Barr Installs Outside Prosecutor to Review Case Against Michael Flynn, Ex-Trump Adviser

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was speaking with a retired longtime career AUSA yesterday. He's not following this as much as I have, but is now. The law is extremely important to him. When I mentioned that Page had edited the 302, I got his attention. He literally screamed--"why was she doing that? Only the agents at the interview are supposed to touch it. How did that happen?"

So that's the big question: how did all this happen? The "insurance policy" seems to be the only answer.

Did you tell him about the nonsense motion from the DOJ?

Embarrassing.

Nonsense?
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/198/united-states-v-flynn/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of your ‘Flynn is guilty’ posts hinge on one feeling: that Barr is crooked. That’s not fact; that’s a feeling.

No. It is based on the fact Flynn pled guilty.

Forced to plead guilty. FBI’s own notes show that.

+1

Wonder how many of these people who don't understand the plea have children.

The ones who believe Flynn, those are the ones that I wonder if they have children. They believe every lie that he tells?

But they don't believe the judge. "He's a Clinton judge". SMH

Have there been judges that have gone overly harshly on people of color?

[Anonymous]

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/tables-turned-mueller-prosecutors-ten-actions-ripe

right wing writer--but he includes sources

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of your ‘Flynn is guilty’ posts hinge on one feeling: that Barr is crooked. That’s not fact; that’s a feeling.

No. It is based on the fact Flynn pled guilty.

Forced to plead guilty. FBI’s own notes show that.

+1

Wonder how many of these people who don't understand the plea have children.

The ones who believe Flynn, those are the ones that I wonder if they have children. They believe every lie that he tells?

But they don't believe the judge. "He's a Clinton judge". SMH

Have there been judges that have gone overly harshly on people of color?

The judge is being overly harsh here? What?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was speaking with a retired longtime career AUSA yesterday. He's not following this as much as I have, but is now. The law is extremely important to him. When I mentioned that Page had edited the 302, I got his attention. He literally screamed--"why was she doing that? Only the agents at the interview are supposed to touch it. How did that happen?"

So that's the big question: how did all this happen? The "insurance policy" seems to be the only answer.

Did you tell him about the nonsense motion from the DOJ?

Embarrassing.

Nonsense?
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/198/united-states-v-flynn/

Did you read it? Ouch.

No wonder Shea signed that mess with the wrong bar number. It's awful.

[Anonymous]

Fact: The FBI strategized about getting him to commit a crime so that they could prosecute him. Fact: They couched the interview so that it would like it was just an informal meeting. Fact: They told him he didn't need counsel.

That, in itself, should be enough for this case to be thrown out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of your ‘Flynn is guilty’ posts hinge on one feeling: that Barr is crooked. That’s not fact; that’s a feeling.

No. It is based on the fact Flynn pled guilty.

Forced to plead guilty. FBI’s own notes show that.

+1

Wonder how many of these people who don't understand the plea have children.

The ones who believe Flynn, those are the ones that I wonder if they have children. They believe every lie that he tells?

But they don't believe the judge. "He's a Clinton judge". SMH

Have there been judges that have gone overly harshly on people of color?

The judge is being overly harsh here? What?

The pp above wants me to believe the judge because, he's a judge. Yet we are often told that people of color get harsher sentences then white folks. If you want me to believe judges all the time, then clearly the white/poc bias does not exist either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fact: The FBI strategized about getting him to commit a crime so that they could prosecute him. Fact: They couched the interview so that it would like it was just an informal meeting. Fact: They told him he didn't need counsel.

That, in itself, should be enough for this case to be thrown out.

Yup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Powers claimed she never tried to unmask Flynn; records show she unmasked him 7 times. Why lie?

She didn't lie. She didn't know it was Flynn who was having treasonous conversations and sought to find out who it was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fact: The FBI strategized about getting him to commit a crime so that they could prosecute him. Fact: They couched the interview so that it would like it was just an informal meeting. Fact: They told him he didn't need counsel.

That, in itself, should be enough for this case to be thrown out.

Fact, you are taking someone else's interpretation of the notes. The person who wrote the notes has commented on them and has said their words were being mischaracterized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Powers claimed she never tried to unmask Flynn; records show she unmasked him 7 times. Why lie?

She didn't lie. She didn't know it was Flynn who was having treasonous conversations and sought to find out who it was.

She unmasked him 7 times. Clearly by the 7th time, she knew she it was Flynn she unmasked.

If he was having treasonous conversations, then why not to straight for treason? It's cut and dried - they have the goods!

Yet they did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact: The FBI strategized about getting him to commit a crime so that they could prosecute him. Fact: They couched the interview so that it would like it was just an informal meeting. Fact: They told him he didn't need counsel.

That, in itself, should be enough for this case to be thrown out.

Fact, you are taking someone else's interpretation of the notes. The person who wrote the notes has commented on them and has said their words were being mischaracterized.

NP, I'd say that too had I written what was in those notes! There's no mischaractering ""What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Powers claimed she never tried to unmask Flynn; records show she unmasked him 7 times. Why lie?

She didn't lie. She didn't know it was Flynn who was having treasonous conversations and sought to find out who it was.

She unmasked him 7 times. Clearly by the 7th time, she knew she it was Flynn she unmasked.

If he was having treasonous conversations, then why not to straight for treason? It's cut and dried - they have the goods!

Yet they did not.

Flynn wasn't masked on the phone calls in question. Those other unmaskings were all other conversations. And with lots of different foreign persons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Powers claimed she never tried to unmask Flynn; records show she unmasked him 7 times. Why lie?

She didn't lie. She didn't know it was Flynn who was having treasonous conversations and sought to find out who it was.

Powers was trying to find out who was trying to change votes at the UN. The unmasking revealed that person was Flynn. He was up to no good which is why he kept getting unmasked

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Powers claimed she never tried to unmask Flynn; records show she unmasked him 7 times. Why lie?

She didn't lie. She didn't know it was Flynn who was having treasonous conversations and sought to find out who it was.

She unmasked him 7 times. Clearly by the 7th time, she knew she it was Flynn she unmasked.

If he was having treasonous conversations, then why not to straight for treason? It's cut and dried - they have the goods!

Yet they did not.

Flynn wasn't masked on the phone calls in question. Those other unmaskings were all other conversations. And with lots of different foreign persons.

Again, why wasn't Flynn arrested for treason?