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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gleason is on the case. Ooooh, this is going to be great.

The man who brought down the Gambino family is brought out of retirement to do it again.

Is the right going to say Gleason is a partisan hack?

He is not in retirement. He is a criminal defense attorney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which Obamaite leaked to wapo???? That is a crime

Agree, that is a crime.

Conspiring against the US, planning a kidnapping of a foreign national on US soil and sharing nuclear secrets are bigger crimes. How about let's start with the bigger crimes and then we can get to the leaking to the journalist crime.

The prosecutors who ultimately charged Flynn with false statements had plenty of opportunities to charge him with these crimes that your allege. They didn't. And no, I'm sorry, they didn't trade those off for a false statements charge (which would have been incomprehensible to do, given the very serious nature of these supposed other crimes he committed). Even if they did somehow agree to not charge him with those crimes, they would have to disclose them in the plea deal.

It's called pleading down to a lesser charge--it happens every day.

1. Have you seen the plea deal? That's right, no you haven't because that's a privileged document.

2. Were you privy to the discussion surrounding how and what to charge Flynn with? Of course not.

Stop talking out of your ass.

[Anonymous]

It is so hard to understand how anyone, from Trump and Barr to people in this thread, are defending Misha Flynn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gleason is on the case. Ooooh, this is going to be great.

The man who brought down the Gambino family is brought out of retirement to do it again.

Is the right going to say Gleason is a partisan hack?

He is not in retirement. He is a criminal defense attorney.

NP here. Yes, genius--but he's a retired AUSA..

[Anonymous]

Actual republican Joe Walsh gets it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems that Samantha Powell was, ahem, less than truthful.

Requests for unmasking are legal and common and not at all synonymous with “leaking.”

She testified, before Congress, that she could not recall making any unmasking requests for Flynn. Yet, she did. 7 times.

That is not lying. If she didn't remember, she didn't remember. there was a lot going on at the time.

She couldn't remember? SEVEN TIMES????

She has about as good as a recollection as Hillary Clinton.

Sorry, doesn't pass the smell test.

Again, when making this request, the requester does not know who the <unnamed american> is in the transcripts, hence the request to unmaks the name. Ergo, if asked seven times about Mr. Flynn, the proper answer is "I didn't know the identity of the person in the transcript" ergo didn't know it was Mr. Flynn specifically. That is the whole point of the process and hence why this wasn't a lie. In fact, it would have been problematic if the requester actually knew who the person was in advance.

OMG.
You can't help but cover for the last administration.
At the time she testified, the unmasking had been done - 7 times - so she had Flynn's name at that point.

The correct answer is NNOT, "I have no recollection of making a request related to General Flynn." Because at the time she testified, she knew her requests were related to General Flynn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gleason is on the case. Ooooh, this is going to be great.

The man who brought down the Gambino family is brought out of retirement to do it again.

Is the right going to say Gleason is a partisan hack?

He is not in retirement. He is a criminal defense attorney.

NP here. Yes, genius--but he's a retired AUSA..

Meant to add: AND a retired judge. Judges just love it when a defendant's plea breaks down because of outside interference!

This going to be brutal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gleason is on the case. Ooooh, this is going to be great.

The man who brought down the Gambino family is brought out of retirement to do it again.

Is the right going to say Gleason is a partisan hack?

He is not in retirement. He is a criminal defense attorney.

NP here. Yes, genius--but he's a retired AUSA..

Then how is he being "brought out of retirement"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gleason is on the case. Ooooh, this is going to be great.

The man who brought down the Gambino family is brought out of retirement to do it again.

Is the right going to say Gleason is a partisan hack?

He is not in retirement. He is a criminal defense attorney.

As I said, he applied for the job.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/11...ver-until-judge-says-its-over/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems that Samantha Powell was, ahem, less than truthful.

Requests for unmasking are legal and common and not at all synonymous with “leaking.”

She testified, before Congress, that she could not recall making any unmasking requests for Flynn. Yet, she did. 7 times.

That is not lying. If she didn't remember, she didn't remember. there was a lot going on at the time.

She couldn't remember? SEVEN TIMES????

She has about as good as a recollection as Hillary Clinton.

Sorry, doesn't pass the smell test.

Again, when making this request, the requester does not know who the <unnamed american> is in the transcripts, hence the request to unmaks the name. Ergo, if asked seven times about Mr. Flynn, the proper answer is "I didn't know the identity of the person in the transcript" ergo didn't know it was Mr. Flynn specifically. That is the whole point of the process and hence why this wasn't a lie. In fact, it would have been problematic if the requester actually knew who the person was in advance.

OMG.
You can't help but cover for the last administration.
At the time she testified, the unmasking had been done - 7 times - so she had Flynn's name at that point.

The correct answer is NNOT, "I have no recollection of making a request related to General Flynn." Because at the time she testified, she knew her requests were related to General Flynn.

She couldn't remember how many times Flynn had been unmasked. You can't remember her name.

Even?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which Obamaite leaked to wapo???? That is a crime

Agree, that is a crime.

Conspiring against the US, planning a kidnapping of a foreign national on US soil and sharing nuclear secrets are bigger crimes. How about let's start with the bigger crimes and then we can get to the leaking to the journalist crime.

The prosecutors who ultimately charged Flynn with false statements had plenty of opportunities to charge him with these crimes that your allege. They didn't. And no, I'm sorry, they didn't trade those off for a false statements charge (which would have been incomprehensible to do, given the very serious nature of these supposed other crimes he committed). Even if they did somehow agree to not charge him with those crimes, they would have to disclose them in the plea deal.

It's called pleading down to a lesser charge--it happens every day.

1. Have you seen the plea deal? That's right, no you haven't because that's a privileged document.

2. Were you privy to the discussion surrounding how and what to charge Flynn with? Of course not.

Stop talking out of your ass.

DP.
I would find it absolutely remarkable if they had any evidence of the crimes the pp listed above and ended up charging him with lying to the FBI.
That would be crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which Obamaite leaked to wapo???? That is a crime

Agree, that is a crime.

Conspiring against the US, planning a kidnapping of a foreign national on US soil and sharing nuclear secrets are bigger crimes. How about let's start with the bigger crimes and then we can get to the leaking to the journalist crime.

The prosecutors who ultimately charged Flynn with false statements had plenty of opportunities to charge him with these crimes that your allege. They didn't. And no, I'm sorry, they didn't trade those off for a false statements charge (which would have been incomprehensible to do, given the very serious nature of these supposed other crimes he committed). Even if they did somehow agree to not charge him with those crimes, they would have to disclose them in the plea deal.

It's called pleading down to a lesser charge--it happens every day.

1. Have you seen the plea deal? That's right, no you haven't because that's a privileged document.

2. Were you privy to the discussion surrounding how and what to charge Flynn with? Of course not.

Stop talking out of your ass.

DP.
I would find it absolutely remarkable if they had any evidence of the crimes the pp listed above and ended up charging him with lying to the FBI.
That would be crazy.

Rafiekian...

They weren't so interested in Flynn for his own crimes. They wanted to find out if he was criming all by himself or at Trump's command. They never found out because he "couldn't remember". But most of his crimes did seem to be his own, unrelated to Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems that Samantha Powell was, ahem, less than truthful.

Requests for unmasking are legal and common and not at all synonymous with “leaking.”

She testified, before Congress, that she could not recall making any unmasking requests for Flynn. Yet, she did. 7 times.

That is not lying. If she didn't remember, she didn't remember. there was a lot going on at the time.

She couldn't remember? SEVEN TIMES????

She has about as good as a recollection as Hillary Clinton.

Sorry, doesn't pass the smell test.

Again, when making this request, the requester does not know who the <unnamed american> is in the transcripts, hence the request to unmaks the name. Ergo, if asked seven times about Mr. Flynn, the proper answer is "I didn't know the identity of the person in the transcript" ergo didn't know it was Mr. Flynn specifically. That is the whole point of the process and hence why this wasn't a lie. In fact, it would have been problematic if the requester actually knew who the person was in advance.

OMG.
You can't help but cover for the last administration.
At the time she testified, the unmasking had been done - 7 times - so she had Flynn's name at that point.

The correct answer is NNOT, "I have no recollection of making a request related to General Flynn." Because at the time she testified, she knew her requests were related to General Flynn.

She couldn't remember how many times Flynn had been unmasked. You can't remember her name.

Even?

Power wasn't asked HOW MANY TIMES. She was asked if she EVER unmasked Flynn. And, she said she "could not recall ever" doing it. After doing it 7 times.
She lied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which Obamaite leaked to wapo???? That is a crime

Agree, that is a crime.

Conspiring against the US, planning a kidnapping of a foreign national on US soil and sharing nuclear secrets are bigger crimes. How about let's start with the bigger crimes and then we can get to the leaking to the journalist crime.

The prosecutors who ultimately charged Flynn with false statements had plenty of opportunities to charge him with these crimes that your allege. They didn't. And no, I'm sorry, they didn't trade those off for a false statements charge (which would have been incomprehensible to do, given the very serious nature of these supposed other crimes he committed). Even if they did somehow agree to not charge him with those crimes, they would have to disclose them in the plea deal.

It's called pleading down to a lesser charge--it happens every day.

1. Have you seen the plea deal? That's right, no you haven't because that's a privileged document.

2. Were you privy to the discussion surrounding how and what to charge Flynn with? Of course not.

Stop talking out of your ass.

DP.
I would find it absolutely remarkable if they had any evidence of the crimes the pp listed above and ended up charging him with lying to the FBI.
That would be crazy.

Rafiekian...

They weren't so interested in Flynn for his own crimes. They wanted to find out if he was criming all by himself or at Trump's command. They never found out because he "couldn't remember". But most of his crimes did seem to be his own, unrelated to Trump.

But, they got nothing from him. Why allow him to plea to a lesser charge (a huge difference) if they get nothing? It doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which Obamaite leaked to wapo???? That is a crime

Agree, that is a crime.

Conspiring against the US, planning a kidnapping of a foreign national on US soil and sharing nuclear secrets are bigger crimes. How about let's start with the bigger crimes and then we can get to the leaking to the journalist crime.

The prosecutors who ultimately charged Flynn with false statements had plenty of opportunities to charge him with these crimes that your allege. They didn't. And no, I'm sorry, they didn't trade those off for a false statements charge (which would have been incomprehensible to do, given the very serious nature of these supposed other crimes he committed). Even if they did somehow agree to not charge him with those crimes, they would have to disclose them in the plea deal.

It's called pleading down to a lesser charge--it happens every day.

1. Have you seen the plea deal? That's right, no you haven't because that's a privileged document.

2. Were you privy to the discussion surrounding how and what to charge Flynn with? Of course not.

Stop talking out of your ass.

The plea deal has been available online since December 2017. There is nothing in it about any of these other crimes, and no "pleading down".

You should stop talking out of yours.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/michael-flynn-plea-agreement-documents