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

[Anonymous]

Another perspective that Gagliano agrees with.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gleeson filing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qOr66B3TquXTyo-wGL1qaC6T_DRvSKDT/view

Barr really botched this.

Is Gleeson's filing any surprise, given the opinion he published days before being asked by Sullivan to provide amicus?

Gleeson's filing will get destroyed.

Gleeson, who took down John Giotti? Please.

Understand, much of this filing is verbatim from government filings. It isn't like he rewrote or conjured new "facts."

So please explain as technically legally as you like, how "Gleeson's filing will get destroyed."

I'll wait here.

Well, for starters, in the first case that he referenced, the Ammidown case, the trial judge was reversed for exceeding his discretion in rejecting a plea bargain.

[Anonymous]

Another perspective that thinks Gleeson is out of his league here.
Former federal prosecutor.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another perspective that thinks Gleeson is out of his league here.
Former federal prosecutor.....

Facts aren't good or bad. They're facts. And Flynn sought to ameliorate the damage of the sanctions for Trump's convenience, which would be perfectly proper after Inauguration Day but improper before. Which is why he lied about it. And in fact has never explained the phone calls, ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another perspective that thinks Gleeson is out of his league here.
Former federal prosecutor.....

Facts aren't good or bad. They're facts. And Flynn sought to ameliorate the damage of the sanctions for Trump's convenience, which would be perfectly proper after Inauguration Day but improper before. Which is why he lied about it. And in fact has never explained the phone calls, ever.

Asking Russia not to escalate is hardly overstepping his bounds.
Can't wait to hear Flynn's story once this is over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another perspective that thinks Gleeson is out of his league here.
Former federal prosecutor.....

Facts aren't good or bad. They're facts. And Flynn sought to ameliorate the damage of the sanctions for Trump's convenience, which would be perfectly proper after Inauguration Day but improper before. Which is why he lied about it. And in fact has never explained the phone calls, ever.

Asking Russia not to escalate is hardly overstepping his bounds.
Can't wait to hear Flynn's story once this is over.

If it's isn't overstepping his bounds, then why did he lie about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another perspective that thinks Gleeson is out of his league here.
Former federal prosecutor.....

Facts aren't good or bad. They're facts. And Flynn sought to ameliorate the damage of the sanctions for Trump's convenience, which would be perfectly proper after Inauguration Day but improper before. Which is why he lied about it. And in fact has never explained the phone calls, ever.

Asking Russia not to escalate is hardly overstepping his bounds.
Can't wait to hear Flynn's story once this is over.

If it's isn't overstepping his bounds, then why did he lie about it?

He didn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another perspective that thinks Gleeson is out of his league here.
Former federal prosecutor.....

Facts aren't good or bad. They're facts. And Flynn sought to ameliorate the damage of the sanctions for Trump's convenience, which would be perfectly proper after Inauguration Day but improper before. Which is why he lied about it. And in fact has never explained the phone calls, ever.

Asking Russia not to escalate is hardly overstepping his bounds.
Can't wait to hear Flynn's story once this is over.

If it's isn't overstepping his bounds, then why did he lie about it?

He didn't.

He lied. The government's motion to withdraw the charges says that his lies weren't material, not that he was truthful.

[Anonymous]

Jonathan Turley verses Judge Gleeson.

Ya right.

Gleeson is setting up a sentencing scenario for Flynn that involves imposition of a sentence above range of 0-6 months which included credit for accepting responsibility which Flynn has now rejected. Flynn faces a max sentence of 60 months. All bets are off. Bad lawyering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another perspective that thinks Gleeson is out of his league here.
Former federal prosecutor.....

Facts aren't good or bad. They're facts. And Flynn sought to ameliorate the damage of the sanctions for Trump's convenience, which would be perfectly proper after Inauguration Day but improper before. Which is why he lied about it. And in fact has never explained the phone calls, ever.

Asking Russia not to escalate is hardly overstepping his bounds.
Can't wait to hear Flynn's story once this is over.

If it's isn't overstepping his bounds, then why did he lie about it?

He didn't.

He did.

He admitted it.
McGahn said he lied.
Pence said he lied.
Trump said he lied.

Why do you think he didn't lie when Flynn himself admitted he did?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another perspective that thinks Gleeson is out of his league here.
Former federal prosecutor.....

Because "shipwreckedcrew" is a noted and aweseom 'attorney"

Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another perspective that thinks Gleeson is out of his league here.
Former federal prosecutor.....

how is that a bad thing? Because in the transcript, it is promised that whatever scheme they had cooked up needed to remain on track, so it is asking Russia not to take action now so their scheme could be followed through after the inaugural

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jonathan Turley verses Judge Gleeson.

Ya right.

Gleeson is setting up a sentencing scenario for Flynn that involves imposition of a sentence above range of 0-6 months which included credit for accepting responsibility which Flynn has now rejected. Flynn faces a max sentence of 60 months. All bets are off. Bad lawyering.

You mean award winning constitutional law expert who is one of the most cited law professors in the country, versus activist judge who published an op-ed days before being "picked" to provide amicus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jonathan Turley verses Judge Gleeson.

Ya right.

Gleeson is setting up a sentencing scenario for Flynn that involves imposition of a sentence above range of 0-6 months which included credit for accepting responsibility which Flynn has now rejected. Flynn faces a max sentence of 60 months. All bets are off. Bad lawyering.

You mean award winning constitutional law expert who is one of the most cited law professors in the country, versus activist judge who published an op-ed days before being "picked" to provide amicus.

Gleeson isn't an activist judge. You sound ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jonathan Turley verses Judge Gleeson.

Ya right.

Gleeson is setting up a sentencing scenario for Flynn that involves imposition of a sentence above range of 0-6 months which included credit for accepting responsibility which Flynn has now rejected. Flynn faces a max sentence of 60 months. All bets are off. Bad lawyering.

You mean award winning constitutional law expert who is one of the most cited law professors in the country, versus activist judge who published an op-ed days before being "picked" to provide amicus.

I don't think you know who Gleeson is. Maybe read up a little. "Activitst" is certainly not what he is.

And if you want to talk about activist, Rao, who even cause this action, took an extremely activist stance. Extraordinary.