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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Shea's motion was pretty awful. Is it misconduct? Maybe.

I doubt that's what you're referring to though. You're probably stuck on the "missing 302" nonsense or possibly Mifsud's posthumous phone contents.

[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

+1
It’s about that and it’s about why the GOP doesn’t care about national security at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Shea's motion was pretty awful. Is it misconduct? Maybe.

I doubt that's what you're referring to though. You're probably stuck on the "missing 302" nonsense or possibly Mifsud's posthumous phone contents.

In February of 2018, the Judge ordered the prosecution to provide all exculpatory evidence to Flynn. He ordered it sua sponte. They were supposed to provide it during plea negotiations. It took them over 2 years from the date of his order, to provide it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Shea's motion was pretty awful. Is it misconduct? Maybe.

I doubt that's what you're referring to though. You're probably stuck on the "missing 302" nonsense or possibly Mifsud's posthumous phone contents.

In February of 2018, the Judge ordered the prosecution to provide all exculpatory evidence to Flynn. He ordered it sua sponte. They were supposed to provide it during plea negotiations. It took them over 2 years from the date of his order, to provide it.

+100
And, in the end, the prosecution were not the ones that provided it.
A separate investigator did.

[Anonymous]

^ and it’s wasn’t actually exculpatory. So... who cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ and it’s wasn’t actually exculpatory. So... who cares.

Either you didn't read it or you are too partisan to understand.

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

Or, maybe the Obama administration did not want Flynn to find out how they had been spying on the Trump campaign. Since, there was no collusion, that seems much more likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ and it’s wasn’t actually exculpatory. So... who cares.

The defense cares. The order from the judge was specific. It said that all "favorable" evidence must be provided. It has to be provided during plea negotiations. It wasn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ and it’s wasn’t actually exculpatory. So... who cares.

The defense cares. The order from the judge was specific. It said that all "favorable" evidence must be provided. It has to be provided during plea negotiations. It wasn't.

+100
And, the fact that the FBI was planning to close the investigation of Flynn prior to Strzok intervening would come under that category.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ and it’s wasn’t actually exculpatory. So... who cares.

The defense cares. The order from the judge was specific. It said that all "favorable" evidence must be provided. It has to be provided during plea negotiations. It wasn't.

Privileged evidence that isn't exculpatory isn't turned over unless political partisans get involved.

That's not a win for anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ and it’s wasn’t actually exculpatory. So... who cares.

The defense cares. The order from the judge was specific. It said that all "favorable" evidence must be provided. It has to be provided during plea negotiations. It wasn't.

+100
And, the fact that the FBI was planning to close the investigation of Flynn prior to Strzok intervening would come under that category.

That's ... not how law enforcement works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ and it’s wasn’t actually exculpatory. So... who cares.

The defense cares. The order from the judge was specific. It said that all "favorable" evidence must be provided. It has to be provided during plea negotiations. It wasn't.

+100
And, the fact that the FBI was planning to close the investigation of Flynn prior to Strzok intervening would come under that category.

That's ... not how law enforcement works.

We know. Something corrupt was going on with Flynn from the get-go.
And, you are right. That his not how law enforcement works. Or, it isn't supposed to be.

[Anonymous]

See I thought the NSA wasn’t supposed to be a compromised traitor. I thought that was how it worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ and it’s wasn’t actually exculpatory. So... who cares.

Either you didn't read it or you are too partisan to understand.

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

Or, maybe the Obama administration did not want Flynn to find out how they had been spying on the Trump campaign. Since, there was no collusion, that seems much more likely.

Well, that runs counter to the Trump legal philosophy that the president can do whatever he pleases. Or is it that Trump can do whatever he pleases but everyone else is a criminal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:See I thought the NSA wasn’t supposed to be a compromised traitor. I thought that was how it worked.

Then if that was the case, why wasn't he charged with that? Why the "no derogatory information" declaration from the FBI?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See I thought the NSA wasn’t supposed to be a compromised traitor. I thought that was how it worked.

Then if that was the case, why wasn't he charged with that? Why the "no derogatory information" declaration from the FBI?

He’s gotten kid gloves from the start, and it still is too much for the Trumpisphere. They can not have consequences.