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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The opinion does not make Sullivan look good. It basically says that he screwed up, royally.

The opinion is embarrassing. There should be no writ of mandamus issued at this time because Judge Sullivan hasn't even ruled yet on the Motion to Dismiss. The full Circuit needs to hear this en banc and reverse this ridiculous ruling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The opinion does not make Sullivan look good. It basically says that he screwed up, royally.

The opinion is embarrassing. There should be no writ of mandamus issued at this time because Judge Sullivan hasn't even ruled yet on the Motion to Dismiss. The full Circuit needs to hear this en banc and reverse this ridiculous ruling.

Might that happen? This is confusing for non lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The opinion does not make Sullivan look good. It basically says that he screwed up, royally.

The opinion is embarrassing. There should be no writ of mandamus issued at this time because Judge Sullivan hasn't even ruled yet on the Motion to Dismiss. The full Circuit needs to hear this en banc and reverse this ridiculous ruling.

Might that happen? This is confusing for non lawyers.

If Sullivan chooses to pursue this, it will be obvious this is political and not about justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The opinion does not make Sullivan look good. It basically says that he screwed up, royally.

The opinion is embarrassing. There should be no writ of mandamus issued at this time because Judge Sullivan hasn't even ruled yet on the Motion to Dismiss. The full Circuit needs to hear this en banc and reverse this ridiculous ruling.

Might that happen? This is confusing for non lawyers.

It might be taken up by the entire DC Circuit Court. If not, it'll likely be treated as a one-off, similar to Bush v. Gore. Political rather than precedential. Which doesn't make the courts look good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The opinion does not make Sullivan look good. It basically says that he screwed up, royally.

The opinion is embarrassing. There should be no writ of mandamus issued at this time because Judge Sullivan hasn't even ruled yet on the Motion to Dismiss. The full Circuit needs to hear this en banc and reverse this ridiculous ruling.

Might that happen? This is confusing for non lawyers.

If Sullivan chooses to pursue this, it will be obvious this is political and not about justice.

Or vice versa.

I expect that he won't. But he doesn't have to. The circuit court could take it up on their own.

[Anonymous]

It might be taken up by the entire DC Circuit Court. If not, it'll likely be treated as a one-off, similar to Bush v. Gore. Political rather than precedential. Which doesn't make the courts look good.

Actually, it is precedential. That was the basis of the appeal. DOJ asked it to be dropped.

As for the Defense, there was plenty of exculpatory information to show that the prosecution should never have happened. Misbehavior on the part of FBI and exculpatory information was withheld from defense. Apparently, more exculpatory information about Strozk was released yesterday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It might be taken up by the entire DC Circuit Court. If not, it'll likely be treated as a one-off, similar to Bush v. Gore. Political rather than precedential. Which doesn't make the courts look good.

Actually, it is precedential. That was the basis of the appeal. DOJ asked it to be dropped.

As for the Defense, there was plenty of exculpatory information to show that the prosecution should never have happened. Misbehavior on the part of FBI and exculpatory information was withheld from defense. Apparently, more exculpatory information about Strozk was released yesterday.

If any of what you wrote were true, this ruling wouldn't be so awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It might be taken up by the entire DC Circuit Court. If not, it'll likely be treated as a one-off, similar to Bush v. Gore. Political rather than precedential. Which doesn't make the courts look good.

Actually, it is precedential. That was the basis of the appeal. DOJ asked it to be dropped.

As for the Defense, there was plenty of exculpatory information to show that the prosecution should never have happened. Misbehavior on the part of FBI and exculpatory information was withheld from defense. Apparently, more exculpatory information about Strozk was released yesterday.

If any of what you wrote were true, this ruling wouldn't be so awful.

DP. Everything she wrote is true.
I cannot wait to hear Flynn's side of the story. And, see the evidence that was withheld.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It might be taken up by the entire DC Circuit Court. If not, it'll likely be treated as a one-off, similar to Bush v. Gore. Political rather than precedential. Which doesn't make the courts look good.

Actually, it is precedential. That was the basis of the appeal. DOJ asked it to be dropped.

As for the Defense, there was plenty of exculpatory information to show that the prosecution should never have happened. Misbehavior on the part of FBI and exculpatory information was withheld from defense. Apparently, more exculpatory information about Strozk was released yesterday.

If any of what you wrote were true, this ruling wouldn't be so awful.

Oh, don't worry. What PP wrote is true. Newly released Strzok notes show that Comey said in the WH meeting that the Flynn calls "appear legit"....that Obama wanted the "right people" on the case...and Biden advocating for the Logan Act.

https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1275803339738021890

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It might be taken up by the entire DC Circuit Court. If not, it'll likely be treated as a one-off, similar to Bush v. Gore. Political rather than precedential. Which doesn't make the courts look good.

Actually, it is precedential. That was the basis of the appeal. DOJ asked it to be dropped.

As for the Defense, there was plenty of exculpatory information to show that the prosecution should never have happened. Misbehavior on the part of FBI and exculpatory information was withheld from defense. Apparently, more exculpatory information about Strozk was released yesterday.

If any of what you wrote were true, this ruling wouldn't be so awful.

Oh, don't worry. What PP wrote is true. Newly released Strzok notes show that Comey said in the WH meeting that the Flynn calls "appear legit"....that Obama wanted the "right people" on the case...and Biden advocating for the Logan Act.

https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1275803339738021890

Do y'all have any idea what "exculpatory" means? Do you have a dictionary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It might be taken up by the entire DC Circuit Court. If not, it'll likely be treated as a one-off, similar to Bush v. Gore. Political rather than precedential. Which doesn't make the courts look good.

Actually, it is precedential. That was the basis of the appeal. DOJ asked it to be dropped.

As for the Defense, there was plenty of exculpatory information to show that the prosecution should never have happened. Misbehavior on the part of FBI and exculpatory information was withheld from defense. Apparently, more exculpatory information about Strozk was released yesterday.

If any of what you wrote were true, this ruling wouldn't be so awful.

Oh, don't worry. What PP wrote is true. Newly released Strzok notes show that Comey said in the WH meeting that the Flynn calls "appear legit"....that Obama wanted the "right people" on the case...and Biden advocating for the Logan Act.

https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1275803339738021890

Do y'all have any idea what "exculpatory" means? Do you have a dictionary?

Comey saying that the calls "appear legit" is exculpatory, in that it shows that the Crossfire Razor case should not have been continued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It might be taken up by the entire DC Circuit Court. If not, it'll likely be treated as a one-off, similar to Bush v. Gore. Political rather than precedential. Which doesn't make the courts look good.

Actually, it is precedential. That was the basis of the appeal. DOJ asked it to be dropped.

As for the Defense, there was plenty of exculpatory information to show that the prosecution should never have happened. Misbehavior on the part of FBI and exculpatory information was withheld from defense. Apparently, more exculpatory information about Strozk was released yesterday.

If any of what you wrote were true, this ruling wouldn't be so awful.

Oh, don't worry. What PP wrote is true. Newly released Strzok notes show that Comey said in the WH meeting that the Flynn calls "appear legit"....that Obama wanted the "right people" on the case...and Biden advocating for the Logan Act.

https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1275803339738021890

Do y'all have any idea what "exculpatory" means? Do you have a dictionary?

Sure. An example being that the FBI was going to drop their investigation because no derogatory information had been uncovered. Until Strzok got involved.
This wasn't given to the defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It might be taken up by the entire DC Circuit Court. If not, it'll likely be treated as a one-off, similar to Bush v. Gore. Political rather than precedential. Which doesn't make the courts look good.

Actually, it is precedential. That was the basis of the appeal. DOJ asked it to be dropped.

As for the Defense, there was plenty of exculpatory information to show that the prosecution should never have happened. Misbehavior on the part of FBI and exculpatory information was withheld from defense. Apparently, more exculpatory information about Strozk was released yesterday.

If any of what you wrote were true, this ruling wouldn't be so awful.

Oh, don't worry. What PP wrote is true. Newly released Strzok notes show that Comey said in the WH meeting that the Flynn calls "appear legit"....that Obama wanted the "right people" on the case...and Biden advocating for the Logan Act.

https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1275803339738021890

Do y'all have any idea what "exculpatory" means? Do you have a dictionary?

Sure. An example being that the FBI was going to drop their investigation because no derogatory information had been uncovered. Until Strzok got involved.
This wasn't given to the defense.

They hadn't talked to Flynn yet. Keeping the investigation open until that happens isn't good or bad, usual or unusual, exculpatory or inculpatory. It's just investigating.

But sure, lying to the FBI is fine. Now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It might be taken up by the entire DC Circuit Court. If not, it'll likely be treated as a one-off, similar to Bush v. Gore. Political rather than precedential. Which doesn't make the courts look good.

Actually, it is precedential. That was the basis of the appeal. DOJ asked it to be dropped.

As for the Defense, there was plenty of exculpatory information to show that the prosecution should never have happened. Misbehavior on the part of FBI and exculpatory information was withheld from defense. Apparently, more exculpatory information about Strozk was released yesterday.

If any of what you wrote were true, this ruling wouldn't be so awful.

Oh, don't worry. What PP wrote is true. Newly released Strzok notes show that Comey said in the WH meeting that the Flynn calls "appear legit"....that Obama wanted the "right people" on the case...and Biden advocating for the Logan Act.

https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1275803339738021890

Do y'all have any idea what "exculpatory" means? Do you have a dictionary?

Comey saying that the calls "appear legit" is exculpatory, in that it shows that the Crossfire Razor case should not have been continued.

"Appear legit."But were the phone calls actually legit? Flynn never explained. Neither did McFarland or Trump or anyone. No one knows.

[Anonymous]

Thread.....