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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems problematic

Huh. Flynn ought to know better. But I guess he doesn’t.

Flynn ought to know better about a lot of things but he doesn't. Same is true of Powell. Two loons together.

[Anonymous]

OMG, the exhibits are towards the end of the thread. Different pen etc. Seems pretty obvious

[Anonymous]

I keep thinking about that time a federal grand jury indicted the Attorney General "John N. Mitchell, former Attorney General and director of Mr. Nixon's 1968 and 1972 Presidential campaigns—conspiracy, obstruction of justice, false statements to the F.B.I., false statements to the grand jury and perjury..." https://www.nytimes.com/1974/03/02/archives/federal-grand-jury-indicts-7-nixon-aides-on-charges-of-conspiracy.html

Barr will end up in jail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is pretty damning.....

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents tasked by fired former Director James Comey to take down Donald Trump during and after the 2016 election were so concerned about the agency’s potentially illegal behavior that they purchased liability insurance to protect themselves less than two weeks before Trump was inaugurated president, previously hidden FBI text messages show. The explosive new communications and internal FBI notes were disclosed in federal court filings today from Sidney Powell, the attorney who heads Michael Flynn’s legal defense team.

“[W]e all went and purchased professional liability insurance,” one agent texted on Jan. 10, 2017, the same day CNN leaked details that then-President-elect Trump had been briefed by Comey about the bogus Christopher Steele dossier. That briefing of Trump was used as a pretext to legitimize the debunked dossier, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign and compiled by a foreign intelligence officer who was working for a sanctioned Russian oligarch.

“Holy crap,” an agent responded. “All the analysts too?”

“Yep,” the first agent said. “All the folks at the Agency as well.”

“[C]an I ask who are the most likely litigators?” an agent responded. “[A]s far as potentially suing y’all[?]”

“[H]aha, who knows….I think [t]he concern when we got it was that there was a big leak at DOJ and the NYT among others was going to do a piece,” the first agent said.

While the names of the agents responsible for the texts are redacted, the legal filing from Powell, quoting communications from the Department of Justice (DOJ

https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/24/trump-was-right-explosive-new-fbi-texts-detail-internal-furor-over-handling-of-crossfire-hurricane-investigation/

The Federalist?

Also, it's very common for IC people to have PLI. It's not out of the ordinary in the least.

This is BS.

DP. Can’t speak to the IC particularly, but it’s not uncommon at all for attorneys employed by the federal government to carry liability insurance. Same for managerial-level. It’s more common in some agencies than others, though, depending on how often legal action is taken against people from those agencies.

My spouse worked for the FBI and has never heard of it, nor was ever offered it.

. If one works in certain areas or on certain topics, then PLI is definitely offered/recommended. Given they were investigating POTUS, they would be stupid not to get it. Not sure what your spouse did that wouldn't warrant PLI, but I have purchased PLI every year for more than 10 years.

[Anonymous]

DOJ has been altering records in the Mike Flynn case.

Kevin Clinesmith just pled guilty for doing that.

#winning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems problematic

Huh. Flynn ought to know better. But I guess he doesn’t.

Flynn ought to know better about a lot of things but he doesn't. Same is true of Powell. Two loons together.

Well, since the defense received COPIES of these, there should be a simple way to check if Strzok's allegations are true. I doubt they are.
Barr would not alter evidence. Nor would Powell. They don't have to. The evidence itself is damning.
And, anyone who posts a thread by Eric Garland loses credibility. How many "pants on fire" threads did he push during the Russia investigation that turned out to be lies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I keep thinking about that time a federal grand jury indicted the Attorney General "John N. Mitchell, former Attorney General and director of Mr. Nixon's 1968 and 1972 Presidential campaigns—conspiracy, obstruction of justice, false statements to the F.B.I., false statements to the grand jury and perjury..." https://www.nytimes.com/1974/03/02/archives/federal-grand-jury-indicts-7-nixon-aides-on-charges-of-conspiracy.html

Barr will end up in jail.

I'd recommend getting a grip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems problematic

Huh. Flynn ought to know better. But I guess he doesn’t.

Flynn ought to know better about a lot of things but he doesn't. Same is true of Powell. Two loons together.

Well, since the defense received COPIES of these, there should be a simple way to check if Strzok's allegations are true. I doubt they are.
Barr would not alter evidence. Nor would Powell. They don't have to. The evidence itself is damning.
And, anyone who posts a thread by Eric Garland loses credibility. How many "pants on fire" threads did he push during the Russia investigation that turned out to be lies?

Barr is basically colluding with Flynn/Powell to get the case dropped, so I don’t think we can count on the DOJ to provide the gaming evidence against the defense here.

[Anonymous]

This to me looks like the dates are just written on multi-color post-it flags that were then photocopied, not written additions of the dates to the actual hard copies:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems problematic

Huh. Flynn ought to know better. But I guess he doesn’t.

Flynn ought to know better about a lot of things but he doesn't. Same is true of Powell. Two loons together.

Well, since the defense received COPIES of these, there should be a simple way to check if Strzok's allegations are true. I doubt they are.
Barr would not alter evidence. Nor would Powell. They don't have to. The evidence itself is damning.
And, anyone who posts a thread by Eric Garland loses credibility. How many "pants on fire" threads did he push during the Russia investigation that turned out to be lies?

Barr is basically colluding with Flynn/Powell to get the case dropped, so I don’t think we can count on the DOJ to provide the gaming evidence against the defense here.

Colluding? LOL.
You folks are obsessed with that word.

The DOJ had their chance to present the evidence - for over 2 years. Problem is - they seem to have held back much of the evidence that was exculpatory to General Flynn. That is becoming increasingly obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This to me looks like the dates are just written on multi-color post-it flags that were then photocopied, not written additions of the dates to the actual hard copies:

That's highlighting, moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This to me looks like the dates are just written on multi-color post-it flags that were then photocopied, not written additions of the dates to the actual hard copies:

Other tweets show the docs without the yellow, without the highlighting. That was added by one of the tweeters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems problematic

Huh. Flynn ought to know better. But I guess he doesn’t.

Flynn ought to know better about a lot of things but he doesn't. Same is true of Powell. Two loons together.

Well, since the defense received COPIES of these, there should be a simple way to check if Strzok's allegations are true. I doubt they are.
Barr would not alter evidence. Nor would Powell. They don't have to. The evidence itself is damning.
And, anyone who posts a thread by Eric Garland loses credibility. How many "pants on fire" threads did he push during the Russia investigation that turned out to be lies?

Barr is basically colluding with Flynn/Powell to get the case dropped, so I don’t think we can count on the DOJ to provide the gaming evidence against the defense here.

Colluding? LOL.
You folks are obsessed with that word.

The DOJ had their chance to present the evidence - for over 2 years. Problem is - they seem to have held back much of the evidence that was exculpatory to General Flynn. That is becoming increasingly obvious.

Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This to me looks like the dates are just written on multi-color post-it flags that were then photocopied, not written additions of the dates to the actual hard copies:

That's highlighting, moron.

The highlighting is not what i’m referring to. I’m saying the date is obviously written on post it tabs rather than being written directly on the document.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This to me looks like the dates are just written on multi-color post-it flags that were then photocopied, not written additions of the dates to the actual hard copies:

That's highlighting, moron.

The highlighting is not what i’m referring to. I’m saying the date is obviously written on post it tabs rather than being written directly on the document.

Look at the letter of transmittal along with the document as submitted to the court.

You are still a Trumphumping moron.