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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amazing. The Circuit Court has taken up the petition for a writ of mandamus and has given Judge Sullivan ten days to respond.

That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. And there's been plenty of crazy already in this case.

Not crazy. They ordered him to respond to Flynn's petition citing the Fokker Services case, as well as the 48(a) arguments, which were probably Flynn's strongest arguments of the ones presented in the petition. They also invited the DOJ to file a response as well.

[Anonymous]

Rao is one of the adjudicating attorneys. She really should recuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/20/christopher-steele-michael-flynn-svetlana-lokhova-cambridge/


1. Inadvertently reveals that the FBI had another source corroborate Steele’s assertion that Flynn had an affair with Svetlana Lokhova.

2. Posted an exclusive picture of Flynn courtesy of.... Svetlana Lokhova.

Where does it say this?

Read the article. It is pretty plainly written and suggests multiple sources for this "rumor."

And, those "sources" are circular in nature.....
Please cite the parts that there are multiple sources.

There is a source, and a second source. Two sources.

Cite the parts of the article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing. The Circuit Court has taken up the petition for a writ of mandamus and has given Judge Sullivan ten days to respond.

That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. And there's been plenty of crazy already in this case.

Not crazy. They ordered him to respond to Flynn's petition citing the Fokker Services case, as well as the 48(a) arguments, which were probably Flynn's strongest arguments of the ones presented in the petition. They also invited the DOJ to file a response as well.

No, it's really crazy.

The Fokker case may arguably be distinguishable. But even if it's controlling (even if the dicta is controlling), there are still too many outstanding issues that haven't been resolved.

And if Sullivan loses, is he going to ask for en banc rehearing?

Amazing. And all because the DOJ went sideways and is acting as the arm of the president. Wonder if Sullivan will come out and say that.

[Anonymous]

Amazing. And all because the DOJ went sideways and is acting as the arm of the president. Wonder if Sullivan will come out and say that.

Amazing. And all because the FBI and the SC went sideways and were acting as the arm of the former president.

Fixed it for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Amazing. And all because the DOJ went sideways and is acting as the arm of the president. Wonder if Sullivan will come out and say that.

Amazing. And all because the FBI and the SC went sideways and were acting as the arm of the former president.

Fixed it for you.

Obamgate!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/20/christopher-steele-michael-flynn-svetlana-lokhova-cambridge/


1. Inadvertently reveals that the FBI had another source corroborate Steele’s assertion that Flynn had an affair with Svetlana Lokhova.

2. Posted an exclusive picture of Flynn courtesy of.... Svetlana Lokhova.

Where does it say this?

Read the article. It is pretty plainly written and suggests multiple sources for this "rumor."

And, those "sources" are circular in nature.....
Please cite the parts that there are multiple sources.

There is a source, and a second source. Two sources.

Cite the parts of the article.

DP. No --it was one source. They were at a dinner together and the story was planted by Steele. That was McCain's source. It has now come out that the FBI offered to pay Steele for dirt on Flynn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing. The Circuit Court has taken up the petition for a writ of mandamus and has given Judge Sullivan ten days to respond.

That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. And there's been plenty of crazy already in this case.

Not crazy. They ordered him to respond to Flynn's petition citing the Fokker Services case, as well as the 48(a) arguments, which were probably Flynn's strongest arguments of the ones presented in the petition. They also invited the DOJ to file a response as well.

No, it's really crazy.

The Fokker case may arguably be distinguishable. But even if it's controlling (even if the dicta is controlling), there are still too many outstanding issues that haven't been resolved.

And if Sullivan loses, is he going to ask for en banc rehearing?

Amazing. And all because the DOJ went sideways and is acting as the arm of the president. Wonder if Sullivan will come out and say that.

Amicus briefs are not allowed in criminal cases. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing. The Circuit Court has taken up the petition for a writ of mandamus and has given Judge Sullivan ten days to respond.

That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. And there's been plenty of crazy already in this case.

Not crazy. They ordered him to respond to Flynn's petition citing the Fokker Services case, as well as the 48(a) arguments, which were probably Flynn's strongest arguments of the ones presented in the petition. They also invited the DOJ to file a response as well.

No, it's really crazy.

The Fokker case may arguably be distinguishable. But even if it's controlling (even if the dicta is controlling), there are still too many outstanding issues that haven't been resolved.

And if Sullivan loses, is he going to ask for en banc rehearing?

Amazing. And all because the DOJ went sideways and is acting as the arm of the president. Wonder if Sullivan will come out and say that.

Amicus briefs are not allowed in criminal cases. Period.

The criminal case is over. Only sentencing is left.

Flynn's motion to withdraw his guilty plea hasn't been picked up yet. As of now, he is still guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rao is one of the adjudicating attorneys. She really should recuse.

Why?

[Anonymous]

Thread.......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thread.......

It's pretty easy. The DOJ memo presented no new evidence, and came at a stage in the proceedings that all that remained was the sentencing. This is a hack lawyer. Sorry you spent the time to read it. I know I am.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thread.......

It's pretty easy. The DOJ memo presented no new evidence, and came at a stage in the proceedings that all that remained was the sentencing. This is a hack lawyer. Sorry you spent the time to read it. I know I am.

Isn't this the same thing that happened in the Ted Stevens case?

Stevens tried.
Stevens convicted.
It is discovered that exculpatory evidence was withheld.
AG Holder requests dismissal of charges, after conviction.
Judge grants dismissal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thread.......

It's pretty easy. The DOJ memo presented no new evidence, and came at a stage in the proceedings that all that remained was the sentencing. This is a hack lawyer. Sorry you spent the time to read it. I know I am.

Isn't this the same thing that happened in the Ted Stevens case?

Stevens tried.
Stevens convicted.
It is discovered that exculpatory evidence was withheld.
AG Holder requests dismissal of charges, after conviction.
Judge grants dismissal.

No. There's no withheld exculpatory evidence here. The motion to withdraw the charges says that the lie wasn't material. But earlier the government said it was and the judge found it was. DOJ didn't put in any effort to change the judge's mind. Lazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thread.......

It's pretty easy. The DOJ memo presented no new evidence, and came at a stage in the proceedings that all that remained was the sentencing. This is a hack lawyer. Sorry you spent the time to read it. I know I am.

Isn't this the same thing that happened in the Ted Stevens case?

Stevens tried.
Stevens convicted.
It is discovered that exculpatory evidence was withheld.
AG Holder requests dismissal of charges, after conviction.
Judge grants dismissal.

No. There's no withheld exculpatory evidence here. The motion to withdraw the charges says that the lie wasn't material. But earlier the government said it was and the judge found it was. DOJ didn't put in any effort to change the judge's mind. Lazy.

They still made arguments regarding the withholding of exculpatory material and the relevance of that to his plea.

Either way, the sequence is the same...it is not unheard of for the government to ask for dismissal after conviction.