Judge Sullivan Scrambles For A Lifeline To Bail HIMSELF Out Of Dropped Flynn Case

[Faun]

So go back and read from the start where Mueller started and ended and when mueller said he couldn’t charge a sitting president.

CHARGE HIM WITH WHAT?????

.

That was said by Mueller investigation. So ask Mueller.

The SCO decided to drop after the Brady evidence came out. As in Muellers SCO. They then went to Barr, and Barr agreed with them to drop it. The only person who wants it to continue is Sullivan.

If Sullivan just willy nilly agrees with Barr then he is part of the corruption. I admired Sullivan for standing up against Barr. Barr dropping the case doesn’t make Flynn innocent or free from any wrong doing.

Barr wasn’t the one who initiated the drop. Muellers SCO prosecutors are the one who decided to drop. The very same one who brought up the charges in the first place. Sullivan broke his own rules to try to suppress the evidence that lead to the SCO deciding to drop charges. Now he’s making up powers for himself like the ability to prosecute, judges can’t do that. He wants to prosecute Flynn with perjury for withdrawing his guilty plea, which is completely unheard of. He’s so bad an appellate court gave him 10 days to explain himself. Appellate courts never respond that quickly. Sullivan is a political hack.

Nah! If SCO initiated it why Barr get involved? Happened to be a close friend of Trump.
It doesn’t matter what how these are twisted. It doesn’t look good and it doesn’t sound good.
Flynn is a traitor to begin with even he became part of this administration. Pleaded guilty twice under oath. Now Flynn wants to withdraw his guilty plea?? Now he is innocent????
That is not acceptable. Crooked Barr is also involved with Stone case.
.

Just because you say nah, doesn’t make it true. They went to Barr because...wait for it...he’s the attorney general. Ok, I’ll give you minute to let your jaw hit the floor and another to pick it back up off the floor after that shocking news about Barr. Flynn only took the plea, he didn’t want to take in the first place, and fired his original legal team over, because the SCO threatened to go after his son if he didn’t. And no Flynn was not a traitor, he did not what most intelligence officers do when they’re out of government, they start intelligence firms. There’s 100s of them out there. His firm worked with a NATO ally in Turkey, gasp*, I know, the gall of him. Notice how SCO never came after him for his “traitorous” endeavors? Because there wasn’t any. That’s why they came after him for a perfectly legal phone call. He wasn’t the target either, trump was.

Flynn didn't want to take it??? He took it 3 times.

Over 97% of criminal court cases are guilty pleas. Have you not watched any Netflix doc about how bad our system is with guilty pleas? Here’s how it works, the prosecution comes after you hard, often tacks on charges they know will never work. Then they tell you the judge will throw the book at you, maximum sentences all around if you decide to take it to trial, which yes judges will do that often. Then they offer you a guilty plea, and our system is 97% of lawyers negotiating the guilty pleas.

In Flynn’s case, they threatened to go after his son. Obviously they had nothing on his son or else they would’ve went after a conviction there, and offered to lighten the sentence if Flynn cooperated. This is how prosecutions just work, especially when you’re trying to turn someone. The full force of the federal government on top of a young man, even though they did nothing wrong, is a huge fucking ordeal for that person financially, socially, and emotionally. This is why Flynn, who was almost made bankrupt himself, decided to take the plea to spare his son. That and the fact his original legal team was god awful, and have serious ethical questions they should answer for, like convincing Flynn to sign a paper waiving any exculpatory evidence that may later come out. That should’ve set off loud, ear piercing, wake up Helen Keller from a dead sleep, alarm bells for his original legal team. Obviously the move to fire them and hire the shark he currently has payed off dividends. The SCO decided to drop its own case they just wouldn’t let go of.

Nothing you posted refutes what I posted.

The fact that innocent people plead guilty all the time because of how our system is set up doesn’t refute why Flynn plead guilty? The fact he fired his original legal team, and multiple reports came out from several sources close to Flynn that he wanted to fight the case until they threatened to go after his son. The fact that he hired a new lawyer and withdrew his plea somehow doesn’t show he wanted to fight this case? You people are fucking mental. If Flynn was a black dude, accused of being a drug dealer, this would be the biggest case in history. I mean for fuck sake meek mill got his own documentary and became a whole movement for far less.

He pleaded guilty because he is guilty. Nothing you post refutes that. Even his current defense isn't that he didn't lie to the FBI, it's that he was entrapped and/or his lies were immaterial anyway.

They were, he was, and for the “lies” to be prosecutable they have to be material to an investigation. They closed the investigation on Flynn. So what investigation was Flynn’s “lie” material too? Why were they continuing to investigate him when they found zero wrongdoing, knew they couldn’t use the Logan Act, and knew the call was a perfectly legal, and appropriate call? I keep putting quotes around lie, because it sounds like, from reports, that the FBI was conflating 2 different topics they did not specify and Flynn only talked about the one of them. I imagine that this is the case, they did go after popadapolus for “lying” too because he got the date of a conversation wrong. Not the fact there was a conversation, or what was discussed, but the date it happened...so. They also threatened to go after his son, something they wouldn’t need to do if they had him dead to rights for lying.

So why were they interviewing him for a perfectly legal and appropriate phone call that they had the complete transcripts for? CAN
SOMEONE
ON
THE
LEFT
PLEASE
ANSWER
ME
THAT

The answer is obvious, this just feels like playing where’s Waldo with a kid with Down syndrome, except waldos location is often way less obvious than this.

His call was potentially not legal and his lie was material.

Liberal dictionary:
==========================================
Potentially not legal - legal.

Fucking moron, it means it warranted investigation.

A thorough investigation they had already completed and concluded zero legality.

And then the investigation was reopened and Flynn was questioned by the FBI; to whom he lied.

It was reopened only because the coup plotter Strozk wanted to frame Flynn. The FBI said Flynn didn't lie, until Strozk doctored his 302s, that is.

LOL

Great, we're in agreement Flynn was questioned during an open investigation. And he did lie. He told his questioners he didn't speak about the sanctions with Kislyak -- but he did.

Yeah, we're also in agreement that the sun rises in the East.

Was that in the original 302 or the one Strozk edited? What the fuck is an "open investigation?" Is that somehow more legitimate than the other kind? The FBI itself said he didn't lie.

I have to hand it to you FAUX, you won't give up on your smears no matter how massive the proof that they are fraudulent.

^^^ fucking moron doesn't even know what an open investigation is.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Hmm...why didn't the DOJ cite that exculpatory evidence instead of their dopey theory about the investigation lacking any proper predication? Their arument was essentially that it doesn't matter if he lied because there were no grounds for an investigation in the first place.

Again, obey the rules of the board and stop attempting to hijack the thread, lil' snowflake.

The case has been dropped by the DOJ, & THIS thread is about Sullivan doing everything his Deep State, Trump-hating, Liberal Activist ass can do to carry out the targeting and punishment of Flynn while lawyering up and attempting to ignore the Appellate Court's order for him personally address the DOJ's dropping of the charges.

I know, as history has proven, you hate being cornered into addressing misdeeds and biased actions by Democrats, which is why if you had no intention of doing so and only wanted to hijack the thread you should have just stayed the f* out of the thread altogether.

Again, obey the rules of the board and stop attempting to hijack the thread, lil' snowflake.

I've done no such thing, liar. I'm speaking directly on the thread subject in direct response to other posters, dope. Why can't you answer the question?

 

[bripat9643]

So go back and read from the start where Mueller started and ended and when mueller said he couldn’t charge a sitting president.

CHARGE HIM WITH WHAT?????

.

That was said by Mueller investigation. So ask Mueller.

The SCO decided to drop after the Brady evidence came out. As in Muellers SCO. They then went to Barr, and Barr agreed with them to drop it. The only person who wants it to continue is Sullivan.

If Sullivan just willy nilly agrees with Barr then he is part of the corruption. I admired Sullivan for standing up against Barr. Barr dropping the case doesn’t make Flynn innocent or free from any wrong doing.

Barr wasn’t the one who initiated the drop. Muellers SCO prosecutors are the one who decided to drop. The very same one who brought up the charges in the first place. Sullivan broke his own rules to try to suppress the evidence that lead to the SCO deciding to drop charges. Now he’s making up powers for himself like the ability to prosecute, judges can’t do that. He wants to prosecute Flynn with perjury for withdrawing his guilty plea, which is completely unheard of. He’s so bad an appellate court gave him 10 days to explain himself. Appellate courts never respond that quickly. Sullivan is a political hack.

Nah! If SCO initiated it why Barr get involved? Happened to be a close friend of Trump.
It doesn’t matter what how these are twisted. It doesn’t look good and it doesn’t sound good.
Flynn is a traitor to begin with even he became part of this administration. Pleaded guilty twice under oath. Now Flynn wants to withdraw his guilty plea?? Now he is innocent????
That is not acceptable. Crooked Barr is also involved with Stone case.
.

Just because you say nah, doesn’t make it true. They went to Barr because...wait for it...he’s the attorney general. Ok, I’ll give you minute to let your jaw hit the floor and another to pick it back up off the floor after that shocking news about Barr. Flynn only took the plea, he didn’t want to take in the first place, and fired his original legal team over, because the SCO threatened to go after his son if he didn’t. And no Flynn was not a traitor, he did not what most intelligence officers do when they’re out of government, they start intelligence firms. There’s 100s of them out there. His firm worked with a NATO ally in Turkey, gasp*, I know, the gall of him. Notice how SCO never came after him for his “traitorous” endeavors? Because there wasn’t any. That’s why they came after him for a perfectly legal phone call. He wasn’t the target either, trump was.

Flynn didn't want to take it??? He took it 3 times.

Over 97% of criminal court cases are guilty pleas. Have you not watched any Netflix doc about how bad our system is with guilty pleas? Here’s how it works, the prosecution comes after you hard, often tacks on charges they know will never work. Then they tell you the judge will throw the book at you, maximum sentences all around if you decide to take it to trial, which yes judges will do that often. Then they offer you a guilty plea, and our system is 97% of lawyers negotiating the guilty pleas.

In Flynn’s case, they threatened to go after his son. Obviously they had nothing on his son or else they would’ve went after a conviction there, and offered to lighten the sentence if Flynn cooperated. This is how prosecutions just work, especially when you’re trying to turn someone. The full force of the federal government on top of a young man, even though they did nothing wrong, is a huge fucking ordeal for that person financially, socially, and emotionally. This is why Flynn, who was almost made bankrupt himself, decided to take the plea to spare his son. That and the fact his original legal team was god awful, and have serious ethical questions they should answer for, like convincing Flynn to sign a paper waiving any exculpatory evidence that may later come out. That should’ve set off loud, ear piercing, wake up Helen Keller from a dead sleep, alarm bells for his original legal team. Obviously the move to fire them and hire the shark he currently has payed off dividends. The SCO decided to drop its own case they just wouldn’t let go of.

Nothing you posted refutes what I posted.

The fact that innocent people plead guilty all the time because of how our system is set up doesn’t refute why Flynn plead guilty? The fact he fired his original legal team, and multiple reports came out from several sources close to Flynn that he wanted to fight the case until they threatened to go after his son. The fact that he hired a new lawyer and withdrew his plea somehow doesn’t show he wanted to fight this case? You people are fucking mental. If Flynn was a black dude, accused of being a drug dealer, this would be the biggest case in history. I mean for fuck sake meek mill got his own documentary and became a whole movement for far less.

He pleaded guilty because he is guilty. Nothing you post refutes that. Even his current defense isn't that he didn't lie to the FBI, it's that he was entrapped and/or his lies were immaterial anyway.

They were, he was, and for the “lies” to be prosecutable they have to be material to an investigation. They closed the investigation on Flynn. So what investigation was Flynn’s “lie” material too? Why were they continuing to investigate him when they found zero wrongdoing, knew they couldn’t use the Logan Act, and knew the call was a perfectly legal, and appropriate call? I keep putting quotes around lie, because it sounds like, from reports, that the FBI was conflating 2 different topics they did not specify and Flynn only talked about the one of them. I imagine that this is the case, they did go after popadapolus for “lying” too because he got the date of a conversation wrong. Not the fact there was a conversation, or what was discussed, but the date it happened...so. They also threatened to go after his son, something they wouldn’t need to do if they had him dead to rights for lying.

So why were they interviewing him for a perfectly legal and appropriate phone call that they had the complete transcripts for? CAN
SOMEONE
ON
THE
LEFT
PLEASE
ANSWER
ME
THAT

The answer is obvious, this just feels like playing where’s Waldo with a kid with Down syndrome, except waldos location is often way less obvious than this.

His call was potentially not legal and his lie was material.

Liberal dictionary:
==========================================
Potentially not legal - legal.

Fucking moron, it means it warranted investigation.

A thorough investigation they had already completed and concluded zero legality.

And then the investigation was reopened and Flynn was questioned by the FBI; to whom he lied.

It was reopened only because the coup plotter Strozk wanted to frame Flynn. The FBI said Flynn didn't lie, until Strozk doctored his 302s, that is.

LOL

Great, we're in agreement Flynn was questioned during an open investigation. And he did lie. He told his questioners he didn't speak about the sanctions with Kislyak -- but he did.

Yeah, we're also in agreement that the sun rises in the East.

Was that in the original 302 or the one Strozk edited? What the fuck is an "open investigation?" Is that somehow more legitimate than the other kind? The FBI itself said he didn't lie.

I have to hand it to you FAUX, you won't give up on your smears no matter how massive the proof that they are fraudulent.

^^^ fucking moron doesn't even know what an open investigation is.

I don't know what you think it is. Explain to us how the Mueller investigation of Flynn was "open."

 

[berg80]

It also wasn’t material because the only investigation this call could be material too, they closed that investigation.

Factually incorrect.

"Depending on the category under which a case is opened, the guidelines permit investigative techniques with varying degrees of invasiveness. For example, electronic surveillance may be used in a full investigation but not in an assessment or preliminary investigation. Importantly, all three categories permit FBI agents to interview a subject.

Attached as an exhibit to the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss is the FBI’s opening documentation for the investigation into Flynn—a subfile of the umbrella investigation into Russian election interference, known as Crossfire Hurricane. When large investigations are opened, subfiles are often opened on individual targets for purposes of administrative efficiency and division of labor. Dated August 2016, the FBI documentation stated that there was an articulable factual basis that Flynn “may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.” The file noted further that “Flynn was an advisor to the Trump campaign, had various ties to state-affiliated entities of Russia, and traveled to Russia in December 2015.”

According to the Justice Department inspector general, the Flynn investigation was properly predicated as a full investigation. In his report on the FBI’s conduct in the Russia investigation, the inspector general stated, “[T]he quantum of information articulated by the FBI to open these individual investigations [that is, the investigations into Flynn as well as Carter Page, George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort] was sufficient to satisfy the low threshold established by Department and FBI predication policy, particularly in the context of the FBI’s separate and ongoing investigative efforts to address Russian interference in 2016 U.S. elections.”

Why the Flynn Interview Was Predicated

The Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is flawed in many ways, but one of its weakest arguments is that the investigation of Flynn was not properly “predicated.”

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[berg80]

I don't know what you think it is. Explain to us how the Mueller investigation of Flynn was "open."

Read this from beginning to end you fatuous nitwit.

Why the Flynn Interview Was Predicated

The Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is flawed in many ways, but one of its weakest arguments is that the investigation of Flynn was not properly “predicated.”

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[easyt65]

I've done no such thing, liar. I'm speaking directly on the thread subject in direct response to other posters, dope.

BULLSHIT - the focus of your last posts has been solely on the FBI and its case THAT HAS BEEN DROPPED, not on SULLIVAN, who has gone out of his way to continue to go after Flynn, to even include, it seems, defying the Appellate Court and lawyering up to protect his own ass as he does so.

Now stick to the thread topic - Sullivan - or GTFO / be reported for violating Board rules.,...

 

[bripat9643]

It also wasn’t material because the only investigation this call could be material too, they closed that investigation.

Factually incorrect.

"Depending on the category under which a case is opened, the guidelines permit investigative techniques with varying degrees of invasiveness. For example, electronic surveillance may be used in a full investigation but not in an assessment or preliminary investigation. Importantly, all three categories permit FBI agents to interview a subject.

Attached as an exhibit to the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss is the FBI’s opening documentation for the investigation into Flynn—a subfile of the umbrella investigation into Russian election interference, known as Crossfire Hurricane. When large investigations are opened, subfiles are often opened on individual targets for purposes of administrative efficiency and division of labor. Dated August 2016, the FBI documentation stated that there was an articulable factual basis that Flynn “may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.” The file noted further that “Flynn was an advisor to the Trump campaign, had various ties to state-affiliated entities of Russia, and traveled to Russia in December 2015.”

According to the Justice Department inspector general, the Flynn investigation was properly predicated as a full investigation. In his report on the FBI’s conduct in the Russia investigation, the inspector general stated, “[T]he quantum of information articulated by the FBI to open these individual investigations [that is, the investigations into Flynn as well as Carter Page, George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort] was sufficient to satisfy the low threshold established by Department and FBI predication policy, particularly in the context of the FBI’s separate and ongoing investigative efforts to address Russian interference in 2016 U.S. elections.”

Why the Flynn Interview Was Predicated

The Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is flawed in many ways, but one of its weakest arguments is that the investigation of Flynn was not properly “predicated.”

www.lawfareblog.com

I simply can't muster the energy to read one of your mind numbing dirges. Whenever I do it always turns out that virtually word is a lie.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It also wasn’t material because the only investigation this call could be material too, they closed that investigation.

Factually incorrect.

"Depending on the category under which a case is opened, the guidelines permit investigative techniques with varying degrees of invasiveness. For example, electronic surveillance may be used in a full investigation but not in an assessment or preliminary investigation. Importantly, all three categories permit FBI agents to interview a subject.

Attached as an exhibit to the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss is the FBI’s opening documentation for the investigation into Flynn—a subfile of the umbrella investigation into Russian election interference, known as Crossfire Hurricane. When large investigations are opened, subfiles are often opened on individual targets for purposes of administrative efficiency and division of labor. Dated August 2016, the FBI documentation stated that there was an articulable factual basis that Flynn “may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.” The file noted further that “Flynn was an advisor to the Trump campaign, had various ties to state-affiliated entities of Russia, and traveled to Russia in December 2015.”

According to the Justice Department inspector general, the Flynn investigation was properly predicated as a full investigation. In his report on the FBI’s conduct in the Russia investigation, the inspector general stated, “[T]he quantum of information articulated by the FBI to open these individual investigations [that is, the investigations into Flynn as well as Carter Page, George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort] was sufficient to satisfy the low threshold established by Department and FBI predication policy, particularly in the context of the FBI’s separate and ongoing investigative efforts to address Russian interference in 2016 U.S. elections.”

Why the Flynn Interview Was Predicated

The Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is flawed in many ways, but one of its weakest arguments is that the investigation of Flynn was not properly “predicated.”

www.lawfareblog.com

Thank you for posting such clear and concise content.

This is exactly why Sullivan is under no obligation to sign off on the DOJ's motion.
Their argument is spurious at best and outright corrupt at worst. I'm hoping he has a hearing to force them to argue their case on the record and under oath.

 

[easyt65]

I don't know what you think it is. Explain to us how the Mueller investigation of Flynn was "open."

Read this from beginning to end you fatuous nitwit.

Why the Flynn Interview Was Predicated

The Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is flawed in many ways, but one of its weakest arguments is that the investigation of Flynn was not properly “predicated.”

www.lawfareblog.com

Thanks for piling on in attempting to hijack the thread. The topic of discussion is Sullivan and his refusal to obey the Appellate Court's orders, his lawyering up, and his continued personal crusade against Flynn.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't know what you think it is. Explain to us how the Mueller investigation of Flynn was "open."

Read this from beginning to end you fatuous nitwit.

Why the Flynn Interview Was Predicated

The Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is flawed in many ways, but one of its weakest arguments is that the investigation of Flynn was not properly “predicated.”

www.lawfareblog.com

No need. We all know it's a pile of lies.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I've done no such thing, liar. I'm speaking directly on the thread subject in direct response to other posters, dope.

BULLSHIT - the focus of your last posts has been solely on the FBI and its case THAT HAS BEEN DROPPED, not on SULLIVAN, who has gone out of his way to continue to go after Flynn, to even include, it seems, defying the Appellate Court and lawyering up to protect his own ass as he does so.

Now stick to the thread topic - Sullivan - or GTFO / be reported for violating Board rules.,...

BULLSHIT - the focus of your last posts has been solely on the FBI and its case THAT HAS BEEN DROPPED, not on SULLIVAN, who has gone out of his way to continue to go after Flynn, to even include, it seems, defying the Appellate Court and lawyering up to protect his own ass as he does so.

Now stick to the thread topic - Sullivan - or GTFO / be reported for violating Board rules.,...

In response to another poster, liar.
I also responded directly to you on the exact same subject, dope.

Sullivan may vacate the 18 USC 1001 charge, and then charge Flynn with perjury.

You can't lie under oath to a federal judge.

1. A Federal Judge can NOT 'charge' anyone with a crime.

According to legal precedence Sullivan has no option but to dropt the case; however, he is bringing in his Trump-hating pal to discuss the ability to 'find' Flynn in COMTEMP of court.


2. Democrats lie under oath all the time. If all of their Democrats who lied under oath were in jail today, Gitmo would be full.

The last President to lie under oath and be found in Contempt was Slick Willy. He was given no jail time, but he did his license to practice law temporarily stripped.

"A Federal Judge can NOT 'charge' anyone with a crime"

Are you ever not a retard?

CLINTON IS FOUND TO BE IN CONTEMPT ON JONES LAWSUIT (Published 1999)

Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright cites Pres Clinton for contempt, ruling he willfully provided false testimony under oath about his relationship with Monica S Lewinsky in January 1998 deposition in sexual misconduct lawsuit filed by Paula Corbin Jones; scathing 32-page decision says Clinton's...

www.nytimes.com

Apparently some people don’t know their constitution very well. The courts have inherent power. They may exercise it with people who are playing games.

Yep.....the Obama DOJ withheld exculpatory evidence (were playing games) and framed Michael Flynn. The Judge took a bribe from somebody in Obama's criminal organization (playing games) to string out the case till Trump is forced to pardon him. If Trump Wins reelection the Democrats (playing games) will try to impeach him for the pardon.

Yep.....the Obama DOJ withheld exculpatory evidence (were playing games) and framed Michael Flynn. The Judge took a bribe from somebody in Obama's criminal organization (playing games) to string out the case till Trump is forced to pardon him. If Trump Wins reelection the Democrats (playing games) will try to impeach him for the pardon.

I keep hearing about exculpatory evidence.
What are you claiming that evidence is?

The fact the FBI filed a closure EC before all this shows they had ZERO justification to continue monitoring him and zero grounds to continue to investigate him. The FBI team assigned to Flynn decided he wasn’t doing anything wrong, and effectively closed the case. Comey even said so in an odd email, saying something to the effect of there’s no wrongdoing but the amount of traffic is eye raising. Which is ridiculous because A. the amount of traffic was normal for incoming NS-fucking-A B.They had been monitoring him for months at this point and knew there wasn’t anything eye raising C. The Obama admin knew all this already as documents show and there was zero need to inform them, so it really looks like it was an email to leave a paper trail “justifying” in retroactively why they continued surveilling Flynn and why they chose to interview him on a perfectly legal and above the board phone call they already had the complete transcripts for. Further, to prosecute for lying to the FBI, it has to be material to an investigation. For which, they obviously had no materiality because they effectively closed the case on Flynn after a thorough investigation. It’s like dividing zero by zero. Their original grounds they used to justify the investigation were extremely weak at best.

Storzk also violated FBI policy by editing the original 302, then takes it even further and “loses” the original copy of the 302, very bad. You pretty much have to actively delete the original, it’s all digital. This is bad because if it was just editing “minor things” like Storzk claimed, despite being against FBI policy, you keep the original to show the changes you made so the defense doesn’t get the evidence thrown out and blow the case. So that should’ve been enough to dismiss the case right there.

Other documents released suggest that their sole objective for a weird ass interview that they can’t offer an alternative explanation for why they did this interview, was to try to catch Flynn in a perjury trap. So yeah, plenty of exculpatory evidence there.

Wow! That's a whole lot of words to say essentially nothing.
Exculpatory evidence. That would be evidence that could possibly undermine or otherwise raise questions about the charges against the defendant. As Flynn has freely admitted to the charges and pleaded guilty twice already, there will never be any exculpatory evidence for those charges.

The DOJ is not even making that argument anyway.

The DOJ rebuked the FBI & Mueller's prosecutors and cut their criminal legs right out from under them by dropping the case in light of the overwhelming, undeniable evidence of investigative and prosecutorial crimes and misconduct exposed.

Stop trying to spin the focus away from Sullivan, who this thread is about.

After being tasked by the Appellate Court to PERSONALLY address the DOJ's dropping of the charges instead of calling for outside OPINION / ARGUMENT (Trump-haters, one that already in the past argued the DOJ has near unquestionable authority to drop cases) - something Sullivan declared approx. 24 times during the case he refused to do, he suddenly LAWYERS UP...

Bwuhahahahaha......

He should just brand 'Trump-Hating Deep State POS' on his forehead.

The DOJ rebuked the FBI & Mueller's prosecutors and cut their criminal legs right out from under them by dropping the case in light of the overwhelming, undeniable evidence of investigative and prosecutorial crimes and misconduct exposed.

They did no such thing, dope.
Their petition says nothing about prosecutorial crimes and misconduct, liar.

Flynn was charged with lying to the FBI.
He admitted to doing so. What evidence is there that changes those facts?

 

[colfax_m]

So go back and read from the start where Mueller started and ended and when mueller said he couldn’t charge a sitting president.

CHARGE HIM WITH WHAT?????

.

That was said by Mueller investigation. So ask Mueller.

The SCO decided to drop after the Brady evidence came out. As in Muellers SCO. They then went to Barr, and Barr agreed with them to drop it. The only person who wants it to continue is Sullivan.

If Sullivan just willy nilly agrees with Barr then he is part of the corruption. I admired Sullivan for standing up against Barr. Barr dropping the case doesn’t make Flynn innocent or free from any wrong doing.

Barr wasn’t the one who initiated the drop. Muellers SCO prosecutors are the one who decided to drop. The very same one who brought up the charges in the first place. Sullivan broke his own rules to try to suppress the evidence that lead to the SCO deciding to drop charges. Now he’s making up powers for himself like the ability to prosecute, judges can’t do that. He wants to prosecute Flynn with perjury for withdrawing his guilty plea, which is completely unheard of. He’s so bad an appellate court gave him 10 days to explain himself. Appellate courts never respond that quickly. Sullivan is a political hack.

Nah! If SCO initiated it why Barr get involved? Happened to be a close friend of Trump.
It doesn’t matter what how these are twisted. It doesn’t look good and it doesn’t sound good.
Flynn is a traitor to begin with even he became part of this administration. Pleaded guilty twice under oath. Now Flynn wants to withdraw his guilty plea?? Now he is innocent????
That is not acceptable. Crooked Barr is also involved with Stone case.
.

Just because you say nah, doesn’t make it true. They went to Barr because...wait for it...he’s the attorney general. Ok, I’ll give you minute to let your jaw hit the floor and another to pick it back up off the floor after that shocking news about Barr. Flynn only took the plea, he didn’t want to take in the first place, and fired his original legal team over, because the SCO threatened to go after his son if he didn’t. And no Flynn was not a traitor, he did not what most intelligence officers do when they’re out of government, they start intelligence firms. There’s 100s of them out there. His firm worked with a NATO ally in Turkey, gasp*, I know, the gall of him. Notice how SCO never came after him for his “traitorous” endeavors? Because there wasn’t any. That’s why they came after him for a perfectly legal phone call. He wasn’t the target either, trump was.

Flynn didn't want to take it??? He took it 3 times.

Over 97% of criminal court cases are guilty pleas. Have you not watched any Netflix doc about how bad our system is with guilty pleas? Here’s how it works, the prosecution comes after you hard, often tacks on charges they know will never work. Then they tell you the judge will throw the book at you, maximum sentences all around if you decide to take it to trial, which yes judges will do that often. Then they offer you a guilty plea, and our system is 97% of lawyers negotiating the guilty pleas.

In Flynn’s case, they threatened to go after his son. Obviously they had nothing on his son or else they would’ve went after a conviction there, and offered to lighten the sentence if Flynn cooperated. This is how prosecutions just work, especially when you’re trying to turn someone. The full force of the federal government on top of a young man, even though they did nothing wrong, is a huge fucking ordeal for that person financially, socially, and emotionally. This is why Flynn, who was almost made bankrupt himself, decided to take the plea to spare his son. That and the fact his original legal team was god awful, and have serious ethical questions they should answer for, like convincing Flynn to sign a paper waiving any exculpatory evidence that may later come out. That should’ve set off loud, ear piercing, wake up Helen Keller from a dead sleep, alarm bells for his original legal team. Obviously the move to fire them and hire the shark he currently has payed off dividends. The SCO decided to drop its own case they just wouldn’t let go of.

Nothing you posted refutes what I posted.

The fact that innocent people plead guilty all the time because of how our system is set up doesn’t refute why Flynn plead guilty? The fact he fired his original legal team, and multiple reports came out from several sources close to Flynn that he wanted to fight the case until they threatened to go after his son. The fact that he hired a new lawyer and withdrew his plea somehow doesn’t show he wanted to fight this case? You people are fucking mental. If Flynn was a black dude, accused of being a drug dealer, this would be the biggest case in history. I mean for fuck sake meek mill got his own documentary and became a whole movement for far less.

He pleaded guilty because he is guilty. Nothing you post refutes that. Even his current defense isn't that he didn't lie to the FBI, it's that he was entrapped and/or his lies were immaterial anyway.

They were, he was, and for the “lies” to be prosecutable they have to be material to an investigation. They closed the investigation on Flynn. So what investigation was Flynn’s “lie” material too? Why were they continuing to investigate him when they found zero wrongdoing, knew they couldn’t use the Logan Act, and knew the call was a perfectly legal, and appropriate call? I keep putting quotes around lie, because it sounds like, from reports, that the FBI was conflating 2 different topics they did not specify and Flynn only talked about the one of them. I imagine that this is the case, they did go after popadapolus for “lying” too because he got the date of a conversation wrong. Not the fact there was a conversation, or what was discussed, but the date it happened...so. They also threatened to go after his son, something they wouldn’t need to do if they had him dead to rights for lying.

So why were they interviewing him for a perfectly legal and appropriate phone call that they had the complete transcripts for? CAN
SOMEONE
ON
THE
LEFT
PLEASE
ANSWER
ME
THAT

The answer is obvious, this just feels like playing where’s Waldo with a kid with Down syndrome, except waldos location is often way less obvious than this.

His call was potentially not legal and his lie was material.

No, FBI said the call was legal. We know the details around it. He asked Russia not to escalate, and he asked them to veto a vote reso in the UN. It also wasn’t material because the only investigation this call could be material too, they closed that investigation. And the only way they were able to tie that perfectly legal call to the investigation they closed was through the Logan act. At the time they also knew, according to Lisa Paige the Logan act wasn’t going to fly. A. The presidential elect transition team is a legal governmental entity since 1968, ipso facto Flynn can’t be charged with the law made in 1799 that zero people in history have been charged with B. The FBI would have to explain why it was in the US interest to want Russia to escalate, or why we’d want Russia to fuck over our strongest and most stable ally in the Middle East in favor for the worst of the terrorist supporting regimes of the world in Iran.

So not my words, but in the FBIs own words, the call was legal and there was no materiality to ANYTHING in the conversation, lies or truth. I could tell the FBI I shit rainbows, unless they’re investigating my digestive system, they can’t charge me.

You’re smart enough to know the investigation into Flynn was not closed. It was close to being closed but it was still open.

Youre ignoring the counter-intelligence aspect of the FBI which is part of their jurisdiction. You don’t need violations of law to be subject to counterintelligence investigations.

 

[easyt65]

I've done no such thing, liar. I'm speaking directly on the thread subject in direct response to other posters, dope.

BULLSHIT - the focus of your last posts has been solely on the FBI and its case THAT HAS BEEN DROPPED, not on SULLIVAN, who has gone out of his way to continue to go after Flynn, to even include, it seems, defying the Appellate Court and lawyering up to protect his own ass as he does so.

Now stick to the thread topic - Sullivan - or GTFO / be reported for violating Board rules.,...

BULLSHIT - the focus of your last posts has been solely on the FBI and its case THAT HAS BEEN DROPPED, not on SULLIVAN, who has gone out of his way to continue to go after Flynn, to even include, it seems, defying the Appellate Court and lawyering up to protect his own ass as he does so.

Now stick to the thread topic - Sullivan - or GTFO / be reported for violating Board rules.,...

In response to another poster, liar.
I also responded directly to you on the exact same subject, dope.

Sullivan may vacate the 18 USC 1001 charge, and then charge Flynn with perjury.

You can't lie under oath to a federal judge.

1. A Federal Judge can NOT 'charge' anyone with a crime.

According to legal precedence Sullivan has no option but to dropt the case; however, he is bringing in his Trump-hating pal to discuss the ability to 'find' Flynn in COMTEMP of court.


2. Democrats lie under oath all the time. If all of their Democrats who lied under oath were in jail today, Gitmo would be full.

The last President to lie under oath and be found in Contempt was Slick Willy. He was given no jail time, but he did his license to practice law temporarily stripped.

"A Federal Judge can NOT 'charge' anyone with a crime"

Are you ever not a retard?

CLINTON IS FOUND TO BE IN CONTEMPT ON JONES LAWSUIT (Published 1999)

Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright cites Pres Clinton for contempt, ruling he willfully provided false testimony under oath about his relationship with Monica S Lewinsky in January 1998 deposition in sexual misconduct lawsuit filed by Paula Corbin Jones; scathing 32-page decision says Clinton's...

www.nytimes.com

Apparently some people don’t know their constitution very well. The courts have inherent power. They may exercise it with people who are playing games.

Yep.....the Obama DOJ withheld exculpatory evidence (were playing games) and framed Michael Flynn. The Judge took a bribe from somebody in Obama's criminal organization (playing games) to string out the case till Trump is forced to pardon him. If Trump Wins reelection the Democrats (playing games) will try to impeach him for the pardon.

Yep.....the Obama DOJ withheld exculpatory evidence (were playing games) and framed Michael Flynn. The Judge took a bribe from somebody in Obama's criminal organization (playing games) to string out the case till Trump is forced to pardon him. If Trump Wins reelection the Democrats (playing games) will try to impeach him for the pardon.

I keep hearing about exculpatory evidence.
What are you claiming that evidence is?

The fact the FBI filed a closure EC before all this shows they had ZERO justification to continue monitoring him and zero grounds to continue to investigate him. The FBI team assigned to Flynn decided he wasn’t doing anything wrong, and effectively closed the case. Comey even said so in an odd email, saying something to the effect of there’s no wrongdoing but the amount of traffic is eye raising. Which is ridiculous because A. the amount of traffic was normal for incoming NS-fucking-A B.They had been monitoring him for months at this point and knew there wasn’t anything eye raising C. The Obama admin knew all this already as documents show and there was zero need to inform them, so it really looks like it was an email to leave a paper trail “justifying” in retroactively why they continued surveilling Flynn and why they chose to interview him on a perfectly legal and above the board phone call they already had the complete transcripts for. Further, to prosecute for lying to the FBI, it has to be material to an investigation. For which, they obviously had no materiality because they effectively closed the case on Flynn after a thorough investigation. It’s like dividing zero by zero. Their original grounds they used to justify the investigation were extremely weak at best.

Storzk also violated FBI policy by editing the original 302, then takes it even further and “loses” the original copy of the 302, very bad. You pretty much have to actively delete the original, it’s all digital. This is bad because if it was just editing “minor things” like Storzk claimed, despite being against FBI policy, you keep the original to show the changes you made so the defense doesn’t get the evidence thrown out and blow the case. So that should’ve been enough to dismiss the case right there.

Other documents released suggest that their sole objective for a weird ass interview that they can’t offer an alternative explanation for why they did this interview, was to try to catch Flynn in a perjury trap. So yeah, plenty of exculpatory evidence there.

Wow! That's a whole lot of words to say essentially nothing.
Exculpatory evidence. That would be evidence that could possibly undermine or otherwise raise questions about the charges against the defendant. As Flynn has freely admitted to the charges and pleaded guilty twice already, there will never be any exculpatory evidence for those charges.

The DOJ is not even making that argument anyway.

The DOJ rebuked the FBI & Mueller's prosecutors and cut their criminal legs right out from under them by dropping the case in light of the overwhelming, undeniable evidence of investigative and prosecutorial crimes and misconduct exposed.

Stop trying to spin the focus away from Sullivan, who this thread is about.

After being tasked by the Appellate Court to PERSONALLY address the DOJ's dropping of the charges instead of calling for outside OPINION / ARGUMENT (Trump-haters, one that already in the past argued the DOJ has near unquestionable authority to drop cases) - something Sullivan declared approx. 24 times during the case he refused to do, he suddenly LAWYERS UP...

Bwuhahahahaha......

He should just brand 'Trump-Hating Deep State POS' on his forehead.

The DOJ rebuked the FBI & Mueller's prosecutors and cut their criminal legs right out from under them by dropping the case in light of the overwhelming, undeniable evidence of investigative and prosecutorial crimes and misconduct exposed.

They did no such thing, dope.
Their petition says nothing about prosecutorial crimes and misconduct, liar.

Flynn was charged with lying to the FBI.
He admitted to doing so. What evidence is there that changes those facts?

Trying to spin the topic of discussion into a personal argument with me isn't going to work, either. Hopefully your next comment will have something to do with SULLIVAN....not me or the FBI.

 

[berg80]

I simply can't muster the energy to read one of your mind numbing dirges. Whenever I do it always turns out that virtually word is a lie.

Lying to cover up a lie. Donnie T., is that you?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I've done no such thing, liar. I'm speaking directly on the thread subject in direct response to other posters, dope.

BULLSHIT - the focus of your last posts has been solely on the FBI and its case THAT HAS BEEN DROPPED, not on SULLIVAN, who has gone out of his way to continue to go after Flynn, to even include, it seems, defying the Appellate Court and lawyering up to protect his own ass as he does so.

Now stick to the thread topic - Sullivan - or GTFO / be reported for violating Board rules.,...

BULLSHIT - the focus of your last posts has been solely on the FBI and its case THAT HAS BEEN DROPPED, not on SULLIVAN, who has gone out of his way to continue to go after Flynn, to even include, it seems, defying the Appellate Court and lawyering up to protect his own ass as he does so.

Now stick to the thread topic - Sullivan - or GTFO / be reported for violating Board rules.,...

In response to another poster, liar.
I also responded directly to you on the exact same subject, dope.

Sullivan may vacate the 18 USC 1001 charge, and then charge Flynn with perjury.

You can't lie under oath to a federal judge.

1. A Federal Judge can NOT 'charge' anyone with a crime.

According to legal precedence Sullivan has no option but to dropt the case; however, he is bringing in his Trump-hating pal to discuss the ability to 'find' Flynn in COMTEMP of court.


2. Democrats lie under oath all the time. If all of their Democrats who lied under oath were in jail today, Gitmo would be full.

The last President to lie under oath and be found in Contempt was Slick Willy. He was given no jail time, but he did his license to practice law temporarily stripped.

"A Federal Judge can NOT 'charge' anyone with a crime"

Are you ever not a retard?

CLINTON IS FOUND TO BE IN CONTEMPT ON JONES LAWSUIT (Published 1999)

Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright cites Pres Clinton for contempt, ruling he willfully provided false testimony under oath about his relationship with Monica S Lewinsky in January 1998 deposition in sexual misconduct lawsuit filed by Paula Corbin Jones; scathing 32-page decision says Clinton's...

www.nytimes.com

Apparently some people don’t know their constitution very well. The courts have inherent power. They may exercise it with people who are playing games.

Yep.....the Obama DOJ withheld exculpatory evidence (were playing games) and framed Michael Flynn. The Judge took a bribe from somebody in Obama's criminal organization (playing games) to string out the case till Trump is forced to pardon him. If Trump Wins reelection the Democrats (playing games) will try to impeach him for the pardon.

Yep.....the Obama DOJ withheld exculpatory evidence (were playing games) and framed Michael Flynn. The Judge took a bribe from somebody in Obama's criminal organization (playing games) to string out the case till Trump is forced to pardon him. If Trump Wins reelection the Democrats (playing games) will try to impeach him for the pardon.

I keep hearing about exculpatory evidence.
What are you claiming that evidence is?

The fact the FBI filed a closure EC before all this shows they had ZERO justification to continue monitoring him and zero grounds to continue to investigate him. The FBI team assigned to Flynn decided he wasn’t doing anything wrong, and effectively closed the case. Comey even said so in an odd email, saying something to the effect of there’s no wrongdoing but the amount of traffic is eye raising. Which is ridiculous because A. the amount of traffic was normal for incoming NS-fucking-A B.They had been monitoring him for months at this point and knew there wasn’t anything eye raising C. The Obama admin knew all this already as documents show and there was zero need to inform them, so it really looks like it was an email to leave a paper trail “justifying” in retroactively why they continued surveilling Flynn and why they chose to interview him on a perfectly legal and above the board phone call they already had the complete transcripts for. Further, to prosecute for lying to the FBI, it has to be material to an investigation. For which, they obviously had no materiality because they effectively closed the case on Flynn after a thorough investigation. It’s like dividing zero by zero. Their original grounds they used to justify the investigation were extremely weak at best.

Storzk also violated FBI policy by editing the original 302, then takes it even further and “loses” the original copy of the 302, very bad. You pretty much have to actively delete the original, it’s all digital. This is bad because if it was just editing “minor things” like Storzk claimed, despite being against FBI policy, you keep the original to show the changes you made so the defense doesn’t get the evidence thrown out and blow the case. So that should’ve been enough to dismiss the case right there.

Other documents released suggest that their sole objective for a weird ass interview that they can’t offer an alternative explanation for why they did this interview, was to try to catch Flynn in a perjury trap. So yeah, plenty of exculpatory evidence there.

Wow! That's a whole lot of words to say essentially nothing.
Exculpatory evidence. That would be evidence that could possibly undermine or otherwise raise questions about the charges against the defendant. As Flynn has freely admitted to the charges and pleaded guilty twice already, there will never be any exculpatory evidence for those charges.

The DOJ is not even making that argument anyway.

The DOJ rebuked the FBI & Mueller's prosecutors and cut their criminal legs right out from under them by dropping the case in light of the overwhelming, undeniable evidence of investigative and prosecutorial crimes and misconduct exposed.

Stop trying to spin the focus away from Sullivan, who this thread is about.

After being tasked by the Appellate Court to PERSONALLY address the DOJ's dropping of the charges instead of calling for outside OPINION / ARGUMENT (Trump-haters, one that already in the past argued the DOJ has near unquestionable authority to drop cases) - something Sullivan declared approx. 24 times during the case he refused to do, he suddenly LAWYERS UP...

Bwuhahahahaha......

He should just brand 'Trump-Hating Deep State POS' on his forehead.

The DOJ rebuked the FBI & Mueller's prosecutors and cut their criminal legs right out from under them by dropping the case in light of the overwhelming, undeniable evidence of investigative and prosecutorial crimes and misconduct exposed.

They did no such thing, dope.
Their petition says nothing about prosecutorial crimes and misconduct, liar.

Flynn was charged with lying to the FBI.
He admitted to doing so. What evidence is there that changes those facts?

Trying to spin the topic of discussion into a personal argument with me isn't going to work, either. Hopefully your next comment will have something to do with SULLIVAN....not me or the FBI.

I was talking about the DOJ'S motion and your lies about it, dope.

Where's your outrage over others bickering about whether the FBI'S investigation was open or not. That's gone on for pages.

We know you're just trying to silence me because you can't handle me.

 

[berg80]

BULLSHIT - the focus of your last posts has been solely on the FBI and its case THAT HAS BEEN DROPPED

"Key to the Justice Department’s argument in its motion to dismiss is the fact that, after four months of investigation without finding any derogatory information, the FBI was prepared to close its case on Flynn. A draft internal FBI document dated Jan. 4, 2017, shows that the bureau had sketched out a memo closing the probe, though the document includes the usual caveat that if new information were identified, the FBI would consider reopening the investigation.

But before the case was actually closed, the FBI learned that Flynn had spoken to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in late December 2016. According to the Justice Department’s motion, the FBI had transcripts of the relevant calls, likely obtained through surveillance of Kislyak authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. By this time, Flynn had been named as Trump’s national security adviser.

In those calls, Flynn had asked Russia not to retaliate for sanctions imposed by the Obama administration as punishment for election interference. Flynn had also asked Russia to vote against a United Nations resolution regarding Israeli settlements. On their face, these calls potentially undermined the foreign policy of the United States. What’s more, on Jan. 15, 2017, Mike Pence, then the vice president-elect, made public statements that contradicted the transcripts of Flynn’s calls— a fact that, as documented in the Mueller report, “alarmed senior DOJ [Department of Justice] officials.” And so, the FBI decided to keep the investigation open. FBI agents interviewed Flynn on Jan. 24, four days after Trump took office. During that interview, Flynn falsely denied his statements regarding sanctions and the U.N. vote. He later pleaded guilty to one count of false statements for telling these lies."

Why the Flynn Interview Was Predicated

The Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is flawed in many ways, but one of its weakest arguments is that the investigation of Flynn was not properly “predicated.”

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[berg80]

'In his recent book, “The Threat,” McCabe describes the chain of events that seems to have led to the discovery of Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak—and why the bureau wasn’t aware of that information before:

Near the end of December, the administration and National Security Council prepared sanctions on Russia as punishment for their involvement in the election … The sanctions were announced on December 29.
The next day, Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, issued an unusual and uncharacteristic statement, saying that he would take no action against the United States in retaliation for those sanctions. The PDB [Presidential Daily Brief] staff decided to write an intelligence assessment as to why Putin made the choice he did. They issued a request to the intelligence community: Anyone who had information on the topic was invited to offer it for consideration. In response to that request, the FBI queried our own holdings. We came across information indicating that General Mike Flynn, the president-elect’s nominee for the post of national security advisor, had held several conversations with the Russian ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, in which the sanctions were discussed. The information was something we had from December 29. I had not been aware of it. My impression was that higher-level officials within the FBI’s counterintelligence division had not been aware of it. The PDB request brought it to our attention.
...We felt we needed time to do more work to understand the context of what had been found—we don’t just run out and charge someone based on a single piece of intelligence. We use intelligence as the basis for investigation.

Quite apart from this history, there is nothing wrong with the bureau contemplating the closure of a case without interviewing the subject, then deciding not to close it and that an interview is appropriate, proceeding with the interview, and prosecuting the individual for lying in that interview. The emails do not make out even a colorable case of misconduct by anyone."

Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show

A lot of people seem to be expecting Michael Flynn's sudden vindication. They should take a deep breath.

www.lawfareblog.com

It is not even a challenge to prove you Trumpleheads have been duped by Billy the Bagman and right wing media lies again.

 

[easyt65]

I was talking about the DOJ'S motion and your lies about it, dope. here's your outrage over others bickering about whether the FBI'S investigation was open or not. That's gone on for pages. We know you're just trying to silence me because you can't handle me.

Once AGAIN you are attempting to make the focus of the thread about something that has already happened - the DOJ has dropped the case. It's a dead issue. Sullivan and his anti-Trump thugs can not change that. What SULLIVAN is attempting to do, however, is to do whatever he can to continue to target and punish Flynn....to include ignore the Appellate Court's order and lawyer up.

 

[Faun]

I was talking about the DOJ'S motion and your lies about it, dope. here's your outrage over others bickering about whether the FBI'S investigation was open or not. That's gone on for pages. We know you're just trying to silence me because you can't handle me.

Once AGAIN you are attempting to make the focus of the thread about something that has already happened - the DOJ has dropped the case. It's a dead issue. Sullivan and his anti-Trump thugs can not change that. What SULLIVAN is attempting to do, however, is to do whatever he can to continue to target and punish Flynn....to include ignore the Appellate Court's order and lawyer up.

LOL

Sullivan is proving it's not a dead issue. It matters not that the DoJ wants the case dismissed -- Flynn's already a convicted felon. All that remains is sentencing him. Hopefully, Sullivan commences with that rather than giving in to the DoJ's request.

 

[berg80]

I was talking about the DOJ'S motion and your lies about it, dope. here's your outrage over others bickering about whether the FBI'S investigation was open or not. That's gone on for pages. We know you're just trying to silence me because you can't handle me.

Once AGAIN you are attempting to make the focus of the thread about something that has already happened - the DOJ has dropped the case. It's a dead issue. Sullivan and his anti-Trump thugs can not change that. What SULLIVAN is attempting to do, however, is to do whatever he can to continue to target and punish Flynn....to include ignore the Appellate Court's order and lawyer up.

LOL

Sullivan is proving it's not a dead issue. It matters not that the DoJ wants the case dismissed -- Flynn's already a convicted felon. All that remains is sentencing him. Hopefully, Sullivan commences with that rather than giving in to the DoJ's request.

By all appearances my guess is Sullivan is going to unload on Powell, Flynn, and the DoJ. If justice is to be served Flynn will get the maximum amount of time allowable, Powell will get a reprimand from the ABA for willful misconduct, and Barr will be excoriated (clearly he should be impeached or fired) for disgracing the DoJ.