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:Why don’t they just release the transcripts of the call. Then we can all hear what he said to the Russians.

What he said matters not at this point.
What did he say to the FBI agents is at question here. And, what did the FBI agents write in the 302. That is what is pertinent.
Because, Comey testified they thought he was being truthful.

But that's not pertinent.

Yes, it actually is. Because they shared with him the contents of the 302 that they wrote immediately after the interview. The one that is missing.

No, their opinion of his truthfulness only speaks to his ability to lie convincingly. It doesn't mean he was truthful.

This isn't difficult.

Then how did the prosecutor know that Flynn lied knowingly and willfully? The agents specifically noted the opposite.

Because what he said in the interview was very different from what the transcript of the calls said.

That's why it was clear that he had lied to Pence, Priebus and Spicer, and the FBI.

The agents knew what the transcripts said. If what he said in the interview was "very different", which the agents would have known at the time, why would they characterize the interview the way that they did?

Apparently he's very convincing...

He's convinced you and presumably you haven't even met him.

I'm not the expert in conducting FBI interviews...therefore I'm not qualified to determine whether I think he was intentionally lying or not. I have to go by what the agents (and Comey) said about the interview (rather, what they initially said...not version #2 or #3 or whatever).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they just release the transcripts of the call. Then we can all hear what he said to the Russians.

What he said matters not at this point.
What did he say to the FBI agents is at question here. And, what did the FBI agents write in the 302. That is what is pertinent.
Because, Comey testified they thought he was being truthful.

But that's not pertinent.

Yes, it actually is. Because they shared with him the contents of the 302 that they wrote immediately after the interview. The one that is missing.

No, their opinion of his truthfulness only speaks to his ability to lie convincingly. It doesn't mean he was truthful.

This isn't difficult.

Then how did the prosecutor know that Flynn lied knowingly and willfully? The agents specifically noted the opposite.

Because what he said in the interview was very different from what the transcript of the calls said.

That's why it was clear that he had lied to Pence, Priebus and Spicer, and the FBI.

The agents knew what the transcripts said. If what he said in the interview was "very different", which the agents would have known at the time, why would they characterize the interview the way that they did?

Apparently he's very convincing...

He's convinced you and presumably you haven't even met him.

I'm not the expert in conducting FBI interviews...therefore I'm not qualified to determine whether I think he was intentionally lying or not. I have to go by what the agents (and Comey) said about the interview (rather, what they initially said...not version #2 or #3 or whatever).

But sometimes it takes a while to realize you've been lied to, that you've been had.

Have you never been lied to?

[Anonymous]

But sometimes it takes a while to realize you've been lied to, that you've been had.

Have you never been lied to?

Like when someone who wasn't even there does the final edit on the 302----which, by the way, is illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they just release the transcripts of the call. Then we can all hear what he said to the Russians.

What he said matters not at this point.
What did he say to the FBI agents is at question here. And, what did the FBI agents write in the 302. That is what is pertinent.
Because, Comey testified they thought he was being truthful.

But that's not pertinent.

Yes, it actually is. Because they shared with him the contents of the 302 that they wrote immediately after the interview. The one that is missing.

No, their opinion of his truthfulness only speaks to his ability to lie convincingly. It doesn't mean he was truthful.

This isn't difficult.

Then how did the prosecutor know that Flynn lied knowingly and willfully? The agents specifically noted the opposite.

Because what he said in the interview was very different from what the transcript of the calls said.

That's why it was clear that he had lied to Pence, Priebus and Spicer, and the FBI.

The agents knew what the transcripts said. If what he said in the interview was "very different", which the agents would have known at the time, why would they characterize the interview the way that they did?

Apparently he's very convincing...

He's convinced you and presumably you haven't even met him.

I'm not the expert in conducting FBI interviews...therefore I'm not qualified to determine whether I think he was intentionally lying or not. I have to go by what the agents (and Comey) said about the interview (rather, what they initially said...not version #2 or #3 or whatever).

But sometimes it takes a while to realize you've been lied to, that you've been had.

Have you never been lied to?

The agents had the transcripts of the phone calls ahead of time. It shouldn't take them that long "realize" that they had been lied to. That's why agents are supposed to memorialize the interview within 5 days...you know...so it will still be fresh in their minds.... Yet, somehow, they originally did not think he was intentionally lying, yet, they somehow had an epiphany somewhere down the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2020/05/16/undercover-huber-explains/

Kind of explains the character of the Mueller team.

Redstate is not a reputable news source.

[Anonymous]

Interesting analysis that won't help DOJ or Flynn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting analysis that won't help DOJ or Flynn

And...a different perspective...one that takes into account the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of Rule 48(a), as well as the SCOTUS interpretation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting analysis that won't help DOJ or Flynn

And...a different perspective...one that takes into account the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of Rule 48(a), as well as the SCOTUS interpretation.

And...a different perspective...one that takes into account the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of Rule 48(a), as well as the SCOTUS interpretation:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-department-wants-drop-flynns-case-can-judge-say-no

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting analysis that won't help DOJ or Flynn

And...a different perspective...one that takes into account the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of Rule 48(a), as well as the SCOTUS interpretation.

And...a different perspective...one that takes into account the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of Rule 48(a), as well as the SCOTUS interpretation:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-department-wants-drop-flynns-case-can-judge-say-no

There is much documentation that the prosecution acted improperly. Starting with the missing 302, exchanges with the first lawyers that show Flynn had no intention of pleading until the "leak" about prosecuting his son, and other exculpatory documentation. (Please note: documentation)
It is clear that the 302 was not handled properly, and, in fact, was possibly handled criminally. Go read the request for dismissal. The documentation is there.

So, because someone has sympathy with the White House, does not mean he should not get a fair hearing. Justice applies to all. The judge is acting improperly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting analysis that won't help DOJ or Flynn

And...a different perspective...one that takes into account the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of Rule 48(a), as well as the SCOTUS interpretation.

And...a different perspective...one that takes into account the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of Rule 48(a), as well as the SCOTUS interpretation:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-department-wants-drop-flynns-case-can-judge-say-no

There is much documentation that the prosecution acted improperly. Starting with the missing 302, exchanges with the first lawyers that show Flynn had no intention of pleading until the "leak" about prosecuting his son, and other exculpatory documentation. (Please note: documentation)
It is clear that the 302 was not handled properly, and, in fact, was possibly handled criminally. Go read the request for dismissal. The documentation is there.

So, because someone has sympathy with the White House, does not mean he should not get a fair hearing. Justice applies to all. The judge is acting improperly.

There's a reason that none of that silly nonsense is in the DOJ's motion to withdraw the charges. Because it's nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting analysis that won't help DOJ or Flynn

And...a different perspective...one that takes into account the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of Rule 48(a), as well as the SCOTUS interpretation.

And...a different perspective...one that takes into account the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of Rule 48(a), as well as the SCOTUS interpretation:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-department-wants-drop-flynns-case-can-judge-say-no

There is much documentation that the prosecution acted improperly. Starting with the missing 302, exchanges with the first lawyers that show Flynn had no intention of pleading until the "leak" about prosecuting his son, and other exculpatory documentation. (Please note: documentation)
It is clear that the 302 was not handled properly, and, in fact, was possibly handled criminally. Go read the request for dismissal. The documentation is there.

So, because someone has sympathy with the White House, does not mean he should not get a fair hearing. Justice applies to all. The judge is acting improperly.

PP. Agreed. The D.C. Circuit makes it clear that the purpose of Rule 48(a) is to protect against prosecutorial misconduct. From the article:

"As an example of this mode of interpretation, the court pointed to Rule 48(a). Although the language requiring leave of the court could “conceivably” be read broadly, the D.C. Circuit stated, decisions to dismiss pending criminal charges fall within the prosecutorial discretion of the executive branch, and Rinaldi stands for the proposition that Rule 48(a) does not confer “any substantial role” for courts in determining whether charges should be dismissed. Instead, the role of the courts is quite narrow—to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment through repeated efforts to file and then dismiss charges. The D.C. Circuit then explicitly rejected the idea that “leave of the court” allows a judge to deny a motion to dismiss based on its belief that the defendant should stand trial or that any remaining charges fail to adequately address the gravity of his alleged conduct."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting analysis that won't help DOJ or Flynn

And...a different perspective...one that takes into account the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of Rule 48(a), as well as the SCOTUS interpretation.

And...a different perspective...one that takes into account the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of Rule 48(a), as well as the SCOTUS interpretation:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-department-wants-drop-flynns-case-can-judge-say-no

There is much documentation that the prosecution acted improperly. Starting with the missing 302, exchanges with the first lawyers that show Flynn had no intention of pleading until the "leak" about prosecuting his son, and other exculpatory documentation. (Please note: documentation)
It is clear that the 302 was not handled properly, and, in fact, was possibly handled criminally. Go read the request for dismissal. The documentation is there.

So, because someone has sympathy with the White House, does not mean he should not get a fair hearing. Justice applies to all. The judge is acting improperly.

This twitter thread outlines the timeline regarding the plea. And, it includes documentation.
I agree there was evidence of prosecutorial misconduct.

[Anonymous]

Judge Sullivan doesn’t seem to think there was misconduct. I’ll take his judgement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judge Sullivan doesn’t seem to think there was misconduct. I’ll take his judgement.

Perhaps Judge Sullivan has been kept in the dark by the prosecution since they have not turned over Brady material.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Sullivan doesn’t seem to think there was misconduct. I’ll take his judgement.

Perhaps Judge Sullivan has been kept in the dark by the prosecution since they have not turned over Brady material.

Ah! So you are better informed than the presiding federal judge. Cool.