The Basic Case Against Judge Sullivan in Flynn case

[PoliticalChic]

I don't believe this is an arrestable crime....but, a judge can be impeached.


When I become Queen of America, hopefully forthwith, my rule will be that a judge who is overturned thrice must find another line of work.

Do I have your vote?

I disagree. Sullivan is obstructing justice. 18 US Code 73 1503. It is a felonious act.

WE must restore the rule of law in this nation or we are done.

....perhaps I'll add the Guillotine to my platform.

Would that get your vote????

Well, maybe queen for a day.

I will never bow to any monarch or dictator, not even benevolent ones.

Would you curtsy????

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yup...right from the Trump playbook.

Thou shalt not in any way shape or form abridge Trump's almightiness - the means don't diss him or his friends, and corruption isn't corruption when applied to the Mighty T & Co.

Not that you Stalinists follow any laws, but...

{
In United States v. HSBC Bank USA back in 2013, then-Judge Gleeson said that the government has near-universal power to withdraw a case it has brought before the court.

Strassel added, “He then goes to quote U.S. v Pimentel: "A court is generally required to grant a prosecutor's Rule 48(a) motion unless dismissal is 'clearly contrary to manifest public interest.'"

}

With That Revelation, There's No Reason Why the Flynn Case Shouldn't Be Tossed

townhall.com

Now, you have an IQ of purple, which is why you're a communist, but Gleeson is the the one that Sullivan illegally appointed as special prosecutor since there is no actual prosecutor. But Gleeson already stipulated that what DOJ did ends the issue.

What a tangled web the deep state weaves.

Corrupt motherfuckers

What does clearly contrary to manifest public interest mean?

I could, for instance, claim that withdrawal, in this case, would undermine fate in the impartiality of the justice system. Something that's contrary to the public interest. considering the unusual nature of this dismissal. No actual exculpatory evidence was presented and the actual prosecutors who handled the prosecution didn't endorse the motion.

I could argue for instance that the precedents set in the motion to dismiss are contrary to the public interest.

“Third, there is also case law. In Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (1977) which addressed precedent under Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529 (1960) dealing with the dangers of multiple prosecutions. There are also related cases in Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121 (1959), and Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187 (1959). The Rinaldi decision involved a petitioner convicted of state offenses arising out of a robbery, who believed that the government should have moved to dismiss a federal offense arising out of the same robbery under the Department’s Petite policy. The Court laid out the standard for such motions. The thrust of that controversy concerned double jeopardy and dual jurisdictions. However, the point was that the rule is key in protecting such constitutional principles and that courts should be deferential in such moves by the Department: “In light of the parallel purposes of the Government’s Petite policy and the fundamental constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, the federal courts should be receptive, not circumspect, when the Government seeks leave to implement that policy.”

There are also lower court decisions on this inherent authority.”
President Obama Declares “There Is No Precedent That Anybody Can Find” For The Flynn Motion [He May Want To Call Eric Holder]





You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.


Last time: does a judge have the authority to institute new charges?

Of course, he does. Check youtube, you'll find dozens of videos of judges holding people in contempt, most of them funny as hell. It doesn't matter if your standing before him on charges of jaywalking if you commit perjury or contempt of court the judge can and will add those charges. And who's running? I've answered everything you asked and sourced when asked. So far that's more then you can say.

Of course he does not.

I said last chance....but I will give you one more opportunity to accept the truth, as painful as that may be to you:


“Judge Emmet Sullivan's decision to appoint a retired federal judge to argue against the Justice Department's entirely proper decision to end the criminal prosecution of General Michael Flynn is designed to circumvent the constitutional limitation on the jurisdiction of federal judges.

The Constitution limits this jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. There must be disagreement between the parties that requires resolution by a judge. If the parties agree, there is nothing for the judge to decide.

In the Flynn case, the prosecution and defense both agree that the case should be dropped. Because there is no longer any controversy between the parties to be resolved, there is no longer any case properly before the judge. His only job is to enter an order vacating the guilty plea and dismissing the case with prejudice.

But Judge Sullivan does not want to do that. He apparently thinks Flynn belongs in prison. He has as much as said that. So, he has manufactured a fake controversy by appointing a new prosecutor because evidently he does not like what the constitutionally authorized prosecutor — the Attorney General — has decided. The new prosecutor has been tasked to argue for the result that Judge Sullivan prefers.”
Judge Sullivan: A Prosecutor in Robes




“Judge Sullivan is a case study for the need of judicial accountability

There is nothing holding Judge Emmet Sullivan accountable for his actions. Nothing.” Judge Sullivan is a case study for the need of judicial accountability

Yeah he's working for Jeb Bush.
his decision will be overturned rather quickly on appeal.

Jo

Seems to be reason to believe such.....

In actuality, in need not get that far: Sullivan is simply angling to keep the case open until after the election, in hopes the death party wins the White House.

So he is obstructing justice for political gain - a felony.

Arrest the miscreant. He is not above the law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't believe this is an arrestable crime....but, a judge can be impeached.


When I become Queen of America, hopefully forthwith, my rule will be that a judge who is overturned thrice must find another line of work.

Do I have your vote?

I disagree. Sullivan is obstructing justice. 18 US Code 73 1503. It is a felonious act.

WE must restore the rule of law in this nation or we are done.

....perhaps I'll add the Guillotine to my platform.

Would that get your vote????

Well, maybe queen for a day.

I will never bow to any monarch or dictator, not even benevolent ones.

Would you curtsy????

For you? Absolutely!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yup...right from the Trump playbook.

Thou shalt not in any way shape or form abridge Trump's almightiness - the means don't diss him or his friends, and corruption isn't corruption when applied to the Mighty T & Co.

Not that you Stalinists follow any laws, but...

{
In United States v. HSBC Bank USA back in 2013, then-Judge Gleeson said that the government has near-universal power to withdraw a case it has brought before the court.

Strassel added, “He then goes to quote U.S. v Pimentel: "A court is generally required to grant a prosecutor's Rule 48(a) motion unless dismissal is 'clearly contrary to manifest public interest.'"

}

With That Revelation, There's No Reason Why the Flynn Case Shouldn't Be Tossed

townhall.com

Now, you have an IQ of purple, which is why you're a communist, but Gleeson is the the one that Sullivan illegally appointed as special prosecutor since there is no actual prosecutor. But Gleeson already stipulated that what DOJ did ends the issue.

What a tangled web the deep state weaves.

Corrupt motherfuckers

What does clearly contrary to manifest public interest mean?

I could, for instance, claim that withdrawal, in this case, would undermine fate in the impartiality of the justice system. Something that's contrary to the public interest. considering the unusual nature of this dismissal. No actual exculpatory evidence was presented and the actual prosecutors who handled the prosecution didn't endorse the motion.

I could argue for instance that the precedents set in the motion to dismiss are contrary to the public interest.

“Third, there is also case law. In Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (1977) which addressed precedent under Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529 (1960) dealing with the dangers of multiple prosecutions. There are also related cases in Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121 (1959), and Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187 (1959). The Rinaldi decision involved a petitioner convicted of state offenses arising out of a robbery, who believed that the government should have moved to dismiss a federal offense arising out of the same robbery under the Department’s Petite policy. The Court laid out the standard for such motions. The thrust of that controversy concerned double jeopardy and dual jurisdictions. However, the point was that the rule is key in protecting such constitutional principles and that courts should be deferential in such moves by the Department: “In light of the parallel purposes of the Government’s Petite policy and the fundamental constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, the federal courts should be receptive, not circumspect, when the Government seeks leave to implement that policy.”

There are also lower court decisions on this inherent authority.”
President Obama Declares “There Is No Precedent That Anybody Can Find” For The Flynn Motion [He May Want To Call Eric Holder]





You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.


Last time: does a judge have the authority to institute new charges?

Of course, he does. Check youtube, you'll find dozens of videos of judges holding people in contempt, most of them funny as hell. It doesn't matter if your standing before him on charges of jaywalking if you commit perjury or contempt of court the judge can and will add those charges. And who's running? I've answered everything you asked and sourced when asked. So far that's more then you can say.

Of course he does not.

I said last chance....but I will give you one more opportunity to accept the truth, as painful as that may be to you:


“Judge Emmet Sullivan's decision to appoint a retired federal judge to argue against the Justice Department's entirely proper decision to end the criminal prosecution of General Michael Flynn is designed to circumvent the constitutional limitation on the jurisdiction of federal judges.

The Constitution limits this jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. There must be disagreement between the parties that requires resolution by a judge. If the parties agree, there is nothing for the judge to decide.

In the Flynn case, the prosecution and defense both agree that the case should be dropped. Because there is no longer any controversy between the parties to be resolved, there is no longer any case properly before the judge. His only job is to enter an order vacating the guilty plea and dismissing the case with prejudice.

But Judge Sullivan does not want to do that. He apparently thinks Flynn belongs in prison. He has as much as said that. So, he has manufactured a fake controversy by appointing a new prosecutor because evidently he does not like what the constitutionally authorized prosecutor — the Attorney General — has decided. The new prosecutor has been tasked to argue for the result that Judge Sullivan prefers.”
Judge Sullivan: A Prosecutor in Robes




“Judge Sullivan is a case study for the need of judicial accountability

There is nothing holding Judge Emmet Sullivan accountable for his actions. Nothing.” Judge Sullivan is a case study for the need of judicial accountability

Yeah he's working for Jeb Bush.
his decision will be overturned rather quickly on appeal.

Jo

Seems to be reason to believe such.....

In actuality, in need not get that far: Sullivan is simply angling to keep the case open until after the election, in hopes the death party wins the White House.

So he is obstructing justice for political gain - a felony.

Arrest the miscreant. He is not above the law.

Hussein did it for eight years......

 

[Synthaholic]

Did Biden know that it was Flynn who was talking to Kisliak when he requested that unmasking?

LOL...............you will try to sell that he didn't....

Please explain his need to know in a counter intel op right before leaving office........and tell me how he didn't know this was from the incoming admin..........

You know the answer...........as you ignore the years of Abuse by the Obama Administration which is WELL DOCUMENTED.

Why would Biden go through the process of making an official unmasking request if he knew the name of the person who was communicating with Kisliak?

To what end?

You’re talking to a brick wall. They are clueless about any of this. They hear “unmasking” and they think about Harry Osborn pulling off Spider-Man’s mask in that movie they saw. They don’t know what it’s purpose is, they don’t know who is authorized to do this - for any reason - and they don’t know . . . well, anything.

 

[Synthaholic]

Did Biden know that it was Flynn who was talking to Kisliak when he requested that unmasking?

LOL...............you will try to sell that he didn't....

Please explain his need to know in a counter intel op right before leaving office........and tell me how he didn't know this was from the incoming admin..........

You know the answer...........as you ignore the years of Abuse by the Obama Administration which is WELL DOCUMENTED.

Why would Biden go through the process of making an official unmasking request if he knew the name of the person who was communicating with Kisliak?

To what end?

Why would do so with weeks left in office............and with the NSA with Clapper and Brennon in their back pockets........................Was Biden DOING counter intel ops right before he left office...............It's their job to do this..........then report to the DOJ...............

Spin away.......you know damned well they were using this to spy on the incoming administration....................They did it for YEARS............unless you didn't look at what Admiral Rogers did before he left the NSA............................he stopped them back then.

Is making an unmasking request something that is needed if you operate a corrupt national security regime and you want to spy on the Trump transition?

LOL

You ignore how they abused the unmasking from the articles I supplied......YEARS of doing this shit.................PROVEN BY FISA Courts......

Only now are they finally releasing names of the ones doing this crap............Spin all you want........they are guilty as hell and you know it.

But the establishment will not charge them............this will be used for politics only.......maybe some peon will take a fall..........but that will be about it........

Did you see my OP, that the moderators buried deep into a 700-post thread so that people wouldn’t see it? It explains, in Trump’s own words, why this is a YUGE nothing-burger.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Did Biden know that it was Flynn who was talking to Kisliak when he requested that unmasking?

LOL...............you will try to sell that he didn't....

Please explain his need to know in a counter intel op right before leaving office........and tell me how he didn't know this was from the incoming admin..........

You know the answer...........as you ignore the years of Abuse by the Obama Administration which is WELL DOCUMENTED.

Why would Biden go through the process of making an official unmasking request if he knew the name of the person who was communicating with Kisliak?

To what end?

You’re talking to a brick wall. They are clueless about any of this. They hear “unmasking” and they think about Harry Osborn pulling off Spider-Man’s mask in that movie they sad. They don’t know what it’s purpose is, they don’t know who is authorized to do this - for any reason - and they don’t know . . . well, anything.

Technically, he is LYING to a brick wall.

I mean, since nothing you or he posts is ever factual.

 

[justoffal]

If someone stands in a courtroom, gets sworn in, pleads guilty to something and then claims he didn't do what he claimed he did later. Does he not, in fact, commit perjury? Either the first or the second time? So do you assert that lying in a courtroom while under oath doesn't compel you to be truthful? Or is your assertion that one can only commit one criminal act?

As for the rest, you keep on making statements and try to represent them as facts. I've yet to see you being able to support any of them tough. What specifically have I said that is wrong?

If the police suspect that you were speeding, do they have the legal right to rape your wife and continue to do so until you confess?

Because that is EXACTLY what the Inquisition did with Gen. Flynn. When Andrew Weissman who headed the Inquisition (we now know that Grand Inquisitor Mueller-Torquemada was in the 4th stage of Alzheimer's and was a figurehead to distract from the makeup of the witch hunt) moved to try and get Flynn to perjure himself against the president, which was the purpose of the entrapment that Comey and Obama had devised, the LtG. refused. Weissman used the traditional tactics of the KGB, he bankrupted the LtG. He froze the bank accounts, any securities as to deny the LtG. any defense.

But this failed, so Weissman and his gangsters threatened LtG. Flynn's lawyers, Robert Kelner and Stephen Anthony. We now know, thank to the document release, that Weissman engaged in extortion of Covington & Burling (C&B) the firm that employee by making the credible threat that if Kelner and Anthony did not convince LtG. Flynn to confess, the KGB and department of Injustice would launch an assault on C&B. In other words, they compromised the Flynn defense team to work against the interests of their client through extortion to destroy their firm if they did not.

This did not work, at least not initially. KGB agent Peter Strzok along with KGB lawyer cooked up some fabricated charges against the son of LtG. Flynn (also Michael) based on the now discredited Russian Collusion conspiracy theory. The KGB and department of Injustice basically took a page from the 14th century Spanish Inquisition. In that first inquisition they would rape the wife and daughters of the victim until they confessed. Many men would stand up to the torture that Torquemada would levy, but the attacks on their family would break them.

So that's what our KGB and DOI did, they raped Flynn's family, Crooked fuck Weissman is on tape in the newly released exculpatory teling Flynn that if he doesn't confess, they will throw HIS SON in prison and sell his grandchildren into slavery (place them in foster care). Meanwhile they cut a side deal with Kelner and Anthony to back off of C&B, whom the department of Injustice had already begun assaulting AND drop the bogus charges against Flynn Jr. if the would JUST GET FLYNN TO CONFESS.

Flynn had lost his home, every dime he had, and now the gangsters were attacking his family. He withstood more coercion than 90% of us would, but he finally confessed to the fabricated charges by the KGB.

WE KNOW ALL OF THIS, it's in the document dump.

Yet that corrupt pile of shit Sullivan obstructs justice.

Give it a rest. Rape is a crime so no. Asking you questions you know the answer to and then confronting you when you lie, yes. Or compelling you to answer questions in a larger investigation by including your son in a plea deal, yes. That's how it works. Cases, where somebody pleads guilty to something without some form of coercion, are rare.

There's a very easy way to not fall into a perjury trap. Not that it was but fine. Tell the truth. There is no way the FBI could throw Flynn's son in jail. Unless of course, that son committed a crime. Hyperbole doesn't change that fact.

We know that Flynn lied. If for no other reason and there are more reasons that both Pence and Spicer told the same lie and then said Flynn lied to them. So who do you believe, Pence, Spicer and... Flynn or... well nobody?

As for Mueller. See this is the problem I always have. You guys keep on claiming "no collusion" collusion is a word without legal meaning but meaning in English. Mueller established that the Trump campaign engaged in collusion as defined in a dictionary.

Legally though in order to prosecute it has to able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that that collusion rose to the level of criminal conspiracy which has a legal meaning. Mueller decided he couldn't. He did, however, specify that Trump wasn't charged on obstruction by virtue of his position which is a far cry of saying he's innocent of it.

Extortion, entrapment and prosecutorial misconduct are also crimes. Sullivan is exposing his ass to his superiors who are certainly watching what's happening.
I am very sure that he has promised Jeb Bush that he will make this work against Trump. Just a matter of time before we find out the connections.

Jo

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hussein did it for eight years......

Emmett Sullivan was a MAJOR supporter of Barack Obama. Sullivan, a Bill Clinton appointee was extremely involved with the Obama campaign in both '08 and '12

So in a sense, the obstruction of justice that Sullivan is involved in now is for the benefit of his hero.

All roads in this massive corruption lead one place.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hussein did it for eight years......

Emmett Sullivan was a MAJOR supporter of Barack Obama. Sullivan, a Bill Clinton appointee was extremely involved with the Obama campaign in both '08 and '12

So in a sense, the obstruction of justice that Sullivan is involved in now is for the benefit of his hero.

All roads in this massive corruption lead one place.

View attachment 336811

Excellent analysis.

 

[Coyote]

The government did prosecute. Sentencing is up to the judge. Now the DOJ wants a backsy. The judicial has to rule if they'll allow it. As to what law Flynn broke. False Statements in Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1001

And again making statements like "bogus" guilty plea without being able to back it up doesn't give you credibility.

The case is withdrawn, The DOJ has acknowledged prosecutorial misconduct.

Sullivan is obstructing justice.

A judge is allowed to rule on any motion set before him right? Or do you understand the job of judges differently than I do? This acknowledgment was again NOT endorsed by ANY prosecutor who wasn't a political appointee. This included the actual prosecutors.

Find me one precedent for this, just one?

The dishonorable Sullivan is obstructing justice. I urge AG Barr to have Sullivan arrested.

Yes, I understand judges differently than you do. Where you see a dictator in a robe who is god, I see the actual job of a judge. A judge is required to uphold the law.

American Jurisprudence was designed around an adversarial where prosecution and defense present a case. The job of the judge is to decide points of LAW presented by the two sides and arbitrate disputes based on law.

The judge is not the law, but the referee. This dishonorable lout Sullivan is obstructing justice and should be arrested and prosecuted just like Roger Stone - with a predawn raid on his home by paramilitary goons.

What happens when the prosecution is corrupted?

 

[justoffal]

The government did prosecute. Sentencing is up to the judge. Now the DOJ wants a backsy. The judicial has to rule if they'll allow it. As to what law Flynn broke. False Statements in Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1001

And again making statements like "bogus" guilty plea without being able to back it up doesn't give you credibility.

The case is withdrawn, The DOJ has acknowledged prosecutorial misconduct.

Sullivan is obstructing justice.

A judge is allowed to rule on any motion set before him right? Or do you understand the job of judges differently than I do? This acknowledgment was again NOT endorsed by ANY prosecutor who wasn't a political appointee. This included the actual prosecutors.

Find me one precedent for this, just one?

The dishonorable Sullivan is obstructing justice. I urge AG Barr to have Sullivan arrested.

Yes, I understand judges differently than you do. Where you see a dictator in a robe who is god, I see the actual job of a judge. A judge is required to uphold the law.

American Jurisprudence was designed around an adversarial where prosecution and defense present a case. The job of the judge is to decide points of LAW presented by the two sides and arbitrate disputes based on law.

The judge is not the law, but the referee. This dishonorable lout Sullivan is obstructing justice and should be arrested and prosecuted just like Roger Stone - with a predawn raid on his home by paramilitary goons.

What happens when the prosecution is corrupted?

That's why there are appeals courts at several levels....and if per chance the corruption goes all the way up...well then we are simply fucked.

JO

 

[Coyote]

Hussein did it for eight years......

Emmett Sullivan was a MAJOR supporter of Barack Obama. Sullivan, a Bill Clinton appointee was extremely involved with the Obama campaign in both '08 and '12.

Link?

So in a sense, the obstruction of justice that Sullivan is involved in now is for the benefit of his hero.

All roads in this massive corruption lead one place.

Sullivan was also appointed by Reagan and Bush, indicating broad bipartisan support.

His record is good, no scandals or controversy. He has ruled on two cases involving Trump in some way and ruled both in favor and against, depending on the law.

The only massive corruption I am seeing here is coming from this administration through it’s corrupt AG, and this judge, like so many other figures, has earned the wrath of MAGA, and will now be smeared, trashed and tossed into the Deep-State conspiracy theory.

 

[Coyote]

Yup...right from the Trump playbook.

Thou shalt not in any way shape or form abridge Trump's almightiness - the means don't diss him or his friends, and corruption isn't corruption when applied to the Mighty T & Co.

So you be OK if Trump charged you or Obama or anyone with lying to the FBI but they couldn't present the original report on the interview as evidence.

Right?

You mean the draft versions of the report?

Flynn lied. He testified under oath. The judge saw the material and said there were no substantive changes between the drafts and the final and threw out the claim.

 

[Crepitus]

This judge has made some bizar rulings.

1) He said that there is no lacking Brady evidence in this case that has not been produced by the government to the defense. But the initial 302 which had the original transcript of what was said is missing, and no one seems to know where it is. It is the prosecutions responsibility to produce this document but only edited docs have been given for it instead. This is crucial in a case where the accused is charged with perjury relating to his testimony vrs what he actually said. There is no reliable proof that Flynn lied about anything without that 302.
2) Sullivans appointment of a known biased/prejudiced judge to play an advisory role is just bullshit, and the SCOTUS ruled against such things in criminal cases. The court is to decide on evidence brought to it, not go on a fishing expedition.
3) Sullivan himself early on in the case smeared Flynn as a traitor and a liar. He is not an objective judge at all.
4) Sullivan continues to deny the obvious reality that the DOJ extorted the confession from Flynn by threatening to prosecute/investigate Flynns son. This is hideous Beria type evil shit, and Democrats are defending it like we lived in their Chicom Paradise.

I have been wondering what can be done and Mark Levin brought up this idea of submitting a 'Writ of Prohibition' to the 5th Circuit Court, IIRC.

When you have a judge that ignores the law and thinks he is a legal author of law, I guess that is what you have to do. Boot this jack ass yesterday, DOJ.

Former DOJ spokesman Ian Prior suggests original FBI report on Flynn interview was 'intentionally lost'

Former Department of Justice Deputy Director of Public Affairs Ian Prior told Fox News Friday that the missing FBI report on a crucial interview of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is “a big issue.”

www.foxnews.com

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo last week on "Sunday Morning Futures" that the original 302 document — which typically summarizes witness interviews with agents — was “missing.”​

​

“It’s gone. Poof. It’s out of — we can’t find it," he said....​

​

Nunes claimed the original interview report was written and transcribed and recalled FBI sources telling him, “Look, there’s nothing to see here, Flynn wasn’t lying.”​

​

“So we knew this at the beginning of 2017, so you can imagine my astonishment when it began to leak out in the press that General Flynn was being busted for lying to the FBI,” he said. “And that, that’s what the Mueller team — the dirty Mueller team — that’s what they were going to bust him on.​

​

​

“And I told people at the highest levels of the FBI and the DOJ, I said, 'What are you doing here?' Like, we have, on the record, from the highest-level people that he didn't lie to the FBI,” he said.​

​

Prior said Friday that he can’t imagine the original 302 document was mislaid as a “mistake.”​

There is no "case" against Sullivan.

He's an honest judge.under attack by dishonest administration hacks and lying shit-sacks like Levine.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hussein did it for eight years......

Emmett Sullivan was a MAJOR supporter of Barack Obama. Sullivan, a Bill Clinton appointee was extremely involved with the Obama campaign in both '08 and '12.

Link?

So in a sense, the obstruction of justice that Sullivan is involved in now is for the benefit of his hero.

All roads in this massive corruption lead one place.

Sullivan was also appointed by Reagan and Bush, indicating broad bipartisan support.

His record is good, no scandals or controversy. He has ruled on two cases involving Trump in some way and ruled bothY

Sooooo.......he has, since, lost his mind.

You, of all people, should be sympathetic to that sort of thing.

 

[Coyote]

Yup...right from the Trump playbook.

Thou shalt not in any way shape or form abridge Trump's almightiness - the means don't diss him or his friends, and corruption isn't corruption when applied to the Mighty T & Co.

And that is right out of the Ayles handbook; ignore the facts and resort to personalities.

IT is amazing that you libs have abandoned civil rights across the board, your main calling card in most people's minds.

But here you have abandoned:
1) The right of the accused to a lawyer.
2) The right of the accused to know that they are being interviewed in a criminal investigation, instead of just a 'friendly conversation'.
3) The right to relvant Brady material, like the ORIGINAL 302 that stated what Flynn said and the authors of which cleared Flynn of any wrong doing. Where is it?
4) The rejection of coerced pleas. For Christ's Sake, Coyote, these fascist thugs THREATENED TO INVESTIGATE FLYNNS CHILDREN! But thats all OK in love and war, huh? No due process rights for Republicans or is it only Trump supporters?
5) The entire prosecution was merely a device to get Flynn to flip and make up shit on Trump. Flynn was not dishonest enough to allow his conscience to go along, so the jack boot Andrew Weisman destroyed Flynn personally, financially and his reputation nuked.
6) The right to a fair judge who has not already condemned the accused to being a traitor in public statements.

My Gawd, how do you liberals live with yourselves any more?

Easy. By sticking to facts.

1. He was given the opportunity to have a lawyer. One lie down.

2. What “right” is this? Can’t find it.

3. How did the draft 302 clear him of anything? It is a standard interview document, done by field agents, which is then analyzed and compared to other statements and interviews. In it, the only thing you latch onto is “he wasn’t lying”. You ignore the rest of the information which is that this statement was made in the context of analyzing his body language ONLY.

4. Flynn’s son was actively involved in Flynn’s business, thus could be culpable. This tactic is used often, particularly in white collar crimes, for example Enron. Why were you never outraged before about it?

5. Fair enough, but the judge apologized, does any of that change the fact that Flynn lied? Did his defense request a new judge?

The only fascists are those supporting a corrupt attorney general attempting to subvert the justice system in support of his boss’ political cronies.

 

[Olde Europe]

And that is right out of the Ayles handbook; ignore the facts and resort to personalities.

IT is amazing that you libs have abandoned civil rights across the board, your main calling card in most people's minds.

But here you have abandoned:
1) The right of the accused to a lawyer.
2) The right of the accused to know that they are being interviewed in a criminal investigation, instead of just a 'friendly conversation'.
3) The right to relvant Brady material, like the ORIGINAL 302 that stated what Flynn said and the authors of which cleared Flynn of any wrong doing. Where is it?
4) The rejection of coerced pleas. For Christ's Sake, Coyote, these fascist thugs THREATENED TO INVESTIGATE FLYNNS CHILDREN! But thats all OK in love and war, huh? No due process rights for Republicans or is it only Trump supporters?
5) The entire prosecution was merely a device to get Flynn to flip and make up shit on Trump. Flynn was not dishonest enough to allow his conscience to go along, so the jack boot Andrew Weisman destroyed Flynn personally, financially and his reputation nuked.
6) The right to a fair judge who has not already condemned the accused to being a traitor in public statements.

My Gawd, how do you liberals live with yourselves any more?

What a pile of hysterical horse manure. Flynn was never denied counsel. He was interviewed pursuant a counter-intelligence probe. The 302 was available to Powell - her lying about it notwithstanding. Flynn's son worked on behalf of a foreign power and was involved with his criminal dad's negotiations as to the kidnapping and exfiltration of a U.S. resident. Flynn got lucky that investigation into his son's part of that pervasive criminality, well deserved as it was, was dropped due to the plea deal. Remember, if you involve your kids in your criminality, you don't get to whine about their being in legal jeopardy. The rest of that garbage right out of Absurdistan isn't even worth addressing.

Usually there was some fun watching you guys struggle with the internal contradictions of your alternate reality. Now you are just re-bleating whatever garbage is fed to you, and it's just saddening, since, amid a frenzy of feces-flinging and hyperventilation, you no longer realize you can't find a way out of the thicket.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If someone stands in a courtroom, gets sworn in, pleads guilty to something and then claims he didn't do what he claimed he did later. Does he not, in fact, commit perjury?

Not if he is coerced in ether or both cases, dipshit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I just proved that Sullivan issued a new charge, and you agreed it was not his prerogative.
Why are you back?

Because he is a deranged leftwing ideologue that cannot understand anything outside his own narrow ideological perspective.