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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. No. You've been conned by dirty investigators.

So you believe Stone, Manafort, Flynn and Trump haven't done anything wrong and this is all just dirty investigators?

If you truly believe that, then you also believe all of the court filings, all of the sentencing documents etc. related to Stone, Flynn and Manafort are manufactured BS and that longstanding and in many/most cases, GOP appointed judges are in on it? Is that what you are saying?

No. Stone is a fool and it appears that Manafort is a crook from what i understand. But, neither were colluding with Russians. Although, in seeing how the Mueller team chose to go after Flynn, I would not be surprised if they used dirty tricks on Manafort, as well. We saw on CNN how they treated Stone.
I imagine that if Hillary's pals had been investigated properly, that there would have been even more dirt there. Podesta and his brother appear to have similar connections.

Flynn was never a Russian asset and they knew it. But, that was their excuse for interviewing him. If that doesn't trouble you, no matter your politics, then you are beyond help.

+100

[Anonymous]

Judge Sullivan filing

[Anonymous]

I am not an attorney. I have read several reviews of Sullivan's filling.
General consensus - it's a joke.
It appears that the goal is to force the DC Court of Appeals to take the case from him because he won't rule on it.


DOJ just filed their brief. In it, they challenge Judge Sullivan's decision not to accept its position seeking to drop the Michael Flynn case, calling it a constitutional violation for the court to "assume the role of prosecutor and initiate criminal charges of its own."

Guess we'll know soon enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not an attorney. I have read several reviews of Sullivan's filling.
General consensus - it's a joke.
It appears that the goal is to force the DC Court of Appeals to take the case from him because he won't rule on it.


DOJ just filed their brief. In it, they challenge Judge Sullivan's decision not to accept its position seeking to drop the Michael Flynn case, calling it a constitutional violation for the court to "assume the role of prosecutor and initiate criminal charges of its own."

Guess we'll know soon enough.

You need to read new attorneys, my god what a bastardization interpretation of both the role of the court and separation of power. The court is not there to rubberstamp the DOJ and certainly not at the sentencing phased of a case where the defendant has, on multiple occasions, plead guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not an attorney. I have read several reviews of Sullivan's filling.
General consensus - it's a joke.
It appears that the goal is to force the DC Court of Appeals to take the case from him because he won't rule on it.


DOJ just filed their brief. In it, they challenge Judge Sullivan's decision not to accept its position seeking to drop the Michael Flynn case, calling it a constitutional violation for the court to "assume the role of prosecutor and initiate criminal charges of its own."

Guess we'll know soon enough.

Shouldn't this take like one day to decide?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not an attorney. I have read several reviews of Sullivan's filling.
General consensus - it's a joke.
It appears that the goal is to force the DC Court of Appeals to take the case from him because he won't rule on it.


DOJ just filed their brief. In it, they challenge Judge Sullivan's decision not to accept its position seeking to drop the Michael Flynn case, calling it a constitutional violation for the court to "assume the role of prosecutor and initiate criminal charges of its own."

Guess we'll know soon enough.

Shouldn't this take like one day to decide?

DP. You would think so...but who knows. My guess would be that the case gets reassigned to another Judge, who will then promptly grant the motion to withdraw the charges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not an attorney. I have read several reviews of Sullivan's filling.
General consensus - it's a joke.
It appears that the goal is to force the DC Court of Appeals to take the case from him because he won't rule on it.


DOJ just filed their brief. In it, they challenge Judge Sullivan's decision not to accept its position seeking to drop the Michael Flynn case, calling it a constitutional violation for the court to "assume the role of prosecutor and initiate criminal charges of its own."

Guess we'll know soon enough.

Shouldn't this take like one day to decide?

DP. You would think so...but who knows. My guess would be that the case gets reassigned to another Judge, who will then promptly grant the motion to withdraw the charges.

That would be a highly unusual result. The more likely scenario is the DOJ filing is denied and the case will proceed as Sullivan has already outlined.

[Anonymous]

Russia Hmmm

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/us/politics/flynn-kislyak-calls.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Russia Hmmm

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/us/politics/flynn-kislyak-calls.html

Yet another "journalist" attempting to make connections where none exist.
Trying to recreate the "Russian collusion" narrative. Because, Trump.

[Anonymous]

The Circuit Court has accepted all the amici briefs and scheduled oral argument for the petition for the writ of mandamus on June 12.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Circuit Court has accepted all the amici briefs and scheduled oral argument for the petition for the writ of mandamus on June 12.

Good. I guess Sullivan's brief saying they should not be accepted was dumped.

[Anonymous]

Flynn's lawyer, btw, was arguing that Sullivan should not accept amicus briefs on a criminal trial. Now the circuit court is doing the same thing.

Too funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Flynn's lawyer, btw, was arguing that Sullivan should not accept amicus briefs on a criminal trial. Now the circuit court is doing the same thing.

Too funny.

Even funnier....Judge Sullivan denied amicus briefs by those who wanted to submit in Flynn's favor, saying that "the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal cases. ... Options exist for a private citizen to express his views about matters of public interest, but the court's docket is not an available option.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/05/18/michael-flynn-jonathan-turley-judge-sullivan-fbi-column/5212869002/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flynn's lawyer, btw, was arguing that Sullivan should not accept amicus briefs on a criminal trial. Now the circuit court is doing the same thing.

Too funny.

Even funnier....Judge Sullivan denied amicus briefs by those who wanted to submit in Flynn's favor, saying that "the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal cases. ... Options exist for a private citizen to express his views about matters of public interest, but the court's docket is not an available option.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/05/18/michael-flynn-jonathan-turley-judge-sullivan-fbi-column/5212869002/

That was then, this is now.

After conviction, in the sentencing phase, it's not really a criminal trial anymore. Neither is the petition for mandamus. Nor is Sineneng-Smith applicable here.

But it's good to laugh. Better than crying.

[Anonymous]

Oh wait, the Feds DO have an interest in Flynn's illegal activities associated with the Turks.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/07/criminal-case-rafiekian-flynn-partner-306881

Given Trump is funded by the same Turks who fund ISIS, this could get interesting.