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

[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.

As I said, he applied for the job.

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

Just like Barr did. What's that they say about the goose and the gander?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You clearly have never been in a deposition or conducted testimony. The literal request was not for Mr. Flynn, it was for <masked American,> thusm she never would have had occasion to make such a request, thus, she has no recollection of making such a request. Reframe the question and you likely would get a different answer. But the answer to THAT question is 100% fine.

[Anonymous]

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.

He cooperated. There was no collusion. Had there been, they would have found evidence. Go look at the Congressional testimony. Look at how this whole thing started: leaks of a fake dossier and a FISA on Carter Page. It was all created in the hopes of finding something or creating something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did you notice anything a bit unusual about the Mueller charges? They were all plea deals. No looooong trials. Only plea deals.

The Rafiekian trial took several years and was thrown out late last year. Flynn's conviction happened much quicker. Although it the sentencing has gotten very delayed and very strange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He cooperated. There was no collusion. Had there been, they would have found evidence. Go look at the Congressional testimony. Look at how this whole thing started: leaks of a fake dossier and a FISA on Carter Page. It was all created in the hopes of finding something or creating something.

If it's what you say, I love it.

Trump et al played the Really Too Dumb To Collude card and won. I guess that's a win for the American public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He cooperated. There was no collusion. Had there been, they would have found evidence. Go look at the Congressional testimony. Look at how this whole thing started: leaks of a fake dossier and a FISA on Carter Page. It was all created in the hopes of finding something or creating something.

[google]

He didn't cooperate very much. That's why he initially delayed his sentencing hearing. Because he didn't have any cooperation to show the judge to justify the lenient sentencing recommendation from the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You clearly have never been in a deposition or conducted testimony. The literal request was not for Mr. Flynn, it was for <masked American,> thusm she never would have had occasion to make such a request, thus, she has no recollection of making such a request. Reframe the question and you likely would get a different answer. But the answer to THAT question is 100% fine.

And, you are parsing words. If you read the rest of her testimony and the way she uses "making a request" she is lying.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sp40.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You clearly have never been in a deposition or conducted testimony. The literal request was not for Mr. Flynn, it was for <masked American,> thusm she never would have had occasion to make such a request, thus, she has no recollection of making such a request. Reframe the question and you likely would get a different answer. But the answer to THAT question is 100% fine.

And, you are parsing words. If you read the rest of her testimony and the way she uses "making a request" she is lying.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sp40.pdf

Parsing is an art in testimony. Ask the question properly and you will get an answer responsive to the question. She NEVER asked for information on Flynn. Her testimony is not perjury by any stretch of the imagination. Spare the outrage, everyone does this. Look at the testimony before the House and Senate of various Trump nominees and appointees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You clearly have never been in a deposition or conducted testimony. The literal request was not for Mr. Flynn, it was for <masked American,> thusm she never would have had occasion to make such a request, thus, she has no recollection of making such a request. Reframe the question and you likely would get a different answer. But the answer to THAT question is 100% fine.

And, you are parsing words. If you read the rest of her testimony and the way she uses "making a request" she is lying.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sp40.pdf

And you are obviously not a legal eagle.

[Anonymous]

Anyone in EDNY Justice from 1985-1994, who prosecuted Gambino and Genovese crime families, knows that Trump was their business front and one of the biggest rats ever to have squealed and cried his way out of his own indictments.

This is going to get interesting.

[Anonymous]

Call em like you see em

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Call em like you see em

Yep. He can also throw out the DOJ motion if it does not serve justice. Right, Judge?

It's true, the judge's actions have been bananas. But the DOJ acted in a blatantly political manner in their bananas motion. What did they think would happen?

[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?

Trump is going to pardon Flynn regardless but it's fun to see these idiots hang themselves on the rope Trump is giving them.

[Anonymous]

Also, these key words in the NSA memo released today aren’t getting enough attention:

“Each individual was an authorized recipient of the original report & THE UNMASKING WAS APPROVED THROUGH NSA’S STANDARD PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDES A REVIEW OF THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, these key words in the NSA memo released today aren’t getting enough attention:

“Each individual was an authorized recipient of the original report & THE UNMASKING WAS APPROVED THROUGH NSA’S STANDARD PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDES A REVIEW OF THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST.”

And, it's a low bar to cross. Just like the FISA court.