Flynn is off the hook.

So what did he do? You just stated what Mueller said he did.

He doesn't matter what Flynn actually did or said he did.

Form and substance still shit, sir.

The ultimate outcome had to do with what the Government did and said....and

... what the Government didn't do and didn't say! Originally Posted by LexusLover

The evidence is clear that Flynn broke the law. The Government dropped the case to cover the president's ass.

Bonus points if you guess who the cop represents.












Big fuckin' surprise here.

That's politics y'all.

House Republicans Resort to Literally Drowning Out Testimony About DOJ Corruption


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...orruption.html

Republicans on the committee immediately sought to derail proceedings by turning to familiar tactics. Democratic leadership on the committee, as exemplified by Chairman Jerrold Nadler, consistently allows committee Republicans to wreck proceedings any time the committee attempts to address Barr’s efforts to put Trump and his allies above the law. The theatrics have become so predictable they may as well be scripted.

There’s good reason Republicans resorted to drowning out the testimony of the witnesses before them. When the department attorneys were eventually allowed to speak, they described exactly how Barr and Trump have compromised the Justice Department.

That rumbling noise drowning out the Dem circus parade is the Durham Investigation criminal probe looming. And consider how nadler and Schiff ran their committees - DemLibs are expert at deflection and accusing Republicans of exactly their on DemLib sins and plans.

The usual hypocrisy.



Biden wins - Rejoice 9500- You will never need to vote again - or have the opportunity - as the Radicals create a One party United Socialist States of Amerika. You and Bernie and AOC will be so happy - a threesome Unfortunately - U ain't any where near rich enough for Bernie and AOC. and - they aini't giveing up their money - They are coming for Yours!


And all Weapons confiscated is the radical socialist plan - Civil War over that One.

get ur hearing aid on - 9500!!!

That rumbling noise drowning out the Dem circus parade is the Durham Investigation criminal probe looming. And consider how nadler and Schiff ran their committees - DemLibs are expert at deflection and accusing Republicans of exactly their on DemLib sins and plans.

The usual hypocrisy.



Biden wins - Rejoice 9500- You will never need to vote again - or have the opportunity - as the Radicals create a One party United Socialist States of Amerika. You and Bernie and AOC will be so happy - a threesome Unfortunately - U ain't any where near rich enough for Bernie and AOC. and - they aini't giveing up their money - They are coming for Yours!


And all Weapons confiscated is the radical socialist plan - Civil War over that One.

get ur hearing aid on - 9500!!! Originally Posted by oeb11

No..it was goofy Goehrmert

Little, little shit.

I'll happily buy Flynn's book to put a little money back in his pocket quickly. If he does sue, that will probably be years in the making. He'll have to promise though, to tell us why he thought he needed to lie to Pence. I don't know that he lied to the FBI because I haven't seen the evidence of that, we only have senile Mueller's word for that and that's worth nothing. The more compelling answer is that the FBI didn't have an actual crime to charge him with so they told him, admit you lied to us we'll recommend you get 6 months or less and we don't go after your son, so he admitted to lying about a perfectly legal conversation that we have now all heard.


Have you heard about Strzoks notes that keep appearing 3 years after they were written? Yeah, that Chris Frey is doing a swell job.


https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/24...ynn-operation/



Newly released notes confirm President Barack Obama’s key role in surveillance and leak operation against Michael Flynn, the incoming Trump administration national security adviser. The handwritten notes, which were first disclosed in a federal court filing made by the Department of Justice on Tuesday, show President Obama himself personally directed former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates to investigate Flynn for having routine phone calls with a Russian counterpart. He also suggests they withhold information from President Trump and his key national security figures.


The handwritten notes from fired former FBI agent Peter Strzok appear to describe a Jan. 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting between Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Comey, Yates, and then-national security adviser Susan Rice. The meeting and its substance were confirmed in a bizarre Inauguration Day email Rice wrote to herself.


It was at this meeting, which was confirmed by testimony from Comey and Yates, that Obama gave guidance to key officials who would be tasked with protecting his administration’s utilization of secretly funded Clinton campaign research, which alleged Trump was involved in a treasonous plot to collude with Russia, from being discovered or stopped by the incoming administration.


Yates told the special counsel that Obama broke the news of Flynn’s phone calls with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to her during the Jan. 5 meeting. Yates detailed further involvement from Obama. “President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia,” she wrote in her email.


The new notes, which record Comey’s accounting to Strzok of the meeting’s substance, constitute definitive evidence that Obama himself was personally directing significant aspects of a criminal investigation into his political enemy’s top foreign policy adviser.

“Make sure you look at things and have the right people on it,” Obama is quoted as saying.


Comey’s description that the Flynn-Kislyak phone calls appear “legit,” shorthand for “legitimate,” is also in the notes. Until this week, this exculpatory information was withheld from Flynn and his defense team, multiple congressional committees, and the American public. A lengthy campaign to illegally leak selectively edited defamatory information through media accessories damaged the Trump administration and spurred the appointment of a special counsel to investigate anyone associated with the Trump campaign.


According to Strzok’s notes, Biden explicitly referenced the Logan Act, an 18th-century law that forbids certain political speech from private citizens. The law, even if it were constitutional, would not apply to a national security adviser for the newly elected president of the United States. Biden had previously denied that he knew anything about the investigation into Flynn.


Uh, Vice President Biden, why did you bring up the Logan Act with regard to General Flynn. I'm LMAO imagining Biden tring to answer that question. "Who is this Logan character you're asking me about"?


“I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn,” Biden said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” when George Stephanopoulos asked what he knew of the FBI’s operations in early 2017. He later admitted that statement was false.


The meeting to strategize against the Trump administration included just a few key law enforcement principals. Their testimony about what transpired is sometimes in conflict. Yates claimed Comey brought up the Logan Act while Comey claims Biden cited it. Rice claimed Obama directed that the anti-Trump operation be run “by the book,” but Comey claimed Obama even directed which personnel to use.


All parties agree, however, on the main substance of the meeting, which was a discussion of how to target Flynn for his “legit” phone calls and withhold vital national security information from the newly elected presidential administration.


Attorney General William Barr has directed an investigation into the spying and leaking operation, led by U.S. Attorney John Durham. Durham, whose investigation is ongoing, has not yet issued any indictments or any reports of his findings thus far. Barr has repeatedly stated that if Durham finds evidence of criminal wrongdoing that can be proved in a court beyond a reasonable doubt, then those responsible for the criminal acts will be held to account.


The handwritten notes from Strzok, which were included in a court filing from the Justice Department, were filed under seal by order of Emmett Sullivan, the judge overseeing Flynn’s criminal trial. The judge has ordered the documents to be hidden and has given no indication that he will ever allow all of the evidence filed by the DOJ to be publicly disclosed. When the DOJ moved to dismiss charges against Flynn, Sullivan refused to grant their request and instead appointed a shadow prosecutor to target Flynn on Sullivan’s behalf.


Following an appeal by Flynn, the top federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday ordered the judge to dismiss all charges against Flynn. That court also vacated his appointment of a shadow prosecutor to target Flynn.


I'm going to have to buy a bigger bowl to hold all the popcorn I'm going to need when the Durham report comes out.

Little, little shit.
Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

That directed at me - 9500- of course it is.

when my comments make you face your hypocrisy - and respond with name-calling and scatology because facing that hypocrisy makes You angry and uncomfortable - not to mention hostile - the for sure I know it was a successful day in the Garden of Educating the DemLibs!!!!

I'll happily buy Flynn's book to put a little money back in his pocket quickly. If he does sue, that will probably be years in the making. He'll have to promise though, to tell us why he thought he needed to lie to Pence. I don't know that he lied to the FBI because I haven't seen the evidence of that, we only have senile Mueller's word for that and that's worth nothing. The more compelling answer is that the FBI didn't have an actual crime to charge him with so they told him, admit you lied to us we'll recommend you get 6 months or less and we don't go after your son, so he admitted to lying about a perfectly legal conversation that we have now all heard.


Have you heard about Strzoks notes that keep appearing 3 years after they were written? Yeah, that Chris Frey is doing a swell job.


https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/24...ynn-operation/

Handwritten notes from fired former FBI agent Peter Strzok show that Obama himself directed key aspects of the campaign to target Flynn during a Jan. 5, 2017 meeting in the Oval Office.

Newly released notes confirm President Barack Obama’s key role in surveillance and leak operation against Michael Flynn, the incoming Trump administration national security adviser. The handwritten notes, which were first disclosed in a federal court filing made by the Department of Justice on Tuesday, show President Obama himself personally directed former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates to investigate Flynn for having routine phone calls with a Russian counterpart. He also suggests they withhold information from President Trump and his key national security figures.


The handwritten notes from fired former FBI agent Peter Strzok appear to describe a Jan. 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting between Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Comey, Yates, and then-national security adviser Susan Rice. The meeting and its substance were confirmed in a bizarre Inauguration Day email Rice wrote to herself.


It was at this meeting, which was confirmed by testimony from Comey and Yates, that Obama gave guidance to key officials who would be tasked with protecting his administration’s utilization of secretly funded Clinton campaign research, which alleged Trump was involved in a treasonous plot to collude with Russia, from being discovered or stopped by the incoming administration.


Yates told the special counsel that Obama broke the news of Flynn’s phone calls with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to her during the Jan. 5 meeting. Yates detailed further involvement from Obama. “President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia,” she wrote in her email.


The new notes, which record Comey’s accounting to Strzok of the meeting’s substance, constitute definitive evidence that Obama himself was personally directing significant aspects of a criminal investigation into his political enemy’s top foreign policy adviser.

“Make sure you look at things and have the right people on it,” Obama is quoted as saying.


Comey’s description that the Flynn-Kislyak phone calls appear “legit,” shorthand for “legitimate,” is also in the notes. Until this week, this exculpatory information was withheld from Flynn and his defense team, multiple congressional committees, and the American public. A lengthy campaign to illegally leak selectively edited defamatory information through media accessories damaged the Trump administration and spurred the appointment of a special counsel to investigate anyone associated with the Trump campaign.


According to Strzok’s notes, Biden explicitly referenced the Logan Act, an 18th-century law that forbids certain political speech from private citizens. The law, even if it were constitutional, would not apply to a national security adviser for the newly elected president of the United States. Biden had previously denied that he knew anything about the investigation into Flynn.


Uh, Vice President Biden, why did you bring up the Logan Act with regard to General Flynn. I'm LMAO imagining Biden tring to answer that question. "Who is this Logan character you're asking me about"?


“I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn,” Biden said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” when George Stephanopoulos asked what he knew of the FBI’s operations in early 2017. He later admitted that statement was false.


The meeting to strategize against the Trump administration included just a few key law enforcement principals. Their testimony about what transpired is sometimes in conflict. Yates claimed Comey brought up the Logan Act while Comey claims Biden cited it. Rice claimed Obama directed that the anti-Trump operation be run “by the book,” but Comey claimed Obama even directed which personnel to use.


All parties agree, however, on the main substance of the meeting, which was a discussion of how to target Flynn for his “legit” phone calls and withhold vital national security information from the newly elected presidential administration.


Attorney General William Barr has directed an investigation into the spying and leaking operation, led by U.S. Attorney John Durham. Durham, whose investigation is ongoing, has not yet issued any indictments or any reports of his findings thus far. Barr has repeatedly stated that if Durham finds evidence of criminal wrongdoing that can be proved in a court beyond a reasonable doubt, then those responsible for the criminal acts will be held to account.


The handwritten notes from Strzok, which were included in a court filing from the Justice Department, were filed under seal by order of Emmett Sullivan, the judge overseeing Flynn’s criminal trial. The judge has ordered the documents to be hidden and has given no indication that he will ever allow all of the evidence filed by the DOJ to be publicly disclosed. When the DOJ moved to dismiss charges against Flynn, Sullivan refused to grant their request and instead appointed a shadow prosecutor to target Flynn on Sullivan’s behalf.


Following an appeal by Flynn, the top federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday ordered the judge to dismiss all charges against Flynn. That court also vacated his appointment of a shadow prosecutor to target Flynn.


I'm going to have to buy a bigger bowl to hold all the popcorn I'm going to need when the Durham report comes out.
Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Thanks for a good read HF
Sullivan had his attempt at being prosecutor and Judge all wrapped into One - in order to crucify Flynn - cut off at the knees.

Goes to show how shameful is the DemLib regard for the Constitution and Rules and Procedure of law. If they were treated as Comey &Co. and sullivan treated flynn - they and the LSM would be screaming for their Constitutional rights and Due process of law.



Just the usual Hypocrisy from the DemLibs!!!
They are truly Fascists.

Thanks for a good read HF
Sullivan had his attempt at being prosecutor and Judge all wrapped into One - in order to crucify Flynn - cut off at the knees.

Goes to show how shameful is the DemLib regard for the Constitution and Rules and Procedure of law. If they were treated as Comey &Co. and sullivan treated flynn - they and the LSM would be screaming for their Constitutional rights and Due process of law.



Just the usual Hypocrisy from the DemLibs!!!
They are truly Fascists. Originally Posted by oeb11

Somebody was asking what the 3rd judge said in opposition to the 2 judges that ordered the case be dismissed. The judge disagreed and said that Sullivan should have been given more time to decide what he was going to do.


Obviously this third judge wasn't aware along with Sullivan, that the SC including Ginsburg had already set the precedent that if the DOJ wants to drop the case and the defendant agrees as Flynn did, that's it, case closed. Sullivan can not legally refuse though he may try and eventually get slapped down by the Supremes.


I called this months ago and posted the SC case in which Ginsburg said something to the effect that a judge can not be the prosecutor and bring his own charges. If the DOJ says they want to drop the case, you drop the case, period.


I'm constantly amazed that I know the law better than some of these judges.

Somebody was asking what the 3rd judge said in opposition to the 2 judges that ordered the case be dismissed. The judge disagreed and said that Sullivan should have been given more time to decide what he was going to do.


Obviously this third judge wasn't aware along with Sullivan, that the SC including Ginsburg had already set the precedent that if the DOJ wants to drop the case and the defendant agrees as Flynn did, that's it, case closed. Sullivan can not legally refuse though he may try and eventually get slapped down by the Supremes.


I called this months ago and posted the SC case in which Ginsburg said something to the effect that a judge can not be the prosecutor and bring his own charges. If the DOJ says they want to drop the case, you drop the case, period.


I'm constantly amazed that I know the law better than some of these judges. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Sullivan has just one card left to play. if he wants to appeal he can. that's it. if he loses it's over. if he wins Flynn will appeal and as noted above if it goes to the SC (it will) precedent clearly sides with Flynn. right now Flynn is in the driver's seat, he holds the current high ground.

The evidence is clear .... Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

What law? Please cite the law he broke. And if you can't just say so and quit wasting bandwidth on your bullshit.

BTW: This predator "broke the law" ....

Dissent.

In considering whether Flynn’s right to relief is “clear and indisputable,” it serves to remember that the question at hand is not whether or under what circumstances a district court may deny a Rule 48(a) motion, but whether it may give consideration to such a motion before ruling on it. It should come as no surprise that, before today, neither we nor any other Court of Appeals has ever read Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” provision to mean that a district court may not even consider such a motion before giving its “leave.” . . . In fact, some of our case law clearly points in the opposite direction: “The requirement of judicial approval entitles the judge to obtain and evaluate the prosecutor’s reasons.” Id. (emphasis added).

In contending that its trailblazing result is somehow compelled by precedent, the majority transforms dicta into dogma.

If the DOJ says they want to drop the case, you drop the case, period.


I'm constantly amazed that I know the law better than some of these judges. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Trump Judge Neomi Rao’s Flynn Opinion Is Dangerous and Anti-Democratic


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-sullivan.html

According to Rao, however, these modest actions were not just inappropriate—they were plainly illegal. (Rao was joined by Judge Karen L. Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee.) To the majority, Sullivan’s actions were so outrageous they justified an exceedingly rare “writ of mandamus,” which let Flynn skip right over the normal course of appeals. Rao made three arguments to justify this extraordinary action, and none of them can be taken seriously.

Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (1977)

The salient issue is not whether the decision to prosecute was made in bad faith, but rather whether the Government's later efforts to terminate the prosecution were similarly tainted with impropriety. It does not appear that there was any bad faith on the Government's part at the time it sought leave to dismiss the indictment, but rather that the decision to terminate the prosecution, based as it was on the Petite policy, was motivated by considerations which cannot fairly be characterized as "clearly contrary to manifest public interest."

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Second, Rao wrote that the government deserves “the presumption of regularity” because “there is no clear evidence” that it acted unethically. (There is, of course, a mountain of evidence to the contrary, but Rao dismisses these “news stories, tweets, and other facts outside the record” entirely.) Third, Rao declared that Sullivan is not allowed to scrutinize the government’s conduct or force prosecutors to explain their decision in open court. Why? Because doing so would “result in specific harms” to the executive branch, she wrote, compelling it “to reveal the internal deliberative process” in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.

What law? Please cite the law he broke. And if you can't just say so and quit wasting bandwidth on your bullshit.

BTW: This predator "broke the law" .. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Ask Flynn what he plead guilty to. Why don't you post something worth reading? Comma between "can't" and "just". Please. Form and substance, sir.

-------

By the Bye: this genius doesn't know the law. No quotations needed anywhere. He doesn't even know not to look directly into the sun.















Oh, and . . . uhh . . .

kiss my ass.

I hope he has lawsuit availability

would love to see comey and strzok et al lose money Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Can't wait to see if all those people who GoFundMe'ed those two try to ask for refunds.