More on the Flynn case

[Rightguide]

The severe triggering of idjits continues apace:



"Nobody?"

The chief law enforcement officer for the DOJ and the OP disagrees with your assessment.



Guilty of what?

I don't think any of these people understand the case at all.

 

[Conager]

I don't think any of these people understand the case at all.

It's like anything else that they truly believe. They were told what to believe, they believed it then, they will continue to believe it no matter how patiently and thoroughly you explain to them exactly why the problem is not that they know nothing it us that they "know" so much that just ain't so.

A primer is probably in order.

Sanctions were never brought up in the call, and Flynn was not asked about sanctions in the ambush, so he could not possibly have "lied" about that to the Fibbies.

The original, now missing but which had its contents referenced in other documents indicated that the ambush failed and that Flynn was not deceptive or knowingly untruthful in what he thought was a casual conversation where he also pointedly mentioned that he was well aware the FBI had the full transcript of the call. Lying would be pointless, and everyone in that room knew it.

The charging information alleged statements Flynn never made and Flynn's inept lawyers were never shown even the fabricated FD-302 that does not backstop the assertions made in the information he, on advise of counsel, agreed to stipulate to.

Sullivan cannot accept an elocution of guilt that is not based on a fully informed defendant's willing, uncoerced belief that he is in fact guilty.

DOJ should not have to withdraw, Sullivan is obliged to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct, specifically, the withholding of exculpatory material required by Brady, and lying about the existence of such material.

 

[phrodeau]

It's like anything else that they truly believe. They were told what to believe, they believed it then, they will continue to believe it no matter how patiently and thoroughly you explain to them exactly why the problem is not that they know nothing it us that they "know" so much that just ain't so.

A primer is probably in order.

Sanctions were never brought up in the call, and Flynn was not asked about sanctions in the ambush, so he could not possibly have "lied" about that to the Fibbies.

The original, now missing but which had its contents referenced in other documents indicated that the ambush failed and that Flynn was not deceptive or knowingly untruthful in what he thought was a casual conversation where he also pointedly mentioned that he was well aware the FBI had the full transcript of the call. Lying would be pointless, and everyone in that room knew it.

The charging information alleged statements Flynn never made and Flynn's inept lawyers were never shown even the fabricated FD-302 that does not backstop the assertions made in the information he, on advise of counsel, agreed to stipulate to.

Sullivan cannot accept an elocution of guilt that is not based on a fully informed defendant's willing, uncoerced belief that he is in fact guilty.

DOJ should not have to withdraw, Sullivan is obliged to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct, specifically, the withholding of exculpatory material required by Brady, and lying about the existence of such material.

According to the FBI transcript, sanctions were discussed.

https://www.axios.com/doj-holds-tra...yak-d52f0c3e-dd7b-4201-9e21-fb43667147c9.html

 

[Conager]

You see? ^

Quoting the narrative pimped out to the "news."

These highly classified transcripts were obtained via FBI wiretap on Ambassador Kislyak — and that wiretap has not been acknowledged by prosecutors with the Justice Department, who failed to comply with the judge's order because they said they did not need to release transcripts that aren't vital to Flynn's prosecution.

The unreleased transcripts are records of conversations between Flynn and Kislyak about sanctions imposed on Russia by the Obama administration in late 2016.

That was what was claimed. It is not true. The author is not claimimg to have seen the transcripts thst even Flynn had not seen when that article was written. They were still stonewalling and the article is merely repeating the DOJs false characterization of the call.

All Flynn discussed was the already-happened expulsion of Russian diplomats and he merely asked the Russuans not to escalate on that. He promised nothing in return.

Typical. Still parroting a false narrative planted in the friendly press over a year ago.

 

[Conager]

Sydney Powell has filed for an emergency writ to block Sullivan's amicus order and dismiss the case. They also want Sullivan to recuse himself and have the case assigned to a different judge for the dismissal.

https://www.newsweek.com/michael-fl...e-dismiss-charges-despite-guilty-plea-1505252



BTW, for all you GB idjits out there:

Nailed it!

Nailed it again!

Did I mention that I nailed it!?

The idjits are not ready for "more" on the Flynn case. They are not up to speed on less.

 

[knottme]

There is no bottom to the Trump "administration's" corruption and criminality.

link to any?

 

[knottme]

According to the FBI transcript, sanctions were discussed.

https://www.axios.com/doj-holds-tra...yak-d52f0c3e-dd7b-4201-9e21-fb43667147c9.html

so what?

was that ILLEGAL?

he was incoming NAT SEC advisor!

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

[Spamming, bumping multiple threads in order to flood the forum, posting same content to multiple locations, or screen-stretching to disrupt the forum is prohibited per our forum guidelines.]

 

[Pookie]

Why, thank you for noticing that I misspelled her name there eagle eyes.

Too bad you didn't also notice that your commentary is off topic and useless to just about everyone. Maybe if you paid more attention to the subject matter instead of trying to make yourself look better at everyone else's expense, you'd figure that out.

Not that I particularly care if you do or don't.

Welcome to the GeeBee, n00b.

 

[phrodeau]

You see? ^

Quoting the narrative pimped out to the "news."



That was what was claimed. It is not true. The author is not claimimg to have seen the transcripts thst even Flynn had not seen when that article was written. They were still stonewalling and the article is merely repeating the DOJs false characterization of the call.

All Flynn discussed was the already-happened expulsion of Russian diplomats and he merely asked the Russuans not to escalate on that. He promised nothing in return.

Typical. Still parroting a false narrative planted in the friendly press over a year ago.

A false characterization, or lie, isn’t what I’d expect from the DOJ. Was it Sessions, Whitaker or Barr who was trying to set up Flynn? Maybe Trump himself?

 

[schism666]

The idjits are not ready for "more" on the Flynn case. They are not up to speed on less.

are the "idjits" as dyslexic as q?

the "con" in conman stands for condescending with his big 'ol empty head.

 

[HisArpy]

Welcome to the GeeBee, n00b.

Thank you b00b.

 

[HisArpy]

The idjits are not ready for "more" on the Flynn case. They are not up to speed on less.

The saddest part is that they aren't arguing the merits of the case. Instead they're holding on to a busted flush and claiming it's a winning hand "because he pleaded guilty dammit!".

Like battle plans, legal accusations rarely survive the first contact with the enemy. In this case, the accusations aren't supported by the claims made by the government. If that's the case then Flynn's plea is based on false claims and facts. As such, it's validity cannot stand regardless of whether he voluntarily made such admissions or not.

Justice does not depend on "he said he did it".


His lawyer filed an emergency writ. Since it's an emergency writ, the appeals court has limited time to act. I don't practice in Federal Court but I believe the time is 72 hours.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The saddest part is that they aren't arguing the merits of the case. Instead they're holding on to a busted flush and claiming it's a winning hand "because he pleaded guilty dammit!".

Like battle plans, legal accusations rarely survive the first contact with the enemy. In this case, the accusations aren't supported by the claims made by the government. If that's the case then Flynn's plea is based on false claims and facts. As such, it's validity cannot stand regardless of whether he voluntarily made such admissions or not.

Justice does not depend on "he said he did it".


His lawyer filed an emergency writ. Since it's an emergency writ, the appeals court has limited time to act. I don't practice in Federal Court but I believe the time is 72 hours.

So Flynn is guilty of perjury.

 

[Conager]

So Flynn is guilty of perjury.

<Sgt Spidey mode>

I'd love to see how you prove the elements required to prosecute a perjury case on a person pleading based on a set of facts that were not true.

I look forward to you citing relevant case law and outlining the known facts of the case to show how they comport to those cited cases.

</Sgt Spidey>

 

[Conager]

He guilty, it all fake news.

The first lady is fluent in 6 languages.

You don't even speak troll well.

Be better!

 

[HisArpy]

So Flynn is guilty of perjury.

Please lay out all the required elements for that charge and then provide the supporting facts for each element.

Then cite the relevant case precedent in both support and opposition to your allegation.

 

[KeithD]

The first lady is fluent in 6 languages.

You don't even speak troll well.

Be better!

She probably knows how to say "Fuck me for pay" in ten languages.

 

[Rightguide]

According to the FBI transcript, sanctions were discussed.

https://www.axios.com/doj-holds-tra...yak-d52f0c3e-dd7b-4201-9e21-fb43667147c9.html

So, link to the transcripts, the article doesn't do that.

 

[phrodeau]

So, link to the transcripts, the article doesn't do that.

Here. https://thehill.com/policy/national...-for-flynn-kislyak-transcripts-to-be-released

Now you are better informed.

 

[Rightguide]

so what?

was that ILLEGAL?

he was incoming NAT SEC advisor!

Answer: No!

The call in question between Flynn and the Russian Ambassador took place on December 29, 2016, the day Obama expelled a number of Russian diplomats while Flynn was vacationing in the Dominican Republic. On January 4, 2017, 16 days before trump was sworn in as President the FBI concluded as follows:

https://i.imgur.com/yf4zfw6l.png

The FBI already knew Flynn had committed no crime, sanctions or otherwise.

 

[Rightguide]

Here. https://thehill.com/policy/national...-for-flynn-kislyak-transcripts-to-be-released

Now you are better informed.

That is not a link to the call transcript.

 

[phrodeau]

That is not a link to the call transcript.

See? I told you that you’d be better informed.

 

[Rightguide]

DC Circuit Court Orders Sullivan To Respond To Flynn’s Appeal To Dismiss Case
By
Sara Carter -
May 21, 2020

The United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit has ordered Judge Emmet Sullivan, who’s overseeing Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s case, to respond to his appeal to have him replaced and to dismiss the trial no later than June 1, according to a court document reviewed by SaraACarter.com

https://saraacarter.com/dc-circuit-...ter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social-pug

 

[HisArpy]

DC Circuit Court Orders Sullivan To Respond To Flynn’s Appeal To Dismiss Case
By
Sara Carter -
May 21, 2020

The United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit has ordered Judge Emmet Sullivan, who’s overseeing Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s case, to respond to his appeal to have him replaced and to dismiss the trial no later than June 1, according to a court document reviewed by SaraACarter.com

https://saraacarter.com/dc-circuit-...ter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social-pug

It's within the Federal rules to do this since there's no irreversible emergency that a short delay will create.

I'm just disappointed that the appeals court didn't look at the law and order the dismissal. The way it looks now is that Sullivan has to hoist himself on his own petard to explain why he's not following established precedent or law. Which raises the question of what is the appeals court going to do when Sullivan does that? Or what are they going to do if he doesn't?