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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Flynn just got smacked down by Judge Sullivan.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/us-judge-puts-on-hold-justice-dept-move-to-dismiss-michael-flynns-guilty-plea-to-hear-outside-groups-challenges/2020/05/12/2fb4e356-949d-11ea-82b4-c8db161ff6e5_story.html

Can’t wait for the unmaskings.

Sullivan is playing a game he will ultimately lose

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flynn just got smacked down by Judge Sullivan.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/us-judge-puts-on-hold-justice-dept-move-to-dismiss-michael-flynns-guilty-plea-to-hear-outside-groups-challenges/2020/05/12/2fb4e356-949d-11ea-82b4-c8db161ff6e5_story.html

Can’t wait for the unmaskings.

Sullivan is playing a game he will ultimately lose

All Sullivan is concerned with is Flynn. He has treated him very gently, in light of his military career and his political position. Allowing the sentencing to be postponed this long?

Flynn's loony lawyer has filed a bunch of loony motions that Sullivan has addressed. All of the sudden, the DOJ filed a loony motion. He was in an awkward position, so he's taken a predictable step.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flynn just got smacked down by Judge Sullivan.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/us-judge-puts-on-hold-justice-dept-move-to-dismiss-michael-flynns-guilty-plea-to-hear-outside-groups-challenges/2020/05/12/2fb4e356-949d-11ea-82b4-c8db161ff6e5_story.html

Can’t wait for the unmaskings.

Sullivan is playing a game he will ultimately lose

All Sullivan is concerned with is Flynn. He has treated him very gently, in light of his military career and his political position. Allowing the sentencing to be postponed this long?

Flynn's loony lawyer has filed a bunch of loony motions that Sullivan has addressed. All of the sudden, the DOJ filed a loony motion. He was in an awkward position, so he's taken a predictable step.

You mean a bunch of motions that finally resulted in the government turning over exculpatory evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding Obama weighing in on the Flynn decision........

Barack Obama on Michael Flynn
The lawyer President misstates the crime and the real threat to justice.



https://www.wsj.com/articles/barack-obama-on-michael-flynn-11589148648

Obama is in CYA mode. That includes trying to discredit Barr.

Exactly.

Except others who were directly involved have said their words were used out of context to draw the wrong conclusion. So, not exactly.

I guess that's why the judge wants briefs, from those who were involved, to clarify the DOJ document.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flynn just got smacked down by Judge Sullivan.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/us-judge-puts-on-hold-justice-dept-move-to-dismiss-michael-flynns-guilty-plea-to-hear-outside-groups-challenges/2020/05/12/2fb4e356-949d-11ea-82b4-c8db161ff6e5_story.html

Can’t wait for the unmaskings.

Sullivan is playing a game he will ultimately lose

All Sullivan is concerned with is Flynn. He has treated him very gently, in light of his military career and his political position. Allowing the sentencing to be postponed this long?

Flynn's loony lawyer has filed a bunch of loony motions that Sullivan has addressed. All of the sudden, the DOJ filed a loony motion. He was in an awkward position, so he's taken a predictable step.

Did you read them? Loony.

Or maybe that's the problem. Maybe you thought she was writing good motions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding Obama weighing in on the Flynn decision........

Barack Obama on Michael Flynn
The lawyer President misstates the crime and the real threat to justice.



https://www.wsj.com/articles/barack-obama-on-michael-flynn-11589148648

Obama is in CYA mode. That includes trying to discredit Barr.

Exactly.

Except others who were directly involved have said their words were used out of context to draw the wrong conclusion. So, not exactly.

I guess that's why the judge wants briefs, from those who were involved, to clarify the DOJ document.

At least this will allow those who wanted to file amicus briefs in the past, in support of Flynn, and were denied, to now be able to file them.

[Anonymous]

Great. Let’s hear again exactly why the Obama administration had serious misgivings about giving Michael Flynn access to our national security secrets. Let’s find out about how his work for other countries rang alarm bells Let’s find out why they tried to warn the incoming Trump administration that Flynn was not a good candidate for a sensitive role in National Security. This was about our national security

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great. Let’s hear again exactly why the Obama administration had serious misgivings about giving Michael Flynn access to our national security secrets. Let’s find out about how his work for other countries rang alarm bells Let’s find out why they tried to warn the incoming Trump administration that Flynn was not a good candidate for a sensitive role in National Security. This was about our national security

And let's get an official explanation as to why the Obama administration FBI moved to close the investigation after investigating all of this, and finding no derogatory evidence....yet reopening it under the guise of "getting him fired". Since when is "getting him fired" the "rule of law"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great. Let’s hear again exactly why the Obama administration had serious misgivings about giving Michael Flynn access to our national security secrets. Let’s find out about how his work for other countries rang alarm bells Let’s find out why they tried to warn the incoming Trump administration that Flynn was not a good candidate for a sensitive role in National Security. This was about our national security

And let's get an official explanation as to why the Obama administration FBI moved to close the investigation after investigating all of this, and finding no derogatory evidence....yet reopening it under the guise of "getting him fired". Since when is "getting him fired" the "rule of law"?

Come again? Who fired Flynn? And why was he lying to Vice POTUS? LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding Obama weighing in on the Flynn decision........

Barack Obama on Michael Flynn
The lawyer President misstates the crime and the real threat to justice.



https://www.wsj.com/articles/barack-obama-on-michael-flynn-11589148648

Obama is in CYA mode. That includes trying to discredit Barr.

Exactly.

Except others who were directly involved have said their words were used out of context to draw the wrong conclusion. So, not exactly.

I guess that's why the judge wants briefs, from those who were involved, to clarify the DOJ document.

At least this will allow those who wanted to file amicus briefs in the past, in support of Flynn, and were denied, to now be able to file them.

Sure. Knock yourself out. Support Flynn.

What's your legal argument?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great. Let’s hear again exactly why the Obama administration had serious misgivings about giving Michael Flynn access to our national security secrets. Let’s find out about how his work for other countries rang alarm bells Let’s find out why they tried to warn the incoming Trump administration that Flynn was not a good candidate for a sensitive role in National Security. This was about our national security

And let's get an official explanation as to why the Obama administration FBI moved to close the investigation after investigating all of this, and finding no derogatory evidence....yet reopening it under the guise of "getting him fired". Since when is "getting him fired" the "rule of law"?

Come again? Who fired Flynn? And why was he lying to Vice POTUS? LOL

Nice movement of the goalposts. I was responding to the assertion above that Flynn's setup was somehow justified because of the FBI's concerns about national security. The FBI didn't launch Crossfire Razor because of lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding Obama weighing in on the Flynn decision........

Barack Obama on Michael Flynn
The lawyer President misstates the crime and the real threat to justice.



https://www.wsj.com/articles/barack-obama-on-michael-flynn-11589148648

Obama is in CYA mode. That includes trying to discredit Barr.

Exactly.

Except others who were directly involved have said their words were used out of context to draw the wrong conclusion. So, not exactly.

I guess that's why the judge wants briefs, from those who were involved, to clarify the DOJ document.

At least this will allow those who wanted to file amicus briefs in the past, in support of Flynn, and were denied, to now be able to file them.

Sure. Knock yourself out. Support Flynn.

What's your legal argument?

See the Ted Stevens case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great. Let’s hear again exactly why the Obama administration had serious misgivings about giving Michael Flynn access to our national security secrets. Let’s find out about how his work for other countries rang alarm bells Let’s find out why they tried to warn the incoming Trump administration that Flynn was not a good candidate for a sensitive role in National Security. This was about our national security

And let's get an official explanation as to why the Obama administration FBI moved to close the investigation after investigating all of this, and finding no derogatory evidence....yet reopening it under the guise of "getting him fired". Since when is "getting him fired" the "rule of law"?

Come again? Who fired Flynn? And why was he lying to Vice POTUS? LOL

Nice movement of the goalposts. I was responding to the assertion above that Flynn's setup was somehow justified because of the FBI's concerns about national security. The FBI didn't launch Crossfire Razor because of lying.

Flynn has never said why he lied. Or why he spoke to Kislyak at all. Was it all on his own? Was it on Trump's orders? Or someone else's?

I don't know. You don't know. And you are hung up on nonsense instead of actual national security issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding Obama weighing in on the Flynn decision........

Barack Obama on Michael Flynn
The lawyer President misstates the crime and the real threat to justice.



https://www.wsj.com/articles/barack-obama-on-michael-flynn-11589148648

Obama is in CYA mode. That includes trying to discredit Barr.

Exactly.

Except others who were directly involved have said their words were used out of context to draw the wrong conclusion. So, not exactly.

I guess that's why the judge wants briefs, from those who were involved, to clarify the DOJ document.

At least this will allow those who wanted to file amicus briefs in the past, in support of Flynn, and were denied, to now be able to file them.

Sure. Knock yourself out. Support Flynn.

What's your legal argument?

See the Ted Stevens case.

IOW, you don't have a legal argument.

Why do you support Flynn? Is he a family member or friend?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding Obama weighing in on the Flynn decision........

Barack Obama on Michael Flynn
The lawyer President misstates the crime and the real threat to justice.



https://www.wsj.com/articles/barack-obama-on-michael-flynn-11589148648

Obama is in CYA mode. That includes trying to discredit Barr.

Exactly.

Except others who were directly involved have said their words were used out of context to draw the wrong conclusion. So, not exactly.

I guess that's why the judge wants briefs, from those who were involved, to clarify the DOJ document.

At least this will allow those who wanted to file amicus briefs in the past, in support of Flynn, and were denied, to now be able to file them.

Sure. Knock yourself out. Support Flynn.

What's your legal argument?

See the Ted Stevens case.

IOW, you don't have a legal argument.

Why do you support Flynn? Is he a family member or friend?

Prosecutorial misconduct is unacceptable. That is my legal argument. I don't care whether it is Flynn, Stevens, or Duke lacrosse players. It is wrong.