More on the Flynn case

[Lazaran]

Trump has tweeted that Schiff should be charged with Treason (with a capital T). How can that be?

Some of these clowns don't get the concept of calling an act treasonous when an individual close to the President is an unregistered agent of a foreign government and is conducting clandestine conversations with the ambassador of Russia; the country that had just attacked the United States via cyber warfare.

They don't have the intellectual curiosity, or imagination to consider Flynns actions and see the true criminality of them from a patriotic standpoint.

They're acting like the scumbags they are, splitting hairs and parsing words in an attempt to minimize what Flynn did. Their viewpoint is myopic, as they're only looking at the case from a defense attorneys point of view.

I guess it isn't surprising, considering they fail to see the big picture on climate change, Covid, poverty, racism, etc, etc, etc.

Your comment about Trumps use of the word was spot on. If anyone has abused the term it's the corrupter in chief.

 

[HisArpy]

Some of these clowns don't get the concept of calling an act treasonous when an individual close to the President is an unregistered agent of a foreign government and is conducting clandestine conversations with the ambassador of Russia; the country that had just attacked the United States via cyber warfare.

They don't have the intellectual curiosity, or imagination to consider Flynns actions and see the true criminality of them from a patriotic standpoint.

They're acting like the scumbags they are, splitting hairs and parsing words in an attempt to minimize what Flynn did. Their viewpoint is myopic, as they're only looking at the case from a defense attorneys point of view.

I guess it isn't surprising considering they fail to see the big picture on climate change, Covid, poverty, racism, etc, etc, etc.

Lol.

I'm a LAWYER. MY JOB is to look at the facts objectively and make a case out of them that a jury will track and support.

That means I can't create "facts" that aren't supported by the evidence. That evidence can't be the product of "spin". It can't be "my opinion" either.

I can't ignore controverting facts as if they don't exist. I can't lie about the facts or events. I can't make something appear to be one thing when it's another.

Because it's not about appearances, public sentiment, or even "winning". It's about presenting the WHOLE TRUTH regardless of how bad it looks.

If Flynn's case had any merit to it, the DOJ wouldn't be having the misconduct issues they're currently embroiled in. They'd have provided the Brady materials they ILLEGALLY withheld. They wouldn't have needed to ILLEGALLY alter the original 302. They wouldn't have felt the need to ILLEGALLY interview Flynn. Or ILLEGALLY coerce him into signing the plea deal.

This isn't a "defense point of view" it's a viewpoint that if you have to spin facts, fabricate evidence, lie, coerce, and engage in illegalities, you don't have a case. pointing that out isn't "myopic".

SAYING that it's myopic, OTOH, is idjitry.

 

[bestone4ever]

How to identify a true RWCJ

Three users have 50% of 500 posts in this thread.​

 

[bestone4ever]

Lol.

I'm a LAWYER.

But not a good one.

 

[HisArpy]

But not a good one.

But I still AM one. Unlike some...

 

[bestone4ever]

But I still AM one. Unlike some...

You're that lawyer that pulls up with cigarette smoke flowing from the windows, hair greasy and unruly, smelling of cat piss and desperation.

Like Chris Farley in Tommy Boy.

 

[HisArpy]

You're that lawyer that pulls up with cigarette smoke flowing from the windows, hair greasy and unruly, smelling of cat piss and desperation.

Like Chris Farley in Tommy Boy.

But still a lawyer. Unlike some...

 

[Lazaran]

Said like a true defense attorney.

A lot of accusations have been made about how the Mueller team withheld Brady material from Flynn's counsel, but it has not been shown that they did. The notes by Bill Priestap about making sure that the Mueller team went by the book when arranging and conducting the Flynn interview have yet to be determined to be Brady material. The withholding of Brady material is also only one part of Flynn's new defense. The other part focuses on "overall egregious law enforcement misconduct". This also circles back to Bill Priestaps notes and the justification for investigating and interviewing Flynn. The justification for investigating Flynn is easy,(unregistered foreign agent, clandestine phone calls with a Russian ambassador); justification for interviewing Flynn is not as clear. The FBI already had a case it could try(Flynn's violation of the Logan act), but wanted to strengthen its hand by seeing what they could achieve by interviewing Flynn. Because they already had a prosecutable crime against Flynn, the interview was justified. Flynn was not coerced into lying in the interview, and he didn't have to lie, but he did.

Flynn is doing classic DARVO.

In this case the victim is the United States, and Flynn is the offender.

For people who like alliteration.

Trump, team, treasonous traitors???

 

[HisArpy]

Said like a true defense attorney.

A lot of accusations have been made about how the Mueller team withheld Brady material from Flynn's counsel, but it has not been shown that they did. The notes by Bill Priestap about making sure that the Mueller team went by the book when arranging and conducting the Flynn interview have yet to be determined to be Brady material. The withholding of Brady material is also only one part of Flynn's new defense. The other part focuses on "overall egregious law enforcement misconduct". This also circles back to Bill Priestaps notes and the justification for investigating and interviewing Flynn. The justification for investigating Flynn is easy,(unregistered foreign agent, clandestine phone calls with a Russian ambassador); justification for interviewing Flynn is not as clear. The FBI already had a case it could try(Flynn's violation of the Logan act), but wanted to strengthen its hand by seeing what they could achieve by interviewing Flynn. Because they already had a prosecutable crime against Flynn, the interview was justified. Flynn was not coerced into lying in the interview, and he didn't have to lie, but he did.

Flynn is doing classic DARVO.

In this case the victim is the United States, and Flynn is the offender.

For people who like alliteration.

Trump, team, treasonous traitors???

Lie!

.

 

[Lazaran]

Lie!

.

You can plaster it on a billboard but the facts won't change. No court has ruled that the FBI withheld Brady material from Flynns counsel. This is part of Judge Sullivan's ongoing deliberations, and it appears he doesn't agree with Flynn's new defense or Bill Barr. If he did, he would have acted on Barrs call to drop Flynn's prosecution.

People have alleged a lot of things about how the FBI has prosecuted Flynn, but none have been proven or ruled on.

The only thing that has been proven in the Flynn case, is that he lied to the FBI and that he was an unregistered agent working for the Turkish government.

 

[KeithD]

Lol.

I'm a LAWYER.

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

 

[icanhelp1]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mu...ce-concerning-his-compliance-with-court-order

Van Grack has long informed Sullivan that the government’s so-called "Brady" obligations, referring to prosecutors' duty to turn over exculpatory materials to defendants, have been met. In an October 2019 filing, Van Grack denied governmental misconduct and assured the court that the government “has complied, and will continue to comply, with its discovery and disclosure obligations, including those imposed pursuant to Brady and the Court’s Standing Order.”

In that same October 2019 motion, Van Grack elaborated on those claims, telling Sullivan that the government had not “affirmatively suppressed evidence” or hid Brady material. He denied that the government was “aware of any information that would be favorable and material to [Flynn] at sentencing.”

Van Grack further dismissed arguments by Flynn's attorney, Sidney Powell, that “General Flynn was targeted and taken out of the Trump administration for concocted and political purposes” as “conspiracy theories.”

What Van Grack didn’t inform the court about – and didn’t provide to Flynn – was the newly unsealed January 4, 2017 "Closing Communication" from the FBI Washington Field Office, which recommended the FBI close its investigation of Flynn, as its exhaustive search through government databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts."
^^^^^^^^^
I believe that is exculpatory evidence, operative word " exhaustive"

BOMBSHELL FBI MATERIALS REVEAL FBI DISCUSSED INTERVIEWING FLYNN TO GET HIM TO LIE, GET HIM FIRED

Van Grack also failed to provide evidence to Flynn’s attorneys that anti-Trump former FBI agent Peter Strzok then immediately intervened and instructed the FBI case manager handling the Flynn investigation to keep the probe open, followed by indicators that the bureau would seek to investigate Flynn for possible violations of an obscure 18th century law known as the Logan Act -- which has never been utilized in a modern prosecution.


Another Strzok text mentions that the FBI’s "7th floor" – meaning FBI leadership – may have been involved in the decision to keep the Flynn case alive.

Instead, Van Grack characterized Flynn’s alleged false statements as critical to the FBI’s “legitimate and significant investigation into whether individuals associated with the campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump were coordinating with the Russian government in its activities to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.”

He argued to Sullivan that Flynn’s “conduct and communications with Russia went to the heart of that inquiry.” And Van Grack said that Flynn’s alleged “false statements to the FBI on January 24, 2017, were absolutely material.”

But by that time, the FBI had already cleared Flynn of any improper ties, coordination, or communication with Russia. Just a day before Flynn's January 2017 White House interview, the Washington Post ran a story declaring that the FBI "had reviewed Flynn’s calls with Russian ambassador but found nothing illicit," citing unnamed "U.S. officials."

 

[HisArpy]

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

It's not my fault you're stupid.

 

[HisArpy]

You can plaster it on a billboard but the facts won't change. No court has ruled that the FBI withheld Brady material from Flynns counsel. This is part of Judge Sullivan's ongoing deliberations, and it appears he doesn't agree with Flynn's new defense or Bill Barr. If he did, he would have acted on Barrs call to drop Flynn's prosecution.

People have alleged a lot of things about how the FBI has prosecuted Flynn, but none have been proven or ruled on.

The only thing that has been proven in the Flynn case, is that he lied to the FBI and that he was an unregistered agent working for the Turkish government.

dudly, the evidence is STILL being produced even after the prosecution assured the court that "all evidence" had already been turned over to the defense prior to the plea agreement.

If that's the case; WHY THE FUCK are there documents and evidence still being produced? WHY THE FUCK wasn't the exculpatory evidence provided early on?

Sullivan KNOWS this is happening. The ONLY move he has at this point is to sanction the government. The ONLY sanction that is available for a Brady violation so egregious as this one is, is dismissal. He doesn't have to deliberate on it. He doesn't have to hire outside counsel to explain to the appellate court that he believes the defendant is guilty "of something or other".

His ONLY option is to dismiss. That is the law. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Yet you're stuck on stupid trying to defend the revealed malpractice by the prosecutors and Flynn's prior counsel through defamatory statements, outright lies, and ignorant hyperbole.

 

[Lazaran]

The recommendation on 01/07/2017 to close the Flynn investigation was rejected because new information was coming to light about Flynn's activities. The fact that a preliminary recommendation to close the case was rejected due to developing evidence of Flynn's questionable behavior is not exculpatory. The fact that superiors in the FBI overruled the preliminary recommendation is also not exculpatory. Should the FBI leadership defer to subordinates when deciding if an investigation should continue??? This information also exonerates Strzok because he was acting on orders from his superiors. Despite Strzok's texts with Lisa Page, the IG who investigated the matter found that Strzok did not let his personal opinions affect his professional actions.

Again, there are a lot of allegations of egregious law enforcement misconduct, but none has been proven or ruled upon. In other words, conspiracy theories.

What has been proven, is that Flynn was a unregistered agent of the Turkish government, and that he lied to the FBI about clandestine conversations with Russian ambassador Kislyak right after Russia had attacked the United States.

Alliteration is fun.

Trump, team, treasonous traitors???

 

[Lazaran]

dudly, the evidence is STILL being produced even after the prosecution assured the court that "all evidence" had already been turned over to the defense prior to the plea agreement.

If that's the case; WHY THE FUCK are there documents and evidence still being produced? WHY THE FUCK wasn't the exculpatory evidence provided early on?

Sullivan KNOWS this is happening. The ONLY move he has at this point is to sanction the government. The ONLY sanction that is available for a Brady violation so egregious as this one is, is dismissal. He doesn't have to deliberate on it. He doesn't have to hire outside counsel to explain to the appellate court that he believes the defendant is guilty "of something or other".

His ONLY option is to dismiss. That is the law. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Yet you're stuck on stupid trying to defend the revealed malpractice by the prosecutors and Flynn's prior counsel through defamatory statements, outright lies, and ignorant hyperbole.

Just because documents are being produced doesn't mean they're Brady material or exculpatory. Judge Sullivan will decide if there was egregious law enforcement misconduct, not you.

You can spray all the spittle you want, but it won't change reality or the facts.

 

[HisArpy]

The recommendation on 01/07/2017 to close the Flynn investigation was rejected because new information was coming to light about Flynn's activities. The fact that a preliminary recommendation to close the case was rejected due to developing evidence of Flynn's questionable behavior is not exculpatory. The fact that superiors in the FBI overruled the preliminary recommendation is also not exculpatory. Should the FBI leadership defer to subordinates when deciding if an investigation should continue??? This information also exonerates Strzok because he was acting on orders from his superiors. Despite Strzok's texts with Lisa Page, the IG who investigated the matter found that Strzok did not let his personal opinions affect his professional actions.

Again, there are a lot of allegations of egregious law enforcement misconduct, but none has been proven or ruled upon. In other words, conspiracy theories.

What has been proven, is that Flynn was a unregistered agent of the Turkish government, and that he lied to the FBI about clandestine conversations with Russian ambassador Kislyak right after Russia had attacked the United States.

Alliteration is fun.

Trump, team, treasonous traitors???

LIE.

.

 

[HisArpy]

Just because documents are being produced doesn't mean they're Brady material or exculpatory. Judge Sullivan will decide if there was egregious law enforcement misconduct, not you.

You can spray all the spittle you want, but it won't change reality or the facts.

dudly, you REALLY don't have a clue do you.

ALL of the material is subject to Brady discovery rules. The only question is whether the new documents are "material to the defense".

In this case the original 302 STILL hasn't been produced. That's "material to the defense" because the original 302, according to the agents who wrote it, doesn't match the 302 that was altered by Strzok.

Other documents that weren't produced are those from the file that show that the investigating agents determined that the file should be closed because there was no indication of illegal conduct. Strzok ONE AGAIN intervened and kept the file open. That's also "material to the defense" because it shows a bias on the part of Strzok to investigate Flynn even though there was no basis to continue to do so. Persecution is the word that fits that conduct.

Further, the FACT that those documents have only now been released shows that the prosecution LIED to the court when they said they'd produced everything KNOWING THAT THEY HADN'T DONE THAT.

And once more, the ONLY option Sullivan has is to sanction the government through a dismissal. That's the law.

Finally, if Sullivan is the only voice in deciding all of this, why the fuck are YOU mouthing off about it like you're sitting on his shoulder?

 

[Lazaran]

LIE.

.

Again, rent a billboard, it won't change the facts.

By the way, most of the documents that are being "produced" are coming from Flynn's former lawyers, Covington and Burling. Those lawyers are now fighting with Flynn's new lawyer Sidney Powell about over burdensome discovery material demands.

You should educate yourself before you opine on things you obviously know very little about.

Alliteration is fun.

Trump, team, treasonous traitors???

 

[HisArpy]

Again, rent a billboard, it won't change the facts.

By the way, most of the documents that are being "produced" are coming from Flynn's former lawyers, Covington and Burling. Those lawyers are now fighting with Flynn's new lawyer Sidney Powell about over burdensome discovery material demands.

You should educate yourself before you opine on things you obviously know very little about.

Alliteration is fun.

Trump, team, treasonous traitors???

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.

 

[icanhelp1]

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.

So, if the conversations between Flynn and kislyak were found to be appropriate and the FBI interview with Flynn found no illicit activity then that leaves only a few ways to view what happened, strzok wanted to pursue the case based on biases and hatred for Trump and/or Van Grack purposely mislead Sullivan as to the materiality of Flynn's statements on Jan 24. FARA violation was never charged but used as a threat.

 

[HisArpy]

So, if the conversations between Flynn and kislyak were found to be appropriate and the FBI interview with Flynn found no illicit activity then that leaves only a few ways to view what happened, strzok wanted to pursue the case based on biases and hatred for Trump and/or Van Grack purposely mislead Sullivan as to the materiality of Flynn's statements on Jan 24. FARA violation was never charged but used as a threat.

The case was a political hit job designed to isolate Trump by removing his cabinet members. The attack on Flynn was done via illegal conduct and fabricated charges and threats designed to coerce the accused into compliance.

 

[Lazaran]

So, if the conversations between Flynn and kislyak were found to be appropriate and the FBI interview with Flynn found no illicit activity then that leaves only a few ways to view what happened, strzok wanted to pursue the case based on biases and hatred for Trump and/or Van Grack purposely mislead Sullivan as to the materiality of Flynn's statements on Jan 24. FARA violation was never charged but used as a threat.

Another way to look at it is, if Flynn would have told the truth, the government would have been forced to charge him with violating the Logan act. Why it's OK for a top official in an incoming administration to be an unregistered agent of a foreign government is beyond me, but if you're cool with it I guess that makes it alright.

All the currently ruled upon evidence proves that Flynn lied to the FBI, and that the investigation into his activities was justified.

His new defense attorney is trying to make a mountain out of a mole testicle.

Alliteration is fun.

Trump, team, treasonous traitors???

 

[icanhelp1]

The case was a political hit job designed to isolate Trump by removing his cabinet members. The attack on Flynn was done via illegal conduct and fabricated charges and threats designed to coerce the accused into compliance.

That's been stated six ways to Sunday. L suffers from stage 5 TDS. I agree this was an Obama hit job. The Horowitz report is a scathing testimony as to the animus towards the Trump team. Sullivan's tirade directed towards Flynn didn't leave much to the imagination as to his disdain towards Flynn and the animus shown by a juror ( foreperson to boot ) by itself should have resulted in a mistrial.

Yah but! ORANGE MAN BAD, FLYNN BAD!

 

[bestone4ever]

The RWCJ have now stepped up their game!

http://i.imgur.com/2FMhDNq.jpg