Anonymous wrote:

Maybe not against the rules. Maybe it is. That is up to the appeals court to determine.

WapPo in article today:
"A federal judge doesn’t typically hire private counsel to respond to an appeals court"

He is essentially a participant in this case now. Perhaps it's time for a new judge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:👀 Judge Sullivan hires high powered attorney - the one who represented Kavanaugh in his confirmation battle - to argue his case for not immediately tossing Flynn guilty plea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-judge-hires-high-powered-dc-attorney-to-defend-his-actions-in-flynn-case/2020/05/23/9cae4d5e-9d0c-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html#click=https://t.co/1z9KLuCMbi

He's not appearing to be the neutral arbiter that judges are supposed to be at this point.

Hiring a lawyer isn't partisan. What do you see as not a neutral arbiter?

DP--being a judge is his job. Why does he need to hire a lawyer to argue his position with the appeals court? This is just weird. He chose the position--he should be able to defend it.
Maybe, this is not to argue for him, but for some other legal problem he may have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:👀 Judge Sullivan hires high powered attorney - the one who represented Kavanaugh in his confirmation battle - to argue his case for not immediately tossing Flynn guilty plea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-judge-hires-high-powered-dc-attorney-to-defend-his-actions-in-flynn-case/2020/05/23/9cae4d5e-9d0c-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html#click=https://t.co/1z9KLuCMbi

He's not appearing to be the neutral arbiter that judges are supposed to be at this point.

Hiring a lawyer isn't partisan. What do you see as not a neutral arbiter?

DP--being a judge is his job. Why does he need to hire a lawyer to argue his position with the appeals court? This is just weird. He chose the position--he should be able to defend it.
Maybe, this is not to argue for him, but for some other legal problem he may have.

Is it against the rules? No? Then what is the problem?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:👀 Judge Sullivan hires high powered attorney - the one who represented Kavanaugh in his confirmation battle - to argue his case for not immediately tossing Flynn guilty plea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-judge-hires-high-powered-dc-attorney-to-defend-his-actions-in-flynn-case/2020/05/23/9cae4d5e-9d0c-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html#click=https://t.co/1z9KLuCMbi

He's not appearing to be the neutral arbiter that judges are supposed to be at this point.

Hiring a lawyer isn't partisan. What do you see as not a neutral arbiter?

DP--being a judge is his job. Why does he need to hire a lawyer to argue his position with the appeals court? This is just weird. He chose the position--he should be able to defend it.
Maybe, this is not to argue for him, but for some other legal problem he may have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:👀 Judge Sullivan hires high powered attorney - the one who represented Kavanaugh in his confirmation battle - to argue his case for not immediately tossing Flynn guilty plea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-judge-hires-high-powered-dc-attorney-to-defend-his-actions-in-flynn-case/2020/05/23/9cae4d5e-9d0c-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html#click=https://t.co/1z9KLuCMbi

He's not appearing to be the neutral arbiter that judges are supposed to be at this point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:👀 Judge Sullivan hires high powered attorney - the one who represented Kavanaugh in his confirmation battle - to argue his case for not immediately tossing Flynn guilty plea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-judge-hires-high-powered-dc-attorney-to-defend-his-actions-in-flynn-case/2020/05/23/9cae4d5e-9d0c-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html#click=https://t.co/1z9KLuCMbi

He's not appearing to be the neutral arbiter that judges are supposed to be at this point.

Hiring a lawyer isn't partisan. What do you see as not a neutral arbiter?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:👀 Judge Sullivan hires high powered attorney - the one who represented Kavanaugh in his confirmation battle - to argue his case for not immediately tossing Flynn guilty plea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-judge-hires-high-powered-dc-attorney-to-defend-his-actions-in-flynn-case/2020/05/23/9cae4d5e-9d0c-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html#click=https://t.co/1z9KLuCMbi

He's not appearing to be the neutral arbiter that judges are supposed to be at this point.

Anonymous wrote:👀 Judge Sullivan hires high powered attorney - the one who represented Kavanaugh in his confirmation battle - to argue his case for not immediately tossing Flynn guilty plea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-judge-hires-high-powered-dc-attorney-to-defend-his-actions-in-flynn-case/2020/05/23/9cae4d5e-9d0c-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html#click=https://t.co/1z9KLuCMbi

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Off topic, 17:39.

DP. Which topic? Flynn or leaking? There are several topics in this thread.

Anything that happened with the HRC investigation. That has its own thread.

It has had its own thread but it definitely has bearing on this if you really and truly believe Flynn isn’t the traitor he is.

Who leaked Hillary’s stuff?

Why is the GOP able to politicize and control the narrative all the time?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Off topic, 17:39.

DP. Which topic? Flynn or leaking? There are several topics in this thread.

Anything that happened with the HRC investigation. That has its own thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:👀 Judge Sullivan hires high powered attorney - the one who represented Kavanaugh in his confirmation battle - to argue his case for not immediately tossing Flynn guilty plea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-judge-hires-high-powered-dc-attorney-to-defend-his-actions-in-flynn-case/2020/05/23/9cae4d5e-9d0c-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html#click=https://t.co/1z9KLuCMbi

Can't he explain it himself? Will the appeals court allow this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Off topic, 17:39.

DP. Which topic? Flynn or leaking? There are several topics in this thread.

Anonymous wrote:^^ Off topic, 17:39.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For our friends on the right, this is how the GOP operates, so you understand how you are being lied to and inflamed to bring half truths and misleading information to boards like this and to your "outraged" conversations.

This is the CBS tweet/report from earlier this month:

Understand the difference between what the DOJ has and controls, versus what the DNI has and controls. DOJ= Barr and DNI= Grenell (until today).

Richard Grenell released the list of "unmaskers" which actually had nothing to do with the Kislyak call that resulted in Flynn's guilty plea.

Why? Because it wasn't an IC product, it was an FBI product. They released this list to gaslight you. And you have carried the lie to twitter, to this forum, to Facebook and to your personal conversations.

All based on lies and half-truths.

To our friends on the left: Two things can be true: 1) FBI had a product which named Flynn "openly." If this were leaked, it is illegal. 2) DNI unmasked lots of Obama administration that "unmasked" Flynn and many other Trump associates because they had obtained FISA warrants through false information--that means the warrants were obtained illegally.
Sad

It was leaked. And it is illegal.
And, it seems, by more than one person........

Entous’ reporting on the Flynn-Kislyak conversations became more prevalent after the FBI’s fateful Jan. 24, 2017 interview of Flynn at the White House. On Feb. 9, 2017, Entous and other Washington Post reporters wrote that Flynn discussed sanctions against Russia during the Trump transition period, “contrary to public assertions by Trump officials.”

These sources – nine current and former U.S. officials – stated that Flynn’s “references to the election-related sanctions were explicit.”