More on the Flynn case

[Lazaran]

One more LIE to go with all the others.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/24/politics/justice-department-michael-flynn-william-barr/index.html

You're terrible at telling lies.

You do realize I said MOST right???

The new revelations have not been ruled to be relevant or exculpatory.

Bill Priestap has already made his explanation clear, that his notes about how to proceed when arranging and conducting the Flynn interview were precautionary warnings , and that the government heeded those warnings. Barr knew that before he moved to have the case dropped.

The revelation that the FBI Washington field office was overruled by FBI leadership on 01/04/2017 is not surprising due to the fact that the infamous Flynn-Kislyak phone conversation involving sanctions took place one week prior to the decision to keep the case open.

These "bombshell" revelations that Barr and the right point to as justification for dropping the Flynn case are duds.

Just because sycophantic human centipedes want to swallow all the shit Trump and Barr pump out, doesn't mean anyone else will.

Alliteration is fun.

Trump, team, treasonous traitors??

 

[icanhelp1]

You do realize I said MOST right???

The new revelations have not been ruled to be relevant or exculpatory.

Bill Priestap has already made his explanation clear, that his notes about how to proceed when arranging and conducting the Flynn interview were precautionary warnings , and that the government heeded those warnings. Barr knew that before he moved to have the case dropped.

The revelation that the FBI Washington field office was overruled by FBI leadership on 01/04/2017 is not surprising due to the fact that the infamous Flynn-Kislyak phone conversation involving sanctions took place one week prior to the decision to keep the case open.

These "bombshell" revelations that Barr and the right point to as justification for dropping the Flynn case are duds.

Just because sycophantic human centipedes want to swallow all the shit Trump and Barr pump out, doesn't mean anyone else will.

Alliteration is fun.

Trump, team, treasonous traitors??

Bill Priestap was also the person that Drafted Comey's statement recommending no charges be filed against Hillary Clinton. Couldn't make a case against Hillary but yet!! Flynn BAD! You should check your TDS level, you must be at stage 5.

YAH, THAT WORKS FOR ME

 

[Lazaran]

Bill Priestap was also the person that Drafted Comey's statement recommending no charges be filed against Hillary Clinton. Couldn't make a case against Hillary but yet!! Flynn BAD! You should check your TDS level, you must be at stage 5.

YAH, THAT WORKS FOR ME

You do realize we're talking about the Flynn case right???

When people are losing an argument they tend to try and divert and distract.

Please try to stay on topic.

Alliteration is fun.

Trump, team, treasonous traitors???

 

[icanhelp1]

You do realize we're talking about the Flynn case right???

When people are losing an argument they tend to try and divert and distract.

Please try to stay on topic.

Alliteration is fun.

Trump, team, treasonous traitors???

No, were talking about the corrupt methods used by the Obama DOJ, the most corrupt president in modern history.

 

[Lazaran]

No, were talking about the corrupt methods used by the Obama DOJ, the most corrupt president in modern history.

No, the actual topic is about how smart Harpy thought he? was when "Sydney Powell" filed an emergency writ to block Judge Sullivan's amicus order and have the case dismissed. She also requested to have Judge Sullivan recuse himself and have another Judge appointed.

How's that working out by the way???

Eat crow Harpy.

 

[jomar]

Sorry I got hysterical with laughter at this point and couldn't go on.

Hey, lighten up on the guy!

He might have graduated last in his lawyer class (failing abysmally to make even mock trial), but hey, you know what they call the guy who graduated last in med school and finally passed licensing exams after three tries? That’s right, Doctor Pill Mill!

 

[Lazaran]

No, were talking about the corrupt methods used by the Obama DOJ, the most corrupt president in modern history.

Oops, two former DOJ prosecutors who resigned due to William Barrs corruption are going to testify before congress about what Barr is doing at the DOJ.

That should help Flynn's motion to have his case dismissed.

Maybe harpy should explain to them how justified Barr is in dropping the Flynn case.

I'm sure they're anxiously awaiting a "real lawyers" input.

BWAHAHAHA..................HA

 

[Rightguide]

Oops, two former DOJ prosecutors who resigned due to William Barrs corruption are going to testify before congress about what Barr is doing at the DOJ.

Which is nothing but being the AG. They have nothing.

 

[icanhelp1]

Oops, two former DOJ prosecutors who resigned due to William Barrs corruption are going to testify before congress about what Barr is doing at the DOJ.

That should help Flynn's motion to have his case dismissed.

Maybe harpy should explain to them how justified Barr is in dropping the Flynn case.

I'm sure they're anxiously awaiting a "real lawyers" input.

BWAHAHAHA..................HA

^^^^^^^^^^

Maybe this will clear your head on the FARA investigation;

"The indictment charged Rafiekian with conspiring with Alptekin and others (unnamed in the indictment) to act as an agent of the Turkish government without prior notification to the attorney general and conspiring to file a material false Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) statement. A second count charged Rafiekian with “knowingly acting and causing others to act in the United States as agents of the Turkish government without prior notification to the Attorney General.”

Significantly, Flynn was not charged in the E.D. of Virginia case, nor was he named in the indictment as an unindicted co-conspirator. As recently as June 13, 2019, in response to a question from the bench concerning whether the government was alleging that Flynn was part of the conspiracy, and the assistant U.S. attorney (AUSA) handling the case unequivocally stated, “We are not, Your Honor,” adding that “there will certainly be testimony from General Flynn. And from that testimony, the jury could draw a reasonable inference that there was a conspiracy, but we do not content that General Flynn was a part of that conspiracy.”

The special counsel also did not charge Flynn in the D.C. District Court with any crimes related to FARA. Rather, Muller’s team charged the former national security director with making false statements to the FBI concerning his conversations with the Russian ambassador. It was to that charge—not a FARA charge—that Flynn pleaded guilty on December 1, 2017."

 

[icanhelp1]

A little more clarification, Van Grack assumed that because there were false statements in the FARA STATEMENTS, at the time Flynn was not aware till later, Van boy charged that Flynn knew of the false statement at the time he signed them which was false.

"Here, it is important to understand that underlying law. To convict a defendant for making a false statement in a FARA filing, the defendant must know the (material) statement was false at the time it was made. If Flynn did not know the statement was false—either because he hadn’t read the statement, didn’t know it was false at the time, or relied on his attorneys to properly convey the material information to the government—there is no crime.

Flynn maintains that he never said that he signed the FARA statements knowing they contained false information.
So, when Flynn admitted in the Statement of Offense that he made material false statements in FARA filings, the government presumed Flynn knew they were false at the time. That is why in response to Powell’s summary of their position, prosecutor Van Grack’s barked, “without willfully/knowingly it doesn’t make this an offense.”

But Flynn is not a lawyer. He also didn’t plead guilty to the offense of making a false statement in a FARA filings. And, as Van Grack noted, the Statement of Offense contained language Flynn agreed to.

The “General pushed back on some language,” in the Statement of Offense, “but not this language,” Van Grack stressed, without realizing the implication of his argument: If Flynn did not knowingly make material false statements in the FARA filing, there was nothing for Flynn to push back on because the Statement of Offense did not state that he made those statements knowingly. As a layman, Flynn could have easily interpreted the Statement of Offense, as Powell posits: he was merely admitting that he now agrees the FARA filings included material false statements.

The Record Supports Powell and Flynn’s Claims Here
Flynn’s interpretation is also strengthened when the Statement of Offense is considered in its entirety. Twice when referring to the count to which Flynn was pleading guilty (making false statements to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador), the Statement of Offense stated, “in truth and fact, however, FLYNN then and there knew,” followed by the details Flynn acknowledged actually happened. There is no such similar language in the section about the FARA filing. Nor did Flynn ever state in open court that he knowingly made material false statements in the FARA filings.

Whether Covington ever discussed these issues with Flynn is unknown—at least to us. Presumably, Powell questioned Flynn on that point at length and there is no way that Powell would pursue this strategy if Covington lawyers or the prosecutors had made clear to Flynn that he was admitting in the Statement of Offense that he knowingly made the material false statements in the FARA.

What Covington lawyers told Flynn, and how they could possibly represent Flynn in the criminal case involving potential FARA violations given that they had prepared the FARA filings for Flynn, are now in issue. That is what Powell likely meant when she told the court that the prosecutors had created a conflict of interest with Flynn’s former attorneys".

 

[Lazaran]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Grasping at straws.

 

[Rightguide]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Grasping at straws.

^^^
Grasping for brains, but they are out of reach.

 

[HisArpy]

No, the actual topic is about how smart Harpy thought he? was when "Sydney Powell" filed an emergency writ to block Judge Sullivan's amicus order and have the case dismissed. She also requested to have Judge Sullivan recuse himself and have another Judge appointed.

How's that working out by the way???

Eat crow Harpy.

Well now, since the appellate court has yet to rule, we don't know anything yet. And, from the hearing on the issue, it looks like the court has decided not to decide in order to avoid being dragged into the political mess that Sullivan has created for himself by not obeying the rules.

You know what DIDN'T happen? The appeals court didn't side with Sullivan. Which means they don't agree with your flawed analysis because if they did, they'd have sided with Sullivan right off the bat.

Oopsies. That's got to hurt when you realize that you and the courts don't agree about what's going on.

Or maybe you know that and that's the reason you're off on a tangent of Ad Hom attacks. Because you've had your ass handed to you about how you're spinning the shit out of everything in order to justify your starting premise of "HE'S GUILTY DAMMIT!!! while knowing that you're just flat out wrong.

 

[Lazaran]

Well now, since the appellate court has yet to rule, we don't know anything yet. And, from the hearing on the issue, it looks like the court has decided not to decide in order to avoid being dragged into the political mess that Sullivan has created for himself by not obeying the rules.

You know what DIDN'T happen? The appeals court didn't side with Sullivan. Which means they don't agree with your flawed analysis because if they did, they'd have sided with Sullivan right off the bat.

Oopsies. That's got to hurt when you realize that you and the courts don't agree about what's going on.

Or maybe you know that and that's the reason you're off on a tangent of Ad Hom attacks. Because you've had your ass handed to you about how you're spinning the shit out of everything in order to justify your starting premise of "HE'S GUILTY DAMMIT!!! while knowing that you're just flat out wrong.

I love how you see things through blood red colored spectacles. The appeals court was asked to overrule Judge Sullivan by Flynns defense and guess what??? SMACK. They rejected the defenses request to have Judge Sullivan stop investigating Barrs corrupt dropping of the case. It's no wonder you think you've been winning this debate when you think that rejection qualified as a win for your side. What a fuckwit.

I have kicked your ass up one side of this post and down the other.

Every ruling and fact in evidence supports the original prosecution and conviction of Flynn for knowingly lying to the FBI.

Barr is now going to get his "time in the barrel" as you Trumplodytes like to refer to it.

Alliteration is fun.

Trump, team, treasonous traitors???

 

[HisArpy]

I love how you see things through blood red colored spectacles. The appeals court was asked to overrule Judge Sullivan by Flynns defense and guess what??? SMACK. They rejected the defenses request to have Judge Sullivan stop investigating Barrs corrupt dropping of the case. It's no wonder you think you've been winning this debate when you think that rejection qualified as a win for your side. What a fuckwit.

I have kicked your ass up one side of this post and down the other.

Every ruling and fact in evidence supports the original prosecution and conviction of Flynn for knowingly lying to the FBI.

Barr is now going to get his "time in the barrel" as you Trumplodytes like to refer to it.

Alliteration is fun.

Trump, team, treasonous traitors???

Lol. Please cite to the opinion where they decided to reject Flynn's writ. We'll wait...

OTOH, fuck waiting. Instead, good luck finding what doesn't exist. Just like everything else you've tried to say while showing off you're imbecillic lack of reasoning to the point that you HAD to go Ad Hom to avoid admitting that you're a fuckup who doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[Lazaran]

Lol. Please cite to the opinion where they decided to reject Flynn's writ. We'll wait...

OTOH, fuck waiting. Instead, good luck finding what doesn't exist. Just like everything else you've tried to say while showing off you're imbecillic lack of reasoning to the point that you HAD to go Ad Hom to avoid admitting that you're a fuckup who doesn't know what he's talking about.

When Judge Sullivan resumes investigating Barrs corrupt dropping of the Flynn case, and the two former DOJ prosecutors testify to congress about Barrs corrupt behavior in service of Trump, that will be enough to demonstrate what a total fuckwit you truly are.

Barr's recent insertion of himself and the DOJ into blocking John Boltons book is just another example of his corruption in service to Trump.

Alliteration is fun.

Trump, team, treasonous traitors???

 

[HisArpy]

When Judge Sullivan resumes investigating Barrs corrupt dropping of the Flynn case, and the two former DOJ prosecutors testify to congress about Barrs corrupt behavior in service of Trump, that will be enough to demonstrate what a total fuckwit you truly are.

Barr's recent insertion of himself and the DOJ into blocking John Boltons book is just another example of his corruption in service to Trump.

Alliteration is fun.

Trump, team, treasonous traitors???

So, no appellate decision to back up what you said? Too bad. Remember, I told you so...

Now, instead of having the "proof in hand" you said the court had decided, you're shifting the goalpost to "he's just going to keep on doing what Flynn's lawyers are complaining about" as some sort of proof that Sullivan isn't breaking the law?

That's just more dumfuckery on your part on top of the other dumfuckery you've displayed in this thread.

 

[Lazaran]

So, no appellate decision to back up what you said? Too bad. Remember, I told you so...

Now, instead of having the "proof in hand" you said the court had decided, you're shifting the goalpost to "he's just going to keep on doing what Flynn's lawyers are complaining about" as some sort of proof that Sullivan isn't breaking the law?

That's just more dumfuckery on your part on top of the other dumfuckery you've displayed in this thread.

Tell yourself whatever you need to.

When Judge Sullivan resumes his investigation into Barrs corrupt dropping of the Flynn case, the defense team will have lost and you will have lost.

The testimony before congress from the two former DOJ prosecutors about Barrs corrupt behavior at the DOJ will only add to the beat down.

Barr's insertion of himself and the DOJ into blocking John Boltons book is just adding to the humiliation he has brought on himself for being Trumps lap dog.

Alliteration is fun.

Trump, team, treasonous traitors.

 

[HisArpy]

Tell yourself whatever you need to.

When Judge Sullivan resumes his investigation into Barrs corrupt dropping of the Flynn case, the defense team will have lost and you will have lost.

The testimony before congress from the two former DOJ prosecutors about Barrs corrupt behavior at the DOJ will only add to the beat down.

Barr's insertion of himself and the DOJ into blocking John Boltons book is just adding to the humiliation he has brought on himself for being Trumps lap dog.

Alliteration is fun.

Trump, team, treasonous traitors.

Sure little chipmunk. Whatever you say.

 

[Rightguide]

When Judge Sullivan resumes investigating Barrs corrupt dropping of the Flynn case, and the two former DOJ prosecutors testify to congress about Barrs corrupt behavior in service of Trump, that will be enough to demonstrate what a total fuckwit you truly are.

Barr's recent insertion of himself and the DOJ into blocking John Boltons book is just another example of his corruption in service to Trump.

Alliteration is fun.

Trump, team, treasonous traitors???

You were challenged: "Please cite to the opinion where they decided to reject Flynn's writ. We'll wait..."

Where is your answer?

 

[Rightguide]

Barr's recent insertion of himself and the DOJ into blocking John Boltons book is just another example of his corruption in service to Trump.

No it isn't, it's an indicator that Bolton's book contains classified information in violation of the NDA he signed when he took the position.

 

[Conager]

His spurious legal theories, his lack of education in the law and his being months behind on his talking points aside, I think the most obvious refutation of Lazareth's point of view is brain size.

Take a look at the size of Barr's melon. Far more important than his law degree and years of experience as the AG in two separate administrations.

 

[icanhelp1]

You were challenged: "Please cite to the opinion where they decided to reject Flynn's writ. We'll wait..."

Where is your answer?

Is it the place for judges to investigate. if the DOJ drops the case and a judge doesn't like it the judge can keep going at it; Till? till the judge gets his prefered outcome? Between Sullivan, Nadler and Schiff nothing other than Trump bad makes any sense. Eric Holder broke every rule in the book, was even quoted as being Obama's wing man and them hypocrites are trying to blackball Barr? Bizarro world!

 

[Conager]

I stand by my melon-size explanation for their rage at Barr. Brain envy.

 

[HisArpy]

Is it the place for judges to investigate. if the DOJ drops the case and a judge doesn't like it the judge can keep going at it; Till? till the judge gets his prefered outcome? Between Sullivan, Nadler and Schiff nothing other than Trump bad makes any sense. Eric Holder broke every rule in the book, was even quoted as being Obama's wing man and them hypocrites are trying to blackball Barr? Bizarro world!

Here's the truly bizarre part: Nowhere in the law is the JUDGE allowed to bring charges against the accused. Nowhere in the law is the JUDGE allowed to investigate the accused for criminal conduct.

Yet that's what Sullivan is doing for the SECOND TIME in the Flynn case.