he pled guilty twice to the crime, and he fails to demonstrate that the disclosure of the requested information would have impacted his decision to plead guilty,” wrote Sullivan, an appointee of President George W. Bush."

Of course, that's in the real world.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/16/flynn-sentencing-judge-rejects-tricked-086269

[Finfinder]

You like doing stupid pet tricks. For some reason I don't.

"The blistering, 92-page opinion from U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan is a complete strikeout for Flynn’s new legal team, which had demanded access to nearly 50 categories of information they contended could exonerate the former Defense Intelligence Agency chief.

Sullivan turned down every one of those requests and also accused Flynn of trying to wriggle out of a plea agreement that he voluntarily entered and confirmed to two different federal judges. Flynn pleaded guilty two years ago to a felony false statement charge. His new lawyers have since claimed that he was unfairly targeted by the FBI and special counsel Robert Mueller’s team.

“Regardless of Mr. Flynn’s new theories, he pled guilty twice to the crime, and he fails to demonstrate that the disclosure of the requested information would have impacted his decision to plead guilty,” wrote Sullivan, an appointee of President George W. Bush."

Of course, that's in the real world.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/16/flynn-sentencing-judge-rejects-tricked-086269

An article from December of 2019 that is your cut and paste defense ?

What was the crime the FBI was interviewing Flynn for in the first place ? It's real simple Late. Don't need to cut and paste to fill space.

[late]

It's real simple..

Indeed, he's guilty as hell.

Here's the thing, there is Sullivan who is familiar with the nitty gritty of the case, and Prof Tribe who is one of the sharpest legal minds of the last century.

So do I pay attention to them, or kooky Cultists?

Boy, that's a tough one.

[Finfinder]

Indeed, he's guilty as hell.

Here's the thing, there is Sullivan who is familiar with the nitty gritty of the case, and Prof Tribe who is one of the sharpest legal minds of the last century.

So do I pay attention to them, or kooky Cultists?

Boy, that's a tough one.

What does that gibberish even mean. Why are using articles from 2019 ?

The Feds dropped the case. What is your point other than to make yourself look more foolish?

[jimjam]

Am I above the law also or are only trump team members above the law? Is it OK for us all now to ignore laws? Oh My! This is all so confusing. I used to think that if you pleaded guilty you were guilty ….. I guess it depends on who you know. I'm shit out of luck I guess. I just know common people. I don't know any royalty.

[late]

What does that gibberish even mean.

It means you don't know enough to discuss complex legal issues coherently.

[Hindsite]

It means you don't know enough to discuss complex legal issues coherently.

We only have to wait to see what Judge Sullivan will do in light of all this new evidence to see if he discusses these complex legal issues coherently enough for everyone.