Department of Justice drops Flynn Case - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15093829
“Damn right, exactly right,” the fired, retired three-star general said in answer to audience chants of “lock her up.” “And you know why we’re saying that? We’re saying that because if I, a guy who knows this business, if I did a tenth, a tenth of what [Hillary Clinton] did, I would be in jail today.”

This was said by a man who, as a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and top foreign policy adviser to Donald Trump, had already taken $45,000 from the K.G.B. regime in Moscow and would later take $530,000 from the Islamist regime in Ankara as an unregistered foreign agent. If Flynn had been prosecuted, judged and sentenced according to his own moral arithmetic, he’d be behind bars today.

Fortunately he isn’t, because sleazy behavior isn’t the same as criminal conduct.

So, Mr. Flynn failed to register as an agent of a foreign government -- Turkey -- from which he had received more than a half million dollars. He didn't disclose it, even though he knew the law obliged him to. So how, exactly, is that not criminal? Presidential and executive branch lawlessness is not Making America Great Again. Until the grand jury testimony in the Flynn case becomes public (along with the unredacted Mueller report) I'll rely on the courtroom statement of presiding judge Reggie B. Walton to Flynn: "Arguably, you sold your country out."
#15093840
blackjack21 wrote:
However, there is little question that the Obama administration sought to undermine the peaceful transfer of power and prosecute his political successor.



If Biden wins, and all that nasty shit gets the light of day, it be ugly...
#15093841
blackjack21 wrote:it's not a felony

18 U.S.C.§ 401 specifies neither the minimum nor maximum penalty that may be imposed.


:)
#15093928
ingliz wrote:18 U.S.C.§ 401 specifies neither the minimum nor maximum penalty that may be imposed.

That sort of contempt relates to misbehavior in court or resisting the authority of the court. So I don't think it could be construed to apply in the Flynn case. At any rate, you can't imprison someone for more than a year without a felony charge. The court will certainly not be able to sustain a perjury charge on a plea bargain against a defendant in duress. It's frankly quite absurd.
#15093930
jimjam wrote:“Damn right, exactly right,” the fired, retired three-star general said in answer to audience chants of “lock her up.” “And you know why we’re saying that? We’re saying that because if I, a guy who knows this business, if I did a tenth, a tenth of what [Hillary Clinton] did, I would be in jail today.”

This was said by a man who, as a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and top foreign policy adviser to Donald Trump, had already taken $45,000 from the K.G.B. regime in Moscow and would later take $530,000 from the Islamist regime in Ankara as an unregistered foreign agent. If Flynn had been prosecuted, judged and sentenced according to his own moral arithmetic, he’d be behind bars today.

Fortunately he isn’t, because sleazy behavior isn’t the same as criminal conduct.

So, Mr. Flynn failed to register as an agent of a foreign government -- Turkey -- from which he had received more than a half million dollars. He didn't disclose it, even though he knew the law obliged him to. So how, exactly, is that not criminal? Presidential and executive branch lawlessness is not Making America Great Again. Until the grand jury testimony in the Flynn case becomes public (along with the unredacted Mueller report) I'll rely on the courtroom statement of presiding judge Reggie B. Walton to Flynn: "Arguably, you sold your country out."

Flynn has never been charged with all this stuff you post that was put out by the left-wing Fake news. So none of that is relevant in this case. It is just more left-wing propaganda like the Russian collusion hoax. If the Obama's FBI had thought Flynn had done all those things wrong, it does not make sense that they would have recommended no jail time for just pleading guilty to lying to the FBI.
#15093947
blackjack21 wrote:you can't imprison someone for more than a year without a felony charge.

Judges have discretion to decide whether to give defendants who are convicted of separate crimes concurrent or consecutive sentences.


:)
#15093949
ingliz wrote:Judges have discretion to decide whether to give defendants who are convicted of separate crimes concurrent or consecutive sentences.

That is irrelevant in the Flynn case because Flynn has not been convicted of any crime.
#15093951
Hindsite wrote:Flynn has not been convicted of any crime.

Sentences of imprisonment to run consecutively for each instance of contempt of court are allowed if deemed 'appropriate' and such sentencing has been upheld on appeal.


:)
#15093952
ingliz wrote:Sentences of imprisonment to run consecutively for each instance of contempt of court are allowed if deemed 'appropriate' and such sentencing has been upheld on appeal.

That hasn't happened and I find it highly unlikely that it will happen even with this rogue Judge.
#15093957
Hindsite wrote:That hasn't happened

State v. Burrow

Contempt is not a misdemeanor. It is, rather, sui generis (of its own kind or class)—“essentially criminal or quasi-criminal,” Blue Jeans Corp. of Am. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers, 275 N.C. 503 (1969), but neither felony nor misdemeanor. That being the case, the limit on consecutive sentences for Class 3 misdemeanors does not apply. With no other limitation set out in Chapter 5A or elsewhere, consecutive sentences are permitted.

— Decision of the Court of Appeals of North Carolina.


:)
#15093961
ingliz wrote:State v. Burrow

Contempt is not a misdemeanor. It is, rather, sui generis (of its own kind or class)—“essentially criminal or quasi-criminal,” Blue Jeans Corp. of Am. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers, 275 N.C. 503 (1969), but neither felony nor misdemeanor. That being the case, the limit on consecutive sentences for Class 3 misdemeanors does not apply. With no other limitation set out in Chapter 5A or elsewhere, consecutive sentences are permitted.

— Decision of the Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

I was only referring to the Flynn case, so your reference is irrelevant.
#15094050
And this just gets weirder and weirder, we now have a report from the Washington Post: Federal judge hires high-powered D.C. attorney to defend his actions in Flynn case

    The federal judge who refused a Justice Department request to immediately drop the prosecution of former Trump adviser Michael Flynn has hired a high-profile trial lawyer to argue his reasons for investigating whether dismissing the case is legally or ethically appropriate.

    In a rare step that adds to this criminal case’s already unusual path, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has retained Beth Wilkinson to represent him in defending his decision to a federal appeals court in Washington, according to a person familiar with the hire who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is now examining the judge’s actions and the larger case against Flynn after lawyers for President Trump’s former national security adviser asked the court to force Sullivan to toss Flynn’s guilty plea.

    Wilkinson, known for her top-notch legal skills and get-results style, is expected to file a notice with the court in the coming week about representing the judge. She declined to comment when reached Friday evening. Sullivan also declined to comment through his office.

Considering that judges almost never hires private counsel to respond to an appeals court (in fact, I didn’t know they could), I suspect this isn’t going to endear Sullivan to a panel that simply asked him to explain the reasoning behind his decision in light of DC Circuit Court precedent. If he requires a high-powered lawyer to do that, you have to wonder just how convoluted (not to say tortured) that reasoning must be. And another thought, just who is paying for this? Wilkinson does not come cheap.
#15094118
Doug64 wrote:And this just gets weirder and weirder, we now have a report from the Washington Post: Federal judge hires high-powered D.C. attorney to defend his actions in Flynn case

    The federal judge who refused a Justice Department request to immediately drop the prosecution of former Trump adviser Michael Flynn has hired a high-profile trial lawyer to argue his reasons for investigating whether dismissing the case is legally or ethically appropriate.

    In a rare step that adds to this criminal case’s already unusual path, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has retained Beth Wilkinson to represent him in defending his decision to a federal appeals court in Washington, according to a person familiar with the hire who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is now examining the judge’s actions and the larger case against Flynn after lawyers for President Trump’s former national security adviser asked the court to force Sullivan to toss Flynn’s guilty plea.

    Wilkinson, known for her top-notch legal skills and get-results style, is expected to file a notice with the court in the coming week about representing the judge. She declined to comment when reached Friday evening. Sullivan also declined to comment through his office.

Considering that judges almost never hires private counsel to respond to an appeals court (in fact, I didn’t know they could), I suspect this isn’t going to endear Sullivan to a panel that simply asked him to explain the reasoning behind his decision in light of DC Circuit Court precedent. If he requires a high-powered lawyer to do that, you have to wonder just how convoluted (not to say tortured) that reasoning must be. And another thought, just who is paying for this? Wilkinson does not come cheap.

I just heard the rogue Judge now has two lawyers to help him respond to the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It looks like he plans to dig in and try to even violate the U.S. Constitution if he thinks he can get away with it. I think those lawyers better come up with some very outstanding justification for the Judge, if he really expects to get away with his actions.
#15094181
Doug64 wrote:Considering that judges almost never hires private counsel to respond to an appeals court (in fact, I didn’t know they could), I suspect this isn’t going to endear Sullivan to a panel that simply asked him to explain the reasoning behind his decision in light of DC Circuit Court precedent. If he requires a high-powered lawyer to do that, you have to wonder just how convoluted (not to say tortured) that reasoning must be. And another thought, just who is paying for this? Wilkinson does not come cheap.

It certainly underscores deep state opposition to Flynn.

Hindsite wrote:I just heard the rogue Judge now has two lawyers to help him respond to the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It looks like he plans to dig in and try to even violate the U.S. Constitution if he thinks he can get away with it. I think those lawyers better come up with some very outstanding justification for the Judge, if he really expects to get away with his actions.

He's probably looking for some theory to overcome the very recent holding in U.S. vs. Sineneng-Smith, which was a 9-0 ruling against the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appointing an amicus curiae hearing sua sponte in a criminal case.
#15094874
Another addition to just how horrible the crusade against the Trump campaign/White House was, and so why Flynn should never have been investigated for making perfectly ordinary phone calls for an incoming administration, and so why the prosecution of him was in fact a witch hunt:

New FBI document confirms the Trump campaign was investigated without justification

    Late last week the FBI document that started the Trump-Russia collusion fiasco was publicly released. It hasn’t received a lot of attention but it should, because not too long from now this document likely will be blown up and placed on an easel as Exhibit A in a federal courtroom.

    The prosecutor, U.S. Attorney John Durham, will rightly point out that the document that spawned three years of political misery fails to articulate a single justifiable reason for starting the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation.

    Those of us who have speculated there was insufficient cause for beginning the investigation could not have imagined the actual opening document was this feeble. It is as if it were written by someone who had no experience as an FBI agent.

    Keep in mind the FBI cannot begin to investigate anyone, especially a U.S. citizen or entity, without first creating a document that lists the reasonably suspicious factors that would legally justify the investigation. That’s FBI 101, taught Day 1 at the FBI Academy at Quantico, Va.

    To the untrained eye, the FBI document that launched Crossfire Hurricane can be confusing, and it may be difficult to discern how it might be inadequate. To the trained eye, however, it is a train wreck. There are a number of reasons why it is so bad. Two main ones are offered below (if you would like to follow along, the document is here):

    First, the document is oddly constructed. In a normal, legitimate FBI Electronic Communication, or EC, there would be a “To” and a “From” line. The Crossfire Hurricane EC has only a “From” line; it is from a part of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division whose contact is listed as Peter Strzok. The EC was drafted also by Peter Strzok. And, finally, it was approved by Peter Strzok. Essentially, it is a document created by Peter Strzok, approved by Peter Strzok, and sent from Peter Strzok to Peter Strzok.

    On that basis alone, the document is an absurdity, violative of all FBI protocols and, therefore, invalid on its face. An agent cannot approve his or her own case; that would make a mockery of the oversight designed to protect Americans. Yet, for this document, Peter Strzok was pitcher, catcher, batter and umpire.

    In addition, several names are listed in a “cc” or copy line; all are redacted, save Strzok’s, who, for some reason, felt it necessary to copy himself on a document he sent from himself to himself.

    Names on an FBI document are always listed in cascading fashion, with the most senior at the top and on down to the least senior. On this EC, Strzok is listed last, so the redacted names should be more senior to him. Those names could well include then-FBI Director James Comey, then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and then-Counterintelligence Assistant Director Bill Priestap. The document also establishes these redacted names as “case participants.”

    Second, the Crossfire Hurricane case was opened as a Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) investigation. A FARA investigation involves a criminal violation of law — in this case, a negligent or intentional failure to register with the U.S. government after being engaged by a foreign country to perform services on its behalf — that is punishable by fines and imprisonment. It is rarely investigated.

    In a normal EC opening a FARA case, we should expect to see a list of reasons why the FBI believes individuals associated with a U.S. presidential campaign had been engaged by the Russian government to represent and advocate that government’s goals.

    This, however, was no normal EC. Try as we might to spot them, those reasons are not found anywhere in the document. Despite redactions, it has been fairly well established that an Australian diplomat, Andrew Downer, met a low-level Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, in a London bar for drinks; Downer then reported the conversation, which eventually made its way to U.S. officials in London.

    The Strzok EC quotes verbatim an email authored by Downer. In it, Downer claims Papadopoulos “suggested” to him that the Trump team had received “some kind of suggestion” of assistance from Russia regarding information damaging to Hillary Clinton and President Obama. In other words, a suggestion of a suggestion.

    Strzok apparently took this nebulous reporting by Downer and then leapt to the dubious conclusion that Papadopoulos and unnamed others were engaged by the Russians to act as foreign agents on Russia’s behalf. This, despite Downer also offering two exculpatory statements in the same email: 1) It was “unclear” how the Trump campaign might have reacted to the Russian claims and 2) the Russians likely were going to do what they were going to do with the information whether anyone in the Trump campaign cooperated with them or not.

    Strzok then concludes the EC by moving the goalposts. He writes that Crossfire Hurricane is being opened to determine if unspecified “individual(s)” associated with the Trump campaign are “witting of and/or coordinating activities” — also unspecified — “with the Government of Russia.” He doesn’t even mention Papadopoulos.

    Ultimately, there was no attempt by Strzok to articulate any factors that address the elements of FARA. He couldn’t, because there are none. Instead, there was a weak attempt to allege some kind of cooperation with Russians by unknown individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign, again, with no supporting facts listed.

    What this FBI document clearly establishes is that Crossfire Hurricane was an illicit, made-up investigation lacking a shred of justifying predication, sprung from the mind of someone who despised Donald Trump, and then blessed by inexperienced leadership at the highest levels who harbored their own now well-established biases.

    To paraphrase a fired FBI director: No reasonable FBI counterintelligence squad supervisor in the field would have approved and opened that Strzok EC. They know the rules too well.

    Instead, the nation was left with an investigation of a presidential campaign that had no legitimate predication; that spawned a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act intercept of a U.S. citizen that had no legitimate predication; that resulted in a confrontation with a new administration’s national security adviser that had no legitimate predication; and, finally, that led to an expensive special counsel investigation that had no legitimate predication. No pattern-recognition software needed here.

    Hopefully, Exhibit A will be displayed in a federal courtroom soon. The rule of law, upon which the FBI rests its very purpose and being, was callously discarded by weak leaders who sought higher loyalty to their personal agendas, egos, biases and politics. Accountability is demanded by the American people. Let’s pray we see some.
#15095008
Flynn did nothing wrong. Pence fired him for doing nothing wrong, and he never even kidnapped that Turkish guy. Why can't you libs just accept that Flynn is my perfect little boy and not a complete fucking Qanon supporting doofus?

Getting fired by Democratic and Republican administrations back to back only proves that he's a bipartisan genius, btw.
#15096329
And to make it crystal clear that there was no basis for the FBI investigation of Flynn and that his statement that he didn’t discuss sanctions with Kislyak was truthful, here’s the actual transcripts of the conversations, just released last week. What Flynn talks about is Obama’s decision to expel thirty diplomats and asks that the Russians at least keep it to a tit-for-tat rather than escalate, such as expelling 60 of our people instead of 30, so that Trump won’t be handed a confrontation blown up just before he takes office. All of which was perfectly reasonable considering the position he would be holding in the new administration, which is why those with the knives out for him couldn’t just charge him with a crime for anything said in the conversations. And why even if he did lie to the FBI investigators they still wouldn’t have had a case o bring against him.
#15096763
SpecialOlympian wrote:Flynn did nothing wrong. .


That is what I said from the start. It was fun the re read this thread and be reminded how wrong the usual suspects were on this subject. Just read those pesky phone transcripts that were recently released.
#15096768
Finfinder wrote:That is what I said from the start

Mr. Flynn repeatedly affirmed his guilt, under oath and penalty of perjury, despite being given multiple opportunities to disclaim it.


:lol:
#15096784
ingliz wrote:Mr. Flynn repeatedly affirmed his guilt, under oath and penalty of perjury, despite being given multiple opportunities to disclaim it.


:lol:

Which, has has been repeatedly stated, is not uncommon in cases where someone is exonerated.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

You need to do something about all this lying you[…]

No. No. and No. Tax evasion is done, for the mo[…]

Because he has to, he shouldn't play it if Turkey[…]

Thread on Ghislaine in court today. Click and scr[…]