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

[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.

You mean award winning trump shill Jonathan Turkey who regularly writes trump shill opinion articles in The Hill and was the lone trump shill chosen figure to testify on the constitutionality of impacting trump over the Ukraine stuff? Ugh. The right has so many wack jobs willing to peddle their bs for $$$ for a poorly educated base who laps it up. Whether it’s Candace Owens or diamond and silk willing to sell their minstrel acts to old, white racists who like to hear from their token “black allies” (pardon the offensive nature of that comment, but it’s true, they want to get paid). Or Coulter and her zombie like ways. Or f’ing tucker Carlson turning ever rightward to pander to a radicalized trump base in his aging frat boy attire. The right pundit sphere is filled with idiots. The women are prettier tho. I mean they’re all blond bimbos like Kaleigh the new press secretary. All the intelligent women are on the dem side. They’d rather use their intellect, usually, than look like Barbie dolls. What a funny time. These poor hapless, earthly nitwits truly are in charge in America.

[Anonymous]

LOL.

Thread ------->

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL.

Thread ------->

So you are really upset about Kirkland and Ellis representation of Alfabank and now infiltrated throughout the DOJ, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL.

Thread ------->

Because I work with politicians of both parties and am able to separate work and my own political opinions, could you explain the Twitter thread you linked? I see it and say, “so what?!” Please explain the conspiracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL.

Thread ------->

Because I work with politicians of both parties and am able to separate work and my own political opinions, could you explain the Twitter thread you linked? I see it and say, “so what?!” Please explain the conspiracy.

A federal judge directed another judge, acting kind of like a lawyer to submit a brief arguing the U.S. Attorney cannot dismiss a criminal case & lawyers who wrote the brief are Biden donors and use it as an opportunity to relitigate Russia collusion hoax & disparage Trump & his administration. Nothing more than a political hit job.
Also, he needed the brief to exceed the page limit so he could use the opportunity to trash Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL.

Thread ------->

Because I work with politicians of both parties and am able to separate work and my own political opinions, could you explain the Twitter thread you linked? I see it and say, “so what?!” Please explain the conspiracy.

A federal judge directed another judge, acting kind of like a lawyer to submit a brief arguing the U.S. Attorney cannot dismiss a criminal case & lawyers who wrote the brief are Biden donors and use it as an opportunity to relitigate Russia collusion hoax & disparage Trump & his administration. Nothing more than a political hit job.
Also, he needed the brief to exceed the page limit so he could use the opportunity to trash Trump.

I guess you didn't read it. It is kinda long.

Gleeson isn't was acting exactly like a lawyer, btw, not just kind of like one. Since he is a lawyer that makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A federal judge directed another judge, acting kind of like a lawyer to submit a brief arguing the U.S. Attorney cannot dismiss a criminal case & lawyers who wrote the brief are Biden donors and use it as an opportunity to relitigate Russia collusion hoax & disparage Trump & his administration. Nothing more than a political hit job.
Also, he needed the brief to exceed the page limit so he could use the opportunity to trash Trump.

Alternatively, a Federal Judge sought an independent Amicus brief from a widely independent and respected ex-judge to outline the contours of the case and use the DOJ writings as the basis of the argument. The "trashing" of Trump was nothing more than legally sworn and factual statements, mostly from prior briefs or the presidents own words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A federal judge directed another judge, acting kind of like a lawyer to submit a brief arguing the U.S. Attorney cannot dismiss a criminal case & lawyers who wrote the brief are Biden donors and use it as an opportunity to relitigate Russia collusion hoax & disparage Trump & his administration. Nothing more than a political hit job.
Also, he needed the brief to exceed the page limit so he could use the opportunity to trash Trump.

Alternatively, a Federal Judge sought an independent Amicus brief from a widely independent and respected ex-judge to outline the contours of the case and use the DOJ writings as the basis of the argument. The "trashing" of Trump was nothing more than legally sworn and factual statements, mostly from prior briefs or the presidents own words.

Independent? The author of the amicus brief already gave his opinion in a published op-ed, just a few days prior. He answered the very questions that Sullivan asked of him...in that prior op-ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A federal judge directed another judge, acting kind of like a lawyer to submit a brief arguing the U.S. Attorney cannot dismiss a criminal case & lawyers who wrote the brief are Biden donors and use it as an opportunity to relitigate Russia collusion hoax & disparage Trump & his administration. Nothing more than a political hit job.
Also, he needed the brief to exceed the page limit so he could use the opportunity to trash Trump.

Alternatively, a Federal Judge sought an independent Amicus brief from a widely independent and respected ex-judge to outline the contours of the case and use the DOJ writings as the basis of the argument. The "trashing" of Trump was nothing more than legally sworn and factual statements, mostly from prior briefs or the presidents own words.

Independent? The author of the amicus brief already gave his opinion in a published op-ed, just a few days prior. He answered the very questions that Sullivan asked of him...in that prior op-ed.

The schedule includes reply briefs and sur-reply briefs, etc. Flynn and the government can respond to this filing.

You could too, if you wanted to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A federal judge directed another judge, acting kind of like a lawyer to submit a brief arguing the U.S. Attorney cannot dismiss a criminal case & lawyers who wrote the brief are Biden donors and use it as an opportunity to relitigate Russia collusion hoax & disparage Trump & his administration. Nothing more than a political hit job.
Also, he needed the brief to exceed the page limit so he could use the opportunity to trash Trump.

Alternatively, a Federal Judge sought an independent Amicus brief from a widely independent and respected ex-judge to outline the contours of the case and use the DOJ writings as the basis of the argument. The "trashing" of Trump was nothing more than legally sworn and factual statements, mostly from prior briefs or the presidents own words.

Independent? The author of the amicus brief already gave his opinion in a published op-ed, just a few days prior. He answered the very questions that Sullivan asked of him...in that prior op-ed.

Kind of like Barr’s op ed when he auditioned for then part of fix..I mean Attorney General.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A federal judge directed another judge, acting kind of like a lawyer to submit a brief arguing the U.S. Attorney cannot dismiss a criminal case & lawyers who wrote the brief are Biden donors and use it as an opportunity to relitigate Russia collusion hoax & disparage Trump & his administration. Nothing more than a political hit job.
Also, he needed the brief to exceed the page limit so he could use the opportunity to trash Trump.

Alternatively, a Federal Judge sought an independent Amicus brief from a widely independent and respected ex-judge to outline the contours of the case and use the DOJ writings as the basis of the argument. The "trashing" of Trump was nothing more than legally sworn and factual statements, mostly from prior briefs or the presidents own words.

Independent? The author of the amicus brief already gave his opinion in a published op-ed, just a few days prior. He answered the very questions that Sullivan asked of him...in that prior op-ed.

I hope Sullivan drags this case out until past November, Biden wins, appoints all types of investigative committees and such, thus implicating all the complicit people led by Barr. The country’s faith in its judicial independence is currently under threat. Trump tried to get the doj to erase this case. Barr is nuts.

[Anonymous]

I hope Sullivan drags this case out until past November, Biden wins, appoints all types of investigative committees and such, thus implicating all the complicit people led by Barr. The country’s faith in its judicial independence is currently under threat. Trump tried to get the doj to erase this case. Barr is nuts.

As opposed to a three year set up by Adam Schiff, et.al......Comey; Page; McCabe, etc.etc.

And, don't forget Mueller with his band of Clinton donors in the Special Counsel's office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A federal judge directed another judge, acting kind of like a lawyer to submit a brief arguing the U.S. Attorney cannot dismiss a criminal case & lawyers who wrote the brief are Biden donors and use it as an opportunity to relitigate Russia collusion hoax & disparage Trump & his administration. Nothing more than a political hit job.
Also, he needed the brief to exceed the page limit so he could use the opportunity to trash Trump.

Alternatively, a Federal Judge sought an independent Amicus brief from a widely independent and respected ex-judge to outline the contours of the case and use the DOJ writings as the basis of the argument. The "trashing" of Trump was nothing more than legally sworn and factual statements, mostly from prior briefs or the presidents own words.

Independent? The author of the amicus brief already gave his opinion in a published op-ed, just a few days prior. He answered the very questions that Sullivan asked of him...in that prior op-ed.

and Barr gave his opinion before he was hired and dismantled the Mueller investigation. What is your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I hope Sullivan drags this case out until past November, Biden wins, appoints all types of investigative committees and such, thus implicating all the complicit people led by Barr. The country’s faith in its judicial independence is currently under threat. Trump tried to get the doj to erase this case. Barr is nuts.

As opposed to a three year set up by Adam Schiff, et.al......Comey; Page; McCabe, etc.etc.

And, don't forget Mueller with his band of Clinton donors in the Special Counsel's office.

You need new sources of information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A federal judge directed another judge, acting kind of like a lawyer to submit a brief arguing the U.S. Attorney cannot dismiss a criminal case & lawyers who wrote the brief are Biden donors and use it as an opportunity to relitigate Russia collusion hoax & disparage Trump & his administration. Nothing more than a political hit job.
Also, he needed the brief to exceed the page limit so he could use the opportunity to trash Trump.

Alternatively, a Federal Judge sought an independent Amicus brief from a widely independent and respected ex-judge to outline the contours of the case and use the DOJ writings as the basis of the argument. The "trashing" of Trump was nothing more than legally sworn and factual statements, mostly from prior briefs or the presidents own words.

Independent? The author of the amicus brief already gave his opinion in a published op-ed, just a few days prior. He answered the very questions that Sullivan asked of him...in that prior op-ed.

and Barr gave his opinion before he was hired and dismantled the Mueller investigation. What is your point?

Mueller said quite the opposite...that no one pressured him to end the investigation.

My point is the previous PP assertion of "independent".