Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Remember me telling you Flynn's name was never masked to begin with.... Obama demanded All Flynn's communications(an American) and McCabe, Comey & Clapper, gleefully complied.
Would you believe them? Why so late, when I knew this a week ago? Why didn't they post it a week ago?
So, to summarize it:
Obama wanted to know everything Flynn was doing, so he tossed the 4th Amendment to the trash, as he had done 1000's of times prior.
No they didn't. They said that he did not appear to be lying at the time they interviewed him. Apparently, when they checked the facts, it turned out he was lying.
If a child sincerely said to his parents that he got an "A" on his test, it might not appear to them he was lying. But in the end the report card might tell a different story.
I think there's another part to the agents' impression: “had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying.”
You probably know the precise language in the law, something like wilful, intentional, material. Do you have any idea what facts emerged to prove Flynn's answers were intentionally and willfully false ?
Your own article answers Flynn asked Hill and others for help:
"Flynn emailed Hicks, his then-deputy K.T. McFarland and others saying the Ignatius report “is not accurate, what can be done?” Hicks testified."
There's nothing odd about asking for advice on how to handle an inaccurate newspaper article based on an anonymous source
Neither of those two had any way of knowing his conversation with the Russian Ambassador but it appears he wanted them to back him. He should have been speaking to the White House Counsel rather than those two, they didn't have any experience.
It appears that KT McFarland was on the phone with Flynn and the Russian ambassador, she changed her initial denial in testimony to the Mueller team later claimed they may have had a discussion.
Quote:
McFarland made the revision after her reported testimony to investigators —stating that she never talked to Flynn about his discussions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about sanctions — was contradicted by Flynn's guilty plea last year, The Washington Post reports.
“On that call, Flynn and [McFarland] discussed the U.S. sanctions, including the potential impact of those sanctions on the incoming administration’s foreign policy goals,” read a line in Flynn's plea agreement.
A three judge panel on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered Judge Sullivan to respond to the request by Flynn's counsel that the case be dismissed. The Justice Department was also invited to comment on the matter. The Judge and the DOJ have 10 days to submit their responses.
An appeals court Thursday ordered the judge in Michael Flynn’s case to defend his actions after Flynn’s attorneys accused the judge of bias, and asked that the case be reassigned and for his conviction to be dismissed immediately as requested by the Justice Department.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit took the unusual step of ordering Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to address the request from Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, within 10 days, while also inviting the Justice Department to comment.
The brief order Thursday from the D.C. Circuit came from Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Robert Wilkins and Neomi Rao. The court asks Sullivan to file a response “addressing petitioner’s request that this court order the district judge to grant the government’s motion to dismiss.”
In response to the order Thursday, Powell said, “Obviously the court is taking the issue very seriously, as it should.”
The court is obviously taking the matter seriously. The judge is being forced to defend his behavior. So far, so good, at least for those who support justice and the rule of law in our country.
Of course I did. You argued that, regardless of the law or posture of the case, failing to dismiss the charges against Flynn would be an "injustice". I responded by pointing out that Flynn's own actions don't exactly scream "victim who has been railroaded by an unjust system."
Again. The burden of a fairness is upon the people who manage the force of law with their conduct. That cannot be balanced by Flynns own actions. If the process was tainted no court would allow that to be upheld by a verdict.
No they didn't. They said that he did not appear to be lying at the time they interviewed him. Apparently, when they checked the facts, it turned out he was lying.
If a child sincerely said to his parents that he got an "A" on his test, it might not appear to them he was lying. But in the end the report card might tell a different story.
It is my understanding that the 2 FBI agents had read the transcript of the call before they interviewed Flynn, so they would know at the time he was not lying. The transcript and the original notes (later revised by Page and Strzok) have not been produced by the Justice Department.
Not only is a writ of mandamus a low-percentage play generally, but the DC Circuit is the court that applies the most stringent standard in considering them among all the Circuit Courts.
The DC Circuit has already held that this kind of judicial overreach justifies mandamus.
Quote:
Yesterday, you were incorrectly telling us that the District Court has no subject matter jurisdiction at this point . . .
I was *correctly* telling you that.
Quote:
. . . and also that the case can be dismissed without District Judge Sullivan granting dismissal (despite the fact that FRCrP 48(a) expressly requires it).
I did not say that. I said it can be dismissed without his approval, which is of course true, as I pointed out in the comment you misunderstood..
Quote:
Two days ago you were incorrectly telling us that motions to dismiss by the AG, if not immediately granted, are deemed denied.
I never said anything about being "deemed", which is something that happens in one's head. I said Sullivan denied this motion, as his actions demonstrate. The effect of his actions is a denial of the requested relief, although it remains possible for him to reconsider and dismiss the case.
Quote:
Today, you are incorrectly telling us that Fokker flatly mandates dismissal of this case.
The rationale of Fokker indeed mandates dismissal of this case.
Quote:
I am familiar with Fokker - not because some pundit told me what was in it, but because I have read the decision itself. It is not controlling at this point in the Flynn case because they are already past the phase for charging decisions.
Just so, or are you going to make an argument as to why that is a meaningful distinction?
Quote:
In a nutshell, Fokker involved a District Judge who disagreed with a deferred prosecution agreement ("DPA") because he thought it was too lenient and decided he would not grant a motion to exclude time to prosecute the case. The Circuit Court reversed, saying that the District Judge could not second-guess the AG's decision to enter into DPA, no matter how lenient. Everything in that decision hinged on the idea that the Executive has the power to make charging decisions and that the Court had a limited role in questioning those decisions.
In Flynn's case, however, the proverbial horse has already left the barn. There are no prosecutorial or charging decisions left to make - the prosecution is already over.
No, it's not. If it were, there would be no case to dismiss.
Quote:
The sentencing memoranda [sic] is already submitted. That is a huge distinction when one considers the rationale set forth in Fokker when it limited judicial discretion in denying motions by the prosecution.
There is nothing in Fokker to suggest that your "distinction" is meaningful.
Quote:
Should District Judge Sullivan ultimately deny the motion to dismiss and sentence him, Flynn will assuredly appeal and argue that the rationale in Fokker applies equally in his case and it is possible that he succeeds in convincing the Circuit Court that the AG should have the decision-making authority to have cases dismissed even at the sentencing stage. But make no mistake, that result is not guaranteed because Fokker, as decided, simply does not apply to a situation where there the prosecution has already concluded.
Nothing is ever guaranteed in the judicial system, but the rules and rationales guiding the Fokker decision apply equally here.
Flynn lied to the FBI. He said he lied. Trump said he lied. Pence said he lied. I don't see the injustice in someone caught lying to the FBI being prosecuted for it . . . .
Really? There's no injustice in being prosecuted for something that is not a crime? Lying to Pence or Trump is not a crime. Lying to the FBI is not a crime.
I'll share with you a story. Which happens to be true.
I was traveling to Haines, Alaska from Bellingham, Washington in November of 2008 via the Alaska Marine Highway System aboard the Ferry Matanuska a large car ferry which weaves it way over four days to Haines.
On board with me was a then to be good friend and he and I shared a few in the bar (which has since been closed god only knows why). During one of evenings at a table closely <10' there were 2 men and 1 woman in slacks and 1 in a suit. We knew that were government as no-one dresses that way in Alaska.
Not intending to, I overheard them discussing the Senator Ted Stevens case. "We got him" and they clinked glasses. I was interested enough to pay attention. Over the next 20 minutes, to my shock and surprise they talked about evidence "which the court won't see" and other subjects. They were inebriated and talking loudly by that point. Only later did I understand the significance of same. As they were leaving I asked what kind of work they did and they responded they were with "the Federal Bureau of Investigation". I did not ask their names but it was an odd encounter in the Ferry on a dark night in the middle of the sea.
I followed the case once I got to Alaska and reminded myself when the news came out the prosecution had withheld exculpatory evidence. I learned then what I had always known but never seen.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's worth remembering when we watch the FBI agents in this case fall over themselves. And, what we know, everyone knows...they are "no good yankee liars" to quote Shane.
When the hammer falls on them, it won't change them. God knows they were most likely raised that way.
Great to see the unhinged Judge get hammered today. He should be disciplined and removed from the bench over his unconscionable conduct.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
