More on the Flynn case

[HisArpy]

I'ts eejit.......ya sloppy cunt and what the bejesus has Errol Flynn got ta do with it ya feckin Hamshank.

It's not my fault you can't keep up with the rest of the class.

 

[Rightguide]

I don't think it's quite that directive. I think it's answer Flynn's concerns, explain what you're doing and explain why you should not be replaced.

ETA:
I didn't realize the significance of a judge being required to explain the above^

Look at 5ge update with a twitter thread by an appellate lawyer, John M. Reeves :

https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/05/21/dc-appeals-court-orders-judge-sullivan-respond-flynns-request-dismissal/

I hadn't read that, thanks for posting it. All I had originally was the initial blurb I posted. Several days ago, before it actually happened, I posted a suggestion to file a Writ of Mandamus and alternatively a "Writ of Prohibition" which challenges the jurisdiction of the judge, not the judge himself.

In a case such as this where, because of a rule 48 motion agreed to by both parties, the judge is left without a "case and controversy" thus removing his constitutional jurisdiction. A Writ of Prohibition asks an appellate court to order a dismissal of the case based on the trial court's lack of jurisdiction. I've read this kind of writ is easier to obtain than the rarely granted Writ of Mandamus. I'm still wondering why the DOJ didn't file this writ.

 

[Rightguide]

Republicans have questioned why Michael Flynn's name was "unmasked," or revealed in an FBI report, but it turns out it was never masked in the first place.


Obamagate = Bullshit

We were told initially by former Obama officials in testimony under oath his name was unmasked and it was parroted by the left wing media. That's where we heard it first. Flynn was unmasked several times as the now declassified log shows but not on December 29, 2016 the day of the call in question to the Russian Ambassador. As I pointed out a week or so ago.

 

[Rightguide]

As I said yesterday, they’re dreaming dreams of prosecutions that will never happen. Zero indictments of Obama Administration members in an eight year term. The RWCJ can’t seem to process this.

^^^
As if Holder, Lynch, or Yates, would have tried any of the crooks in the Obama administration.

 

[enigma3]

[Discussions promoting and/or accusations involving pedophilia and/or underage sexual activity prohibited per our forum guidelines. - Last Warning Already Given]

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Sullivan does not merely have the authority to review the department’s motion to dismiss (which he clearly does). He has a duty to ensure that the dismissal is, in fact, in the public interest. He needs to conduct some discovery to determine that the dismissal is not tainted by impropriety or being done in bad faith.

If he finds that the motion is in fact tainted he must deny it.

That is why Sullivan reached out to Gleeson.

 

[Adre]

^^^
As if Holder, Lynch, or Yates, would have tried any of the crooks in the Obama administration.

^^^^The language of bullshitters.

 

[bellisarius]

Sullivan does not merely have the authority to review the department’s motion to dismiss (which he clearly does). He has a duty to ensure that the dismissal is, in fact, in the public interest. He needs to conduct some discovery to determine that the dismissal is not tainted by impropriety or being done in bad faith.

If he finds that the motion is in fact tainted he must deny it.

That is why Sullivan reached out to Gleeson.

No he doesn't.

 

[Conager]

Graham is saying that Obama and Biden won't be called to testify before Congress. That's because the deep state protects its own.

Laying it out AND putting the best spin possible on it, what we get is this:

Comey captured the Dec 28th call with Kislyak. In violation of the law, he didn't mask Flynn's name. Then he leaked it.

On Jan 5th, Obama had Comey and others stay after the daily briefing. At that point in time Obama KNEW about the Flynn call. Also, at that point in time, there had been ZERO requests to unmask the US citizen in the call. Obama, who is the chief executive, did NOTHING to prevent Comey from continuing with his illegal actions. Nor did he initiate anything to investigate what had happened. What he did was allow Comey to CONTINUE doing what he was doing.

We KNOW this because of the Susan Rice memo to the file.

Obama might not have actively participated in the illegalities that were going on, but he didn't prevent them either. As Comey's boss he bears the weight of responsibility for whatever Comey does, as a participant if the deeds are done with Obama's knowledge. However, consent isn't required. All consent does is make Obama a co-conspirator.

Remember, I'm laying this out in the light most favorable to Obama.

In this case, Obama didn't actively give Comey the go ahead. That removes him from being a participant. However, as Comey's boss, he had an obligation to prevent Comey from committing further illegalities. He did not. That shows he is someone who aided and abetted a crime as an Accessory After The Fact.


The real truth is that Obama became a co-conspirator when he agreed with Comey continuing to conceal vital national security information from the incoming administration. 18 US 371 prohibits hindering the legitimate functioning of the government.

Yet, Congress isn't going to call him to testify and ask him why.

The weird thing is them having any concern initially that Flynn might be a Russian asset.

I mean, "Hellllllooooo. . . . . The eighties called; they want their foreign policy back!"

 

[HisArpy]

Sullivan does not merely have the authority to review the department’s motion to dismiss (which he clearly does). He has a duty to ensure that the dismissal is, in fact, in the public interest. He needs to conduct some discovery to determine that the dismissal is not tainted by impropriety or being done in bad faith.

If he finds that the motion is in fact tainted he must deny it.

That is why Sullivan reached out to Gleeson.

Wrong.

Sullivan's job is to be a neutral arbiter of the law. What the parties agree to between themselves isn't his business or concern so long as what they agree to is legal and allowed by the law.

The law allows the parties to agree to a dismissal under Rule 48. The interests of justice PROHIBIT the court from interfering in that agreement.

 

[Rightguide]

Obama might not have actively participated in the illegalities that were going on, but he didn't prevent them either. As Comey's boss he bears the weight of responsibility for whatever Comey does, as a participant if the deeds are done with Obama's knowledge. However, consent isn't required. All consent does is make Obama a co-conspirator.

Remember, I'm laying this out in the light most favorable to Obama.

In this case, Obama didn't actively give Comey the go ahead. That removes him from being a participant. However, as Comey's boss, he had an obligation to prevent Comey from committing further illegalities. He did not. That shows he is someone who aided and abetted a crime as an Accessory After The Fact.

The question left unasked and unanswered is who and what authorized the surveillance of the Flynn call with the Russian Ambassador? Was there an open Fisa Warrant on the Russian Ambassador which would have REQUIRED that Flynn's name be masked, because on that call we know it wasn't. Was there a criminal warrant issued to monitor his calls? (highly doubtful). Remember McCabe testified and wrote in his book the call transcript was in the "FBI holdings." How did it get there? Was the transcript of the call passed to the FBI by a foreign intelligence service monitoring the Russian Ambassador? Did Brennan have it and pass it along to the FBI? Why was Sally Yates taken completely by surprise when Obama and Comey started talking about a transcript of Flynn talking with the Russian Ambassador?There is another possibility:

50 U.S. Code § 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court



(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—

Did Obama and AG Lynch authorize a previously unknown and ongoing secret electronic surveillance of General Flynn initiated before Yates became the acting AG? Is this how they bypassed a FISA Warrant requiring the masking of Flynn's name? JUST ASKIN'

 

[HisArpy]

The question left unasked and unanswered is who and what authorized the surveillance of the Flynn call with the Russian Ambassador? Was there an open Fisa Warrant on the Russian Ambassador which would have REQUIRED that Flynn's name be masked, because on that call we know it wasn't. Was there a criminal warrant issued to monitor his calls? (highly doubtful). Remember McCabe testified and wrote in his book the call transcript was in the "FBI holdings." How did it get there? Was the transcript of the call passed to the FBI by a foreign intelligence service monitoring the Russian Ambassador? Did Brennan have it and pass it along to the FBI? Why was Sally Yates taken completely by surprise when Obama and Comey started talking about a transcript of Flynn talking with the Russian Ambassador?There is another possibility:

50 U.S. Code § 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court



(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—

Did Obama and AG Lynch authorize a previously unknown and ongoing secret electronic surveillance of General Flynn initiated before Yates became the acting AG? Is this how they bypassed a FISA Warrant requiring the masking of Flynn's name? JUST ASKIN'

The only theory that fits the facts is that Flynn's name was not masked because the whoever leaked it could see past the masking without needing to ask for it to be unmasked.

If the CIA captured the call then the name wouldn't have needed to be "unmasked" via the unmasking requests. It would have always been unmasked so no such request would have been necessary. The fact that the requests exist shows that at some point the name WAS masked. When and by who? Why later and not at the beginning?

If a foreign intelligence service captured the call and then gave it to the US intel community, HOW did they capture the call of a US citizen? No one knows where Kislyak was at the time of the call, but if he was inside the US and a foreign intel service was monitoring his calls, isn't that illegal? I mean, how does a foreign intel service get the lawful ability to monitor the internal US communications of US citizens?

It's possible that the call was captured by foreign intel because Flynn wasn't inside the US at the time. That, however, begs the question of how the foreign intel service knew that Flynn was making the call and from a specific telephone number/location. Were they spying on Flynn? Why?

Those are a lot of questions that show that the alternate theories don't fit the facts. They're possible, but Occam's razor comes into play.

The 1 theory that fits is that the FBI didn't mask Flynn's name. And then someone leaked it. The common denominator is Comey. He had the power and authority to see beyond the mask without needing to "request" it. He is also a known leak to the same media outlet that published Flynn's name.

 

[Conager]

Both Flynn and Kislyak were out of the country. I haven't read anywhere where Kislyak was at the time, other than "not in the US," but Flynn was someplace odd, like the Dominican Republic.

 

[Rightguide]

The only theory that fits the facts is that Flynn's name was not masked because the whoever leaked it could see past the masking without needing to ask for it to be unmasked.

If the CIA captured the call then the name wouldn't have needed to be "unmasked" via the unmasking requests. It would have always been unmasked so no such request would have been necessary. The fact that the requests exist shows that at some point the name WAS masked. When and by who? Why later and not at the beginning?

If a foreign intelligence service captured the call and then gave it to the US intel community, HOW did they capture the call of a US citizen? No one knows where Kislyak was at the time of the call, but if he was inside the US and a foreign intel service was monitoring his calls, isn't that illegal? I mean, how does a foreign intel service get the lawful ability to monitor the internal US communications of US citizens?

It's possible that the call was captured by foreign intel because Flynn wasn't inside the US at the time. That, however, begs the question of how the foreign intel service knew that Flynn was making the call and from a specific telephone number/location. Were they spying on Flynn? Why?

Those are a lot of questions that show that the alternate theories don't fit the facts. They're possible, but Occam's razor comes into play.

The 1 theory that fits is that the FBI didn't mask Flynn's name. And then someone leaked it. The common denominator is Comey. He had the power and authority to see beyond the mask without needing to "request" it. He is also a known leak to the same media outlet that published Flynn's name.

Here's a theory for you. There may have been a standing surveillance of the Russian Ambassador no matter where he was, in our country or not and requiring no warrant. Remember Obama was going after Flynn, the FBI needed him out of their way in order to go after Trump. Flynn was on vacation on December 29, 2016 in the Dominican Republic. The problem was how to go about entrapping Flynn. If an ongoing surveillance of the Ambassador was underway the primary issue would be, how to get Kislyak to call Flynn. Did you know that on that very same day December 29, 2016, Obama kicked a number of Russians out of the country? Amazing coinkydink, eh. They would have known that doing so would have caused Kislyak to call Flynn, the incoming NSC Director to judge the temperament of the new administration. They also knew with Flynn in the Dominican Republic, any call made to the DR by Kislyak would very likely be going to Flynn, no? Just a wild ass theory.

 

[HisArpy]

Here's a theory for you. There may have been a standing surveillance of the Russian Ambassador no matter where he was, in our country or not and requiring no warrant. Remember Obama was going after Flynn, the FBI needed him out of their way in order to go after Trump. Flynn was on vacation on December 29, 2016 in the Dominican Republic. The problem was how to go about entrapping Flynn. If an ongoing surveillance of the Ambassador was underway the primary issue would be, how to get Kislyak to call Flynn. Did you know that on that very same day December 29, 2016, Obama kicked a number of Russians out of the country? Amazing coinkydink, eh. They would have known that doing so would have caused Kislyak to call Flynn, the incoming NSC Director to judge the temperament of the new administration. They also knew with Flynn in the Dominican Republic, any call made to the DR by Kislyak would very likely be going to Flynn, no? Just a wild ass theory.

It's possible. However, that puts the illegal activity squarely on Obama's shoulders.

 

[enigma3]

Wrong.

Sullivan's job is to be a neutral arbiter of the law. What the parties agree to between themselves isn't his business or concern so long as what they agree to is legal and allowed by the law.

The law allows the parties to agree to a dismissal under Rule 48. The interests of justice PROHIBIT the court from interfering in that agreement.

(figuratively) Unqualified or uninformed twat but yet giving advice, especially on technical issues, such as law, architecture, medicine, military theory, or sports. He's just an armchair lawyer who thinks he knows a lot about the law because he reads a legal blog on the internet...........

 

[HisArpy]

(figuratively) Unqualified or uninformed twat but yet giving advice, especially on technical issues, such as law, architecture, medicine, military theory, or sports. He's just an armchair lawyer who thinks he knows a lot about the law because he reads a legal blog on the internet...........

Sure luk, whatever you say.

 

[Rightguide]

It's possible. However, that puts the illegal activity squarely on Obama's shoulders.

Exactly where the AG just said the investigation would not go.

 

[bellisarius]

Sullivan does not merely have the authority to review the department’s motion to dismiss (which he clearly does). He has a duty to ensure that the dismissal is, in fact, in the public interest. He needs to conduct some discovery to determine that the dismissal is not tainted by impropriety or being done in bad faith.

If he finds that the motion is in fact tainted he must deny it.

That is why Sullivan reached out to Gleeson.

Oh, and when you copy shit verbatim at least have the decency to attribute the source.

 

[Rightguide]

(figuratively) Unqualified or uninformed twat but yet giving advice, especially on technical issues, such as law, architecture, medicine, military theory, or sports. He's just an armchair lawyer who thinks he knows a lot about the law because he reads a legal blog on the internet...........

What exactly did he say that was in error?

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Wrong.

Sullivan's job is to be a neutral arbiter of the law. What the parties agree to between themselves isn't his business or concern so long as what they agree to is legal and allowed by the law.

The law allows the parties to agree to a dismissal under Rule 48. The interests of justice PROHIBIT the court from interfering in that agreement.

Judge Sullivan Can Reject the Government’s Motion to Drop Flynn’s Case
By Andrew Crespo, Laura Londoño Pardo, Kristy Parker, Nathaniel Sobel Monday, May 18, 2020, 4:52 PM

 

[Conager]

Oh, and when you copy shit verbatim at least have the decency to attribute the source.

Probably Cenk Uygur at The Young Turks.

He is this decade's snarky, Jon Stewart, and BoreNextDoor is s big fanboy.

 

[HisArpy]

Exactly where the AG just said the investigation would not go.

In a way, I agree with it.

If Obama is subjected to scrutiny and/or prosecution AFTER he leaves office, then all the following Presidents will be held to the same standard. Especially so if those President's are disliked as much as Trump is disliked.

There must be a limit to that sort of thing.

Further, if Trump executed the "standard" pardon for the prior President for all crimes known and unknown, then Obama is shielded. What would be the point of going there in that situation?

 

[bellisarius]

Probably Cenk Uygur at The Young Turks.

He is this decade's snarky, Jon Stewart, and BoreNextDoor is s big fanboy.

He copied it from Lawfare. A "clubhouse" for prosecutors.

 

[Rightguide]

Sullivan does not merely have the authority to review the department’s motion to dismiss (which he clearly does). He has a duty to ensure that the dismissal is, in fact, in the public interest. He needs to conduct some discovery to determine that the dismissal is not tainted by impropriety or being done in bad faith.

If he finds that the motion is in fact tainted he must deny it.

That is why Sullivan reached out to Gleeson.

I already posted the applicable case law proving you're kinda full of shit.