High Profile DOJ Alum Push Back At Barr’s Flynn Shenanigans

[Meister]

Let's be clear -
It is an abuse of FBI power to intervene in a political power struggle between 2 political parties.

If the FBI wanted "to intervene in a political power struggle between 2 political parties" (and not just carry out their duty to protect the country) they would have gone public with the fact they were investigating Russian connections to the Trump campaign before the election.

Context is everything, berg. And, when you use context with the bullshit that you're spewing, you're left with only your main
ingredient......which is bullshit.

Would you like to respond to this............
Mary B. McCord, former acting assistant attorney general for national security, wrote in a New York Times op-ed Sunday that Barr cherry-picked from her 2017 testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller, which the DOJ cited more than 25 times in the motion to dismiss Flynn's case. She said her testimony is "no support for Mr. Barr's dismissal of the Flynn case."
"It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn," she wrote. "It does not suggest that the F.B.I.'s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn's false statements were not material."
McCord continued, "And it does not support the Justice Department's assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, 'would not serve the interests of justice.'"
......................or are you just going to keep typing unsubstantiated garbage?

Who canned her ass, berg? You're the one throwing out the garbage.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Look at Schiff claim Russia is laundering money through Trump.

What absolute trash.

Schiff, you molest squirrels.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Let's be clear -
It is an abuse of FBI power to intervene in a political power struggle between 2 political parties.

If the FBI wanted "to intervene in a political power struggle between 2 political parties" (and not just carry out their duty to protect the country) they would have gone public with the fact they were investigating Russian connections to the Trump campaign before the election.

Context is everything, berg. And, when you use context with the bullshit that you're spewing, you're left with only your main
ingredient......which is bullshit.

The context, however, doesn't change the fact that Flynn lied to the FBI. Of course, this is why the DOJ wont leave it to the court to decide, if they can help it.

Yeah....we now know the context....that's the whole point here. It was a set up.

Yes, the FBI set him up to lie, because they knew he would lie. They were right. You seem confused...this is their job...the DOJ dismissal, which tracks the defense lawyers complaint, now (the collusion is obvious), is that the lies were not "material". Try to stay grounded in the context of reality, not your fantasies.

 

[bripat9643]

Let's be clear -
It is an abuse of FBI power to intervene in a political power struggle between 2 political parties.

If the FBI wanted "to intervene in a political power struggle between 2 political parties" (and not just carry out their duty to protect the country) they would have gone public with the fact they were investigating Russian connections to the Trump campaign before the election.

Context is everything, berg. And, when you use context with the bullshit that you're spewing, you're left with only your main
ingredient......which is bullshit.

Would you like to respond to this............
Mary B. McCord, former acting assistant attorney general for national security, wrote in a New York Times op-ed Sunday that Barr cherry-picked from her 2017 testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller, which the DOJ cited more than 25 times in the motion to dismiss Flynn's case. She said her testimony is "no support for Mr. Barr's dismissal of the Flynn case."
"It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn," she wrote. "It does not suggest that the F.B.I.'s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn's false statements were not material."
McCord continued, "And it does not support the Justice Department's assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, 'would not serve the interests of justice.'"
......................or are you just going to keep typing unsubstantiated garbage?

It does suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn because the DOJ didn't provide any, dumbass. Of course she didn't suggest that suggest that the F.B.I.'s interview of Mr. Flynn was unlawful or unjustified. The total lack of any justification is what suggests it. Flynn made no false statements, so why would she deny that she claimed they were immaterial?

Her statement is a total non sequitur, which is proof that she's corrupt as hell.

 

[Meister]

Let's be clear -
It is an abuse of FBI power to intervene in a political power struggle between 2 political parties.

If the FBI wanted "to intervene in a political power struggle between 2 political parties" (and not just carry out their duty to protect the country) they would have gone public with the fact they were investigating Russian connections to the Trump campaign before the election.

Context is everything, berg. And, when you use context with the bullshit that you're spewing, you're left with only your main
ingredient......which is bullshit.

The context, however, doesn't change the fact that Flynn lied to the FBI. Of course, this is why the DOJ wont leave it to the court to decide, if they can help it.

Yeah....we now know the context....that's the whole point here. It was a set up.

Yes, the FBI set him up to lie, because they knew he would lie. They were right. You seem confused...this is their job...the DOJ dismissal, which tracks the defense lawyers complaint, now (the collusion is obvious), is that the lies were not "material". Try to stay grounded in the context of reality, not your fantasies.

I see, that how it's done huh? Well if that's the only excuse you can come up with, I guess you have to go with it.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. As the case with Flynn, evidence isn't needed.

The evidence is overwhelming that he lied to the FBI. Not even his lawyers are claiming he didnt lie.

Hmmm, yes they are, and so is the DOJ.

 

[berg80]

Who canned her ass, berg?

Why does that matter? What does it have to do with the facts?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Context is everything, berg. And, when you use context with the bullshit that you're spewing, you're left with only your main
ingredient......which is bullshit.

Still waiting for you to refute what McCord (and Kravis) had to say with something other than your opinion and gratuitous insults.

What was the evidence that Schiff had that Trump and Putin stole the election?

What is the evidence that Flynn lied to the FBI?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Nope. As the case with Flynn, evidence isn't needed.

The evidence is overwhelming that he lied to the FBI. Not even his lawyers are claiming he didnt lie.

Hmmm, yes they are, and so is the DOJ.

I blocked that jackass like a year ago. He doesn’t discuss in good faith.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It does suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn because the DOJ didn't provide any

False . They did. As the letter (that you never read and wouldn't understand anyway) argues. This is, of course, why they are requesting that it be dismissed with prejudice.

 

[berg80]

Who canned her ass, berg? You're the one throwing out the garbage.

What does that have to do with this................
Mary B. McCord, former acting assistant attorney general for national security, wrote in a New York Times op-ed Sunday that Barr cherry-picked from her 2017 testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller, which the DOJ cited more than 25 times in the motion to dismiss Flynn's case. She said her testimony is "no support for Mr. Barr's dismissal of the Flynn case."
"It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn," she wrote. "It does not suggest that the F.B.I.'s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn's false statements were not material."
McCord continued, "And it does not support the Justice Department's assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, 'would not serve the interests of justice.'"

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hmmm, yes they are, and so is the

False. Wow, you really know less than nothing about any of this, do you?

 

[bripat9643]

It does suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn because the DOJ didn't provide any

False . They did. As the letter (that you never read and wouldn't understand anyway) argues. This is, of course, why they are requesting that it be dismissed with prejudice.

What "letter" is that?

 

[bripat9643]

Hmmm, yes they are, and so is the

False. Wow, you really know less than nothing about any of this, do you?

It's true.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What "letter" is that?

Maybe...the topic of the thread in which you are posting? Wow...take a break....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's true.

False. Thats why you cant show me where the DOJ filing says he didnt lie. Or where his lawyers recent filings claim he didnt lie. You are just talking out of your ass again.

 

[bripat9643]

What "letter" is that?

Maybe...the topic of the thread in which you are posting? Wow...take a break....

That letter doesn't prove jack.

 

[bripat9643]

It's true.

False. Thats why you cant show me where the DOJ filing says he didnt lie. Or where his lawyers recent filings claim he didnt lie. You are just talking out of your ass again.

Charges against ex-Trump adviser dropped​

In a court filing first reported by the Associated Press, the justice department said it moved to dismiss the charges "after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information".​

​

The department said the interview between investigators and Flynn in January 2017 was "unjustified" and not conducted on a "legitimate investigative basis".​

​

It also said it could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Flynn had lied, and said that after the interview, FBI agents had "expressed uncertainty as to whether Mr Flynn had lied".​

​

The department also said proving someone made a false statement to federal investigators "requires more than a lie.​

​

"It also requires demonstrating that such a statement was 'material' to the underlying investigation."​

 

[berg80]

It's true.

False. Thats why you cant show me where the DOJ filing says he didnt lie. Or where his lawyers recent filings claim he didnt lie. You are just talking out of your ass again.

Charges against ex-Trump adviser dropped​

In a court filing first reported by the Associated Press, the justice department said it moved to dismiss the charges "after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information".​

​

The department said the interview between investigators and Flynn in January 2017 was "unjustified" and not conducted on a "legitimate investigative basis".​

​

It also said it could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Flynn had lied, and said that after the interview, FBI agents had "expressed uncertainty as to whether Mr Flynn had lied".​

​

The department also said proving someone made a false statement to federal investigators "requires more than a lie.​

​

"It also requires demonstrating that such a statement was 'material' to the underlying investigation."​

Mary B. McCord, former acting assistant attorney general for national security, wrote in a New York Times op-ed Sunday that Barr cherry-picked from her 2017 testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller, which the DOJ cited more than 25 times in the motion to dismiss Flynn's case. She said her testimony is "no support for Mr. Barr's dismissal of the Flynn case."
"It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn," she wrote. "It does not suggest that the F.B.I.'s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn's false statements were not material."
McCord continued, "And it does not support the Justice Department's assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, 'would not serve the interests of justice.'"

 

[Billiejeens]

Context is everything, berg. And, when you use context with the bullshit that you're spewing, you're left with only your main
ingredient......which is bullshit.

Still waiting for you to refute what McCord (and Kravis) had to say with something other than your opinion and gratuitous insults.

What was the evidence that Schiff had that Trump and Putin stole the election?

What is the evidence that Flynn lied to the FBI?

Non existent