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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Covington Law Firm, Flynn's former representation, are now an interested party to the case.

This is going to get REALLY interesting.

Did they file an amicus brief?

The judge told them to file a notice of appearance.

Great. I hope he calls the former prosecutors who resigned as well. Let’s get all the way to the bottom of this. And Grenell should release the transcripts of his conversations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither the prosecution nor the defense are against the dismissal of the case against Flynn.

There's only one reason not to dismiss the charges.

Starts with a J. Ends with an Ustice.

DOJ proved the facts of the case, Flynn swore to them, the judge accepted them, and Flynn has awaited sentencing for several years.

Then new prosecutors said the law is different (it's not) and to drop the charges. Very unusual. Would it be right to agree? How?

We don't have a Justice System. We have a Legal System. You didn't get the memo?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither the prosecution nor the defense are against the dismissal of the case against Flynn.

There's only one reason not to dismiss the charges.

Starts with a J. Ends with an Ustice.

DOJ proved the facts of the case, Flynn swore to them, the judge accepted them, and Flynn has awaited sentencing for several years.

Then new prosecutors said the law is different (it's not) and to drop the charges. Very unusual. Would it be right to agree? How?

We don't have a Justice System. We have a Legal System. You didn't get the memo?

Flynn was already convicted. It's pretty late to try and drop the charges.

See, Barr? If you want a circus, you get a circus.

[Anonymous]

I know I'm late in the game here but didn't Flynn plead guilty?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither the prosecution nor the defense are against the dismissal of the case against Flynn.

There's only one reason not to dismiss the charges.

Starts with a J. Ends with an Ustice.

DOJ proved the facts of the case, Flynn swore to them, the judge accepted them, and Flynn has awaited sentencing for several years.

Then new prosecutors said the law is different (it's not) and to drop the charges. Very unusual. Would it be right to agree? How?

We don't have a Justice System. We have a Legal System. You didn't get the memo?

No. It appears they extracted a guilty plea under false pretenses: a threat to prosecute his son after he spend millions on legal fees.
The prosecutor did not turn over exculpatory information--to include the fact that the 302 was edited by people who were not legally supposed to do so.
There was much exculpatory information found in the documents by the US Attorney Jensen. Information that Van Grack did not turn over.
The initial interview with the FBI agents was not based on a crime. The day before the FBI was going to close the case, but Strozk made them keep it open. (the insurance policy, perhaps?) Therefore the "lie" was not material. And, whether he lied is questionable, in any case.

Why didn't van Grack turn over the exculpatory information when it was ordered?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither the prosecution nor the defense are against the dismissal of the case against Flynn.

There's only one reason not to dismiss the charges.

Starts with a J. Ends with an Ustice.

DOJ proved the facts of the case, Flynn swore to them, the judge accepted them, and Flynn has awaited sentencing for several years.

Then new prosecutors said the law is different (it's not) and to drop the charges. Very unusual. Would it be right to agree? How?

We don't have a Justice System. We have a Legal System. You didn't get the memo?

No. It appears they extracted a guilty plea under false pretenses: a threat to prosecute his son after he spend millions on legal fees.
The prosecutor did not turn over exculpatory information--to include the fact that the 302 was edited by people who were not legally supposed to do so.
There was much exculpatory information found in the documents by the US Attorney Jensen. Information that Van Grack did not turn over.
The initial interview with the FBI agents was not based on a crime. The day before the FBI was going to close the case, but Strozk made them keep it open. (the insurance policy, perhaps?) Therefore the "lie" was not material. And, whether he lied is questionable, in any case.

Why didn't van Grack turn over the exculpatory information when it was ordered?

All that you have listed is either false or not exculpatory.

When Judge Sullivan ignores all of it, you're going to complain that he's bought, a lefty, in Obama's pocket, etc. Same for Gleeson, I'm sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither the prosecution nor the defense are against the dismissal of the case against Flynn.

There's only one reason not to dismiss the charges.

Starts with a J. Ends with an Ustice.

DOJ proved the facts of the case, Flynn swore to them, the judge accepted them, and Flynn has awaited sentencing for several years.

Then new prosecutors said the law is different (it's not) and to drop the charges. Very unusual. Would it be right to agree? How?

We don't have a Justice System. We have a Legal System. You didn't get the memo?

Flynn was already convicted. It's pretty late to try and drop the charges.

See, Barr? If you want a circus, you get a circus.

If new evidence comes forward that the conviction was based on bad evidence or made up evidence or evidence from the prosecution had in favor of the defense team that was never brought to light (Brady material), then the charges can be dropped. You know this.

Why are you even arguing it? You're acting like a partisan hack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No. It appears they extracted a guilty plea under false pretenses: a threat to prosecute his son after he spend millions on legal fees.
The prosecutor did not turn over exculpatory information--to include the fact that the 302 was edited by people who were not legally supposed to do so.
There was much exculpatory information found in the documents by the US Attorney Jensen. Information that Van Grack did not turn over.
The initial interview with the FBI agents was not based on a crime. The day before the FBI was going to close the case, but Strozk made them keep it open. (the insurance policy, perhaps?) Therefore the "lie" was not material. And, whether he lied is questionable, in any case.

Why didn't van Grack turn over the exculpatory information when it was ordered?

Be prepared by what you hear from the Covington attorney's and the people whose 302's were misrepresented by the DOJ and Barr in the withdrawl filing. Just warning you now, the people who lied to you about Pizzagate and Uranium One are lying to you about this. The sad thing, they lied to the judge too, and he knows it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither the prosecution nor the defense are against the dismissal of the case against Flynn.

There's only one reason not to dismiss the charges.

Starts with a J. Ends with an Ustice.

DOJ proved the facts of the case, Flynn swore to them, the judge accepted them, and Flynn has awaited sentencing for several years.

Then new prosecutors said the law is different (it's not) and to drop the charges. Very unusual. Would it be right to agree? How?

We don't have a Justice System. We have a Legal System. You didn't get the memo?

No. It appears they extracted a guilty plea under false pretenses: a threat to prosecute his son after he spend millions on legal fees.
The prosecutor did not turn over exculpatory information--to include the fact that the 302 was edited by people who were not legally supposed to do so.
There was much exculpatory information found in the documents by the US Attorney Jensen. Information that Van Grack did not turn over.
The initial interview with the FBI agents was not based on a crime. The day before the FBI was going to close the case, but Strozk made them keep it open. (the insurance policy, perhaps?) Therefore the "lie" was not material. And, whether he lied is questionable, in any case.

Why didn't van Grack turn over the exculpatory information when it was ordered?

So what you're saying is a guilty plea was extracted under duress and not of his own free will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If new evidence comes forward that the conviction was based on bad evidence or made up evidence or evidence from the prosecution had in favor of the defense team that was never brought to light (Brady material), then the charges can be dropped. You know this.

Why are you even arguing it? You're acting like a partisan hack.

It wasn't. It was willfully misconstrued for your benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If new evidence comes forward that the conviction was based on bad evidence or made up evidence or evidence from the prosecution had in favor of the defense team that was never brought to light (Brady material), then the charges can be dropped. You know this.

Why are you even arguing it? You're acting like a partisan hack.

It wasn't. It was willfully misconstrued for your benefit.

I guess we're gonna find that out relatively soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither the prosecution nor the defense are against the dismissal of the case against Flynn.

There's only one reason not to dismiss the charges.

Starts with a J. Ends with an Ustice.

DOJ proved the facts of the case, Flynn swore to them, the judge accepted them, and Flynn has awaited sentencing for several years.

Then new prosecutors said the law is different (it's not) and to drop the charges. Very unusual. Would it be right to agree? How?

We don't have a Justice System. We have a Legal System. You didn't get the memo?

Flynn was already convicted. It's pretty late to try and drop the charges.

See, Barr? If you want a circus, you get a circus.

If new evidence comes forward that the conviction was based on bad evidence or made up evidence or evidence from the prosecution had in favor of the defense team that was never brought to light (Brady material), then the charges can be dropped. You know this.

Why are you even arguing it? You're acting like a partisan hack.

Yes, there are times to drop charges after conviction. (Did you even read the motion? It's not about nee evidence or bad evidence or prosecutorial misconduct. It is about misstating materiality.)

This is not one.

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile there were 25 amicus brief requests on behalf of General Flynn that Judge Sullivan denied... hypocrite hack for the Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither the prosecution nor the defense are against the dismissal of the case against Flynn.

There's only one reason not to dismiss the charges.

Starts with a J. Ends with an Ustice.

DOJ proved the facts of the case, Flynn swore to them, the judge accepted them, and Flynn has awaited sentencing for several years.

Then new prosecutors said the law is different (it's not) and to drop the charges. Very unusual. Would it be right to agree? How?

We don't have a Justice System. We have a Legal System. You didn't get the memo?

No. It appears they extracted a guilty plea under false pretenses: a threat to prosecute his son after he spend millions on legal fees.
The prosecutor did not turn over exculpatory information--to include the fact that the 302 was edited by people who were not legally supposed to do so.
There was much exculpatory information found in the documents by the US Attorney Jensen. Information that Van Grack did not turn over.
The initial interview with the FBI agents was not based on a crime. The day before the FBI was going to close the case, but Strozk made them keep it open. (the insurance policy, perhaps?) Therefore the "lie" was not material. And, whether he lied is questionable, in any case.

Why didn't van Grack turn over the exculpatory information when it was ordered?

Good summary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile there were 25 amicus brief requests on behalf of General Flynn that Judge Sullivan denied... hypocrite hack for the Democrats.

Source for this?