Breaking News:Flynn Case Being Dropped

[White 6]

I guess we won't see Faun here anymore since he was so wrong about Flynn and I was right all along.....poor Faun.....Flynn will walk and with a ton of money too....here come the lawsuits.....

you and i both know they just shift narrative.

The shift will be - DOJ is corrupt because Trump appointed Barr. Not very clever, but Dems ran out of intelligence and love of country long ago.

Like I mentioned several times. This administration is the most amateur and inept president that Americans has ever seen.

if you have to do this kind of corruption why not play it safely and don’t make the justice system a total joke. Flynn plead guilty and there’s no such thing as someone just goes free. All Trump has to do is let it play the sentencing then pardon him before he goes to jail. Now he just made Barr a corrupted AG and the justice system a total joke under his own leadership.

.

Gotta disagree. Trump hired him because he already was showing signs of being open to corruption and a joke, that wrote opinions on policy sucking up to trump justifying expanded powers of the presidency before he was hired. Trump got over trying to hire competent non-lackey help during first year and a year. Hence the revolving door management staff crap.

Let’s see you back up that assertion...

Article by Daniel Hemel, Eric Posner Ded 2018https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-bill-barrs-memo-really-wrong-about-obstruction-justice
The Bribery Debate
Barr argues that “statutes that do not expressly apply to the President must be construed as not applying to the President if such application would involve a possible conflict with the President’s constitutional prerogatives.”
Barr concedes that “if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction.” But Barr claims that the obstruction statutes cannot extend to “facially-lawful acts taken by the President in exercising the discretion vested in him by the Constitution.”

In our op-ed , we argued that Barr’s distinction between “evidence impairment” and “facially-lawful acts” is illusory. We noted that tearing up a piece of paper is “facially lawful,” while tearing up a piece of paper so that it can’t be subpoenaed by a federal prosecutor is obstruction. Indeed, the whole reason we have obstruction statutes is to criminalize otherwise-legal acts that impede law enforcement functions.

Barr’s analysis is rooted in a “venerable” theory of constitutional law that recognizes the president’s absolute power over the executive branch, namely, the “unitary executive theory.” Unfortunately, the meaning of this theory is far from clear, and McCarthy muddies the waters by invoking it. Originally, it simply meant that there is a single rather than plural executive—a position that the founders took and with which no one disagrees. Under a broader view, it means that the president has significant or possibly unlimited authority over officials in the executive branch—which is a possible view to hold but one that is at variance with constitutional practice since the founding era, and even more so over the last century.
Obstruction and Collusion
Barr’s theory—picked up by McCarthy—seems to be that if Trump can obstruct justice so successfully that his collusion with Russia is obscured, then he is off the hook for obstruction and for collusion. We said that theory was “[n]onsense,” and it gets no better in McCarthy’s second telling. To apply Barr’s theory would be to reward obstruction rather than to punish it.

also noted the incongruence between Barr’s memo and a statement he signed in 1998 arguing that Kenneth Starr, Barr and the others concluded that “[t]he counsel’s service can then be judged ... when the results of the investigation and the facts underlying it can be made public.”
Barr acknowledges in his newly revealed memononetheless says—without equivocation—that “Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction.”

William Barr - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Comments about the Trump administration
During the first two years of the Trump presidency, Barr frequently criticized legal challenges against Trump and investigations into the Trump 2016 campaign and presidency.[75][76]

In 2017, Barr said there was "nothing inherently wrong" with Donald Trump's calls for investigating Hillary Clinton while the two were both running for president. Barr added that an investigation into an alleged Uranium One controversy was more warranted than looking into whether Trump conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 elections.[77] Barr also said in 2017 that he didn't think "all this stuff" about incarcerating or prosecuting Hillary Clinton was appropriate to say, but added that "there are things that should be investigated that haven't been investigated," although the FBI began investigating the Clinton Foundation and the related Uranium One matter in 2015, followed by investigations by Republican congressional committees.[78][79][80]

In February 2017, Barr argued Trump was justified in firing Acting Attorney General Sally Yates over her refusal to defend Executive Order 13769.[81]

Barr was publicly critical of the special counsel investigation. In 2017, he faulted Mueller for hiring prosecutors who have contributed to Democratic politicians, saying that his team should have had more "balance," and characterized the obstruction of justice investigation as "asinine" and that it was "taking on the look of an entirely political operation to overthrow the president."[82][83]

In June 2018, Barr sent an unsolicited 20-page memo to senior Justice Department officials. He also provided copies to members of Trump's legal team and discussed it with some of them.[84] In his memo, Barr argued that the Special Counsel should not be investigating Trump for obstruction of justice because Trump's actions, such as firing FBI Director James Comey, were within his powers as head of the executive branch.[85][86][87] He characterized the obstruction investigation as "fatally misconceived" and "grossly irresponsible" and "potentially disastrous" to the executive branch.[88][89] The day after the existence of the memo became known, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said "our decisions are informed by our knowledge of the actual facts of the case, which Mr. Barr didn't have."[90] Democrats later characterized the memo as Barr's "job application" for the Attorney General position.[91]
Phone surveillance program
In 1992, Barr launched a surveillance program to gather records of innocent Americans' international phone calls.[52] The DoJ inspector general concluded that this program had been launched without a review of its legality.[52] According to USA Today, the program "provided a blueprint for far broader phone-data surveillance the government launched after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."[52]

On December 5, 2019, Democratic Senators Ron Wyden and Patrick J. Leahy asked the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate Barr for approving an illegal surveillance program without legal analysis.[53]
Executive powers
Barr is proponent of the unitary executive theory, which holds that the President has broad executive powers.[3][218][219][220] Prior to joining the Trump administration, he argued that the president has "complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding."[3

I have also heard and repeated that Barr has been known to eat shit and run rabbits like dog, but I was corrected and told he has never run a rabbit. I don't like him.

A blog dude?

Hey anyone wanna quote, me for validation????

Same fucking concept.

Yes the law blog and Wikipedia. You want me to just say I don't like the sonovobitch? OK, I don't like the sonovibitch. I have also heard and repeated that Barr has been known to eat shit and run rabbits like dog, but I was corrected and told he has never run a rabbit. I don't like him.

 

[depotoo]

I guess we won't see Faun here anymore since he was so wrong about Flynn and I was right all along.....poor Faun.....Flynn will walk and with a ton of money too....here come the lawsuits.....

you and i both know they just shift narrative.

The shift will be - DOJ is corrupt because Trump appointed Barr. Not very clever, but Dems ran out of intelligence and love of country long ago.

Like I mentioned several times. This administration is the most amateur and inept president that Americans has ever seen.

if you have to do this kind of corruption why not play it safely and don’t make the justice system a total joke. Flynn plead guilty and there’s no such thing as someone just goes free. All Trump has to do is let it play the sentencing then pardon him before he goes to jail. Now he just made Barr a corrupted AG and the justice system a total joke under his own leadership.

.

Gotta disagree. Trump hired him because he already was showing signs of being open to corruption and a joke, that wrote opinions on policy sucking up to trump justifying expanded powers of the presidency before he was hired. Trump got over trying to hire competent non-lackey help during first year and a year. Hence the revolving door management staff crap.

Let’s see you back up that assertion...

Article by Daniel Hemel, Eric Posner Ded 2018https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-bill-barrs-memo-really-wrong-about-obstruction-justice
The Bribery Debate
Barr argues that “statutes that do not expressly apply to the President must be construed as not applying to the President if such application would involve a possible conflict with the President’s constitutional prerogatives.”
Barr concedes that “if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction.” But Barr claims that the obstruction statutes cannot extend to “facially-lawful acts taken by the President in exercising the discretion vested in him by the Constitution.”

In our op-ed , we argued that Barr’s distinction between “evidence impairment” and “facially-lawful acts” is illusory. We noted that tearing up a piece of paper is “facially lawful,” while tearing up a piece of paper so that it can’t be subpoenaed by a federal prosecutor is obstruction. Indeed, the whole reason we have obstruction statutes is to criminalize otherwise-legal acts that impede law enforcement functions.

Barr’s analysis is rooted in a “venerable” theory of constitutional law that recognizes the president’s absolute power over the executive branch, namely, the “unitary executive theory.” Unfortunately, the meaning of this theory is far from clear, and McCarthy muddies the waters by invoking it. Originally, it simply meant that there is a single rather than plural executive—a position that the founders took and with which no one disagrees. Under a broader view, it means that the president has significant or possibly unlimited authority over officials in the executive branch—which is a possible view to hold but one that is at variance with constitutional practice since the founding era, and even more so over the last century.
Obstruction and Collusion
Barr’s theory—picked up by McCarthy—seems to be that if Trump can obstruct justice so successfully that his collusion with Russia is obscured, then he is off the hook for obstruction and for collusion. We said that theory was “[n]onsense,” and it gets no better in McCarthy’s second telling. To apply Barr’s theory would be to reward obstruction rather than to punish it.

also noted the incongruence between Barr’s memo and a statement he signed in 1998 arguing that Kenneth Starr, Barr and the others concluded that “[t]he counsel’s service can then be judged ... when the results of the investigation and the facts underlying it can be made public.”
Barr acknowledges in his newly revealed memononetheless says—without equivocation—that “Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction.”

William Barr - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Comments about the Trump administration
During the first two years of the Trump presidency, Barr frequently criticized legal challenges against Trump and investigations into the Trump 2016 campaign and presidency.[75][76]

In 2017, Barr said there was "nothing inherently wrong" with Donald Trump's calls for investigating Hillary Clinton while the two were both running for president. Barr added that an investigation into an alleged Uranium One controversy was more warranted than looking into whether Trump conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 elections.[77] Barr also said in 2017 that he didn't think "all this stuff" about incarcerating or prosecuting Hillary Clinton was appropriate to say, but added that "there are things that should be investigated that haven't been investigated," although the FBI began investigating the Clinton Foundation and the related Uranium One matter in 2015, followed by investigations by Republican congressional committees.[78][79][80]

In February 2017, Barr argued Trump was justified in firing Acting Attorney General Sally Yates over her refusal to defend Executive Order 13769.[81]

Barr was publicly critical of the special counsel investigation. In 2017, he faulted Mueller for hiring prosecutors who have contributed to Democratic politicians, saying that his team should have had more "balance," and characterized the obstruction of justice investigation as "asinine" and that it was "taking on the look of an entirely political operation to overthrow the president."[82][83]

In June 2018, Barr sent an unsolicited 20-page memo to senior Justice Department officials. He also provided copies to members of Trump's legal team and discussed it with some of them.[84] In his memo, Barr argued that the Special Counsel should not be investigating Trump for obstruction of justice because Trump's actions, such as firing FBI Director James Comey, were within his powers as head of the executive branch.[85][86][87] He characterized the obstruction investigation as "fatally misconceived" and "grossly irresponsible" and "potentially disastrous" to the executive branch.[88][89] The day after the existence of the memo became known, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said "our decisions are informed by our knowledge of the actual facts of the case, which Mr. Barr didn't have."[90] Democrats later characterized the memo as Barr's "job application" for the Attorney General position.[91]
Phone surveillance program
In 1992, Barr launched a surveillance program to gather records of innocent Americans' international phone calls.[52] The DoJ inspector general concluded that this program had been launched without a review of its legality.[52] According to USA Today, the program "provided a blueprint for far broader phone-data surveillance the government launched after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."[52]

On December 5, 2019, Democratic Senators Ron Wyden and Patrick J. Leahy asked the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate Barr for approving an illegal surveillance program without legal analysis.[53]
Executive powers
Barr is proponent of the unitary executive theory, which holds that the President has broad executive powers.[3][218][219][220] Prior to joining the Trump administration, he argued that the president has "complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding."[3

I have also heard and repeated that Barr has been known to eat shit and run rabbits like dog, but I was corrected and told he has never run a rabbit. I don't like him.

A blog dude?

Hey anyone wanna quote, me for validation????

Same fucking concept.

Yes the law blog and Wikipedia. You want me to just say I don't like the sonovobitch? OK, I don't like the sonovibitch. I have also heard and repeated that Barr has been known to eat shit and run rabbits like dog, but I was corrected and told he has never run a rabbit. I don't like him.

Everything you posted from wiki came from articles they noted, such as the NYT’s, WP, politico, etc. so yeah, there is that.

 

[iceberg]

I guess we won't see Faun here anymore since he was so wrong about Flynn and I was right all along.....poor Faun.....Flynn will walk and with a ton of money too....here come the lawsuits.....

you and i both know they just shift narrative.

The shift will be - DOJ is corrupt because Trump appointed Barr. Not very clever, but Dems ran out of intelligence and love of country long ago.

Like I mentioned several times. This administration is the most amateur and inept president that Americans has ever seen.

if you have to do this kind of corruption why not play it safely and don’t make the justice system a total joke. Flynn plead guilty and there’s no such thing as someone just goes free. All Trump has to do is let it play the sentencing then pardon him before he goes to jail. Now he just made Barr a corrupted AG and the justice system a total joke under his own leadership.

.

Gotta disagree. Trump hired him because he already was showing signs of being open to corruption and a joke, that wrote opinions on policy sucking up to trump justifying expanded powers of the presidency before he was hired. Trump got over trying to hire competent non-lackey help during first year and a year. Hence the revolving door management staff crap.

Let’s see you back up that assertion...

Article by Daniel Hemel, Eric Posner Ded 2018https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-bill-barrs-memo-really-wrong-about-obstruction-justice
The Bribery Debate
Barr argues that “statutes that do not expressly apply to the President must be construed as not applying to the President if such application would involve a possible conflict with the President’s constitutional prerogatives.”
Barr concedes that “if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction.” But Barr claims that the obstruction statutes cannot extend to “facially-lawful acts taken by the President in exercising the discretion vested in him by the Constitution.”

In our op-ed , we argued that Barr’s distinction between “evidence impairment” and “facially-lawful acts” is illusory. We noted that tearing up a piece of paper is “facially lawful,” while tearing up a piece of paper so that it can’t be subpoenaed by a federal prosecutor is obstruction. Indeed, the whole reason we have obstruction statutes is to criminalize otherwise-legal acts that impede law enforcement functions.

Barr’s analysis is rooted in a “venerable” theory of constitutional law that recognizes the president’s absolute power over the executive branch, namely, the “unitary executive theory.” Unfortunately, the meaning of this theory is far from clear, and McCarthy muddies the waters by invoking it. Originally, it simply meant that there is a single rather than plural executive—a position that the founders took and with which no one disagrees. Under a broader view, it means that the president has significant or possibly unlimited authority over officials in the executive branch—which is a possible view to hold but one that is at variance with constitutional practice since the founding era, and even more so over the last century.
Obstruction and Collusion
Barr’s theory—picked up by McCarthy—seems to be that if Trump can obstruct justice so successfully that his collusion with Russia is obscured, then he is off the hook for obstruction and for collusion. We said that theory was “[n]onsense,” and it gets no better in McCarthy’s second telling. To apply Barr’s theory would be to reward obstruction rather than to punish it.

also noted the incongruence between Barr’s memo and a statement he signed in 1998 arguing that Kenneth Starr, Barr and the others concluded that “[t]he counsel’s service can then be judged ... when the results of the investigation and the facts underlying it can be made public.”
Barr acknowledges in his newly revealed memononetheless says—without equivocation—that “Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction.”

William Barr - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Comments about the Trump administration
During the first two years of the Trump presidency, Barr frequently criticized legal challenges against Trump and investigations into the Trump 2016 campaign and presidency.[75][76]

In 2017, Barr said there was "nothing inherently wrong" with Donald Trump's calls for investigating Hillary Clinton while the two were both running for president. Barr added that an investigation into an alleged Uranium One controversy was more warranted than looking into whether Trump conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 elections.[77] Barr also said in 2017 that he didn't think "all this stuff" about incarcerating or prosecuting Hillary Clinton was appropriate to say, but added that "there are things that should be investigated that haven't been investigated," although the FBI began investigating the Clinton Foundation and the related Uranium One matter in 2015, followed by investigations by Republican congressional committees.[78][79][80]

In February 2017, Barr argued Trump was justified in firing Acting Attorney General Sally Yates over her refusal to defend Executive Order 13769.[81]

Barr was publicly critical of the special counsel investigation. In 2017, he faulted Mueller for hiring prosecutors who have contributed to Democratic politicians, saying that his team should have had more "balance," and characterized the obstruction of justice investigation as "asinine" and that it was "taking on the look of an entirely political operation to overthrow the president."[82][83]

In June 2018, Barr sent an unsolicited 20-page memo to senior Justice Department officials. He also provided copies to members of Trump's legal team and discussed it with some of them.[84] In his memo, Barr argued that the Special Counsel should not be investigating Trump for obstruction of justice because Trump's actions, such as firing FBI Director James Comey, were within his powers as head of the executive branch.[85][86][87] He characterized the obstruction investigation as "fatally misconceived" and "grossly irresponsible" and "potentially disastrous" to the executive branch.[88][89] The day after the existence of the memo became known, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said "our decisions are informed by our knowledge of the actual facts of the case, which Mr. Barr didn't have."[90] Democrats later characterized the memo as Barr's "job application" for the Attorney General position.[91]
Phone surveillance program
In 1992, Barr launched a surveillance program to gather records of innocent Americans' international phone calls.[52] The DoJ inspector general concluded that this program had been launched without a review of its legality.[52] According to USA Today, the program "provided a blueprint for far broader phone-data surveillance the government launched after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."[52]

On December 5, 2019, Democratic Senators Ron Wyden and Patrick J. Leahy asked the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate Barr for approving an illegal surveillance program without legal analysis.[53]
Executive powers
Barr is proponent of the unitary executive theory, which holds that the President has broad executive powers.[3][218][219][220] Prior to joining the Trump administration, he argued that the president has "complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding."[3

I have also heard and repeated that Barr has been known to eat shit and run rabbits like dog, but I was corrected and told he has never run a rabbit. I don't like him.

A blog dude?

Hey anyone wanna quote, me for validation????

Same fucking concept.

Yes the law blog and Wikipedia. You want me to just say I don't like the sonovobitch? OK, I don't like the sonovibitch. I have also heard and repeated that Barr has been known to eat shit and run rabbits like dog, but I was corrected and told he has never run a rabbit. I don't like him.

You could just say you are an asshole and save the words.

 

[White 6]

I guess we won't see Faun here anymore since he was so wrong about Flynn and I was right all along.....poor Faun.....Flynn will walk and with a ton of money too....here come the lawsuits.....

you and i both know they just shift narrative.

The shift will be - DOJ is corrupt because Trump appointed Barr. Not very clever, but Dems ran out of intelligence and love of country long ago.

Like I mentioned several times. This administration is the most amateur and inept president that Americans has ever seen.

if you have to do this kind of corruption why not play it safely and don’t make the justice system a total joke. Flynn plead guilty and there’s no such thing as someone just goes free. All Trump has to do is let it play the sentencing then pardon him before he goes to jail. Now he just made Barr a corrupted AG and the justice system a total joke under his own leadership.

.

Gotta disagree. Trump hired him because he already was showing signs of being open to corruption and a joke, that wrote opinions on policy sucking up to trump justifying expanded powers of the presidency before he was hired. Trump got over trying to hire competent non-lackey help during first year and a year. Hence the revolving door management staff crap.

Let’s see you back up that assertion...

Article by Daniel Hemel, Eric Posner Ded 2018https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-bill-barrs-memo-really-wrong-about-obstruction-justice
The Bribery Debate
Barr argues that “statutes that do not expressly apply to the President must be construed as not applying to the President if such application would involve a possible conflict with the President’s constitutional prerogatives.”
Barr concedes that “if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction.” But Barr claims that the obstruction statutes cannot extend to “facially-lawful acts taken by the President in exercising the discretion vested in him by the Constitution.”

In our op-ed , we argued that Barr’s distinction between “evidence impairment” and “facially-lawful acts” is illusory. We noted that tearing up a piece of paper is “facially lawful,” while tearing up a piece of paper so that it can’t be subpoenaed by a federal prosecutor is obstruction. Indeed, the whole reason we have obstruction statutes is to criminalize otherwise-legal acts that impede law enforcement functions.

Barr’s analysis is rooted in a “venerable” theory of constitutional law that recognizes the president’s absolute power over the executive branch, namely, the “unitary executive theory.” Unfortunately, the meaning of this theory is far from clear, and McCarthy muddies the waters by invoking it. Originally, it simply meant that there is a single rather than plural executive—a position that the founders took and with which no one disagrees. Under a broader view, it means that the president has significant or possibly unlimited authority over officials in the executive branch—which is a possible view to hold but one that is at variance with constitutional practice since the founding era, and even more so over the last century.
Obstruction and Collusion
Barr’s theory—picked up by McCarthy—seems to be that if Trump can obstruct justice so successfully that his collusion with Russia is obscured, then he is off the hook for obstruction and for collusion. We said that theory was “[n]onsense,” and it gets no better in McCarthy’s second telling. To apply Barr’s theory would be to reward obstruction rather than to punish it.

also noted the incongruence between Barr’s memo and a statement he signed in 1998 arguing that Kenneth Starr, Barr and the others concluded that “[t]he counsel’s service can then be judged ... when the results of the investigation and the facts underlying it can be made public.”
Barr acknowledges in his newly revealed memononetheless says—without equivocation—that “Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction.”

William Barr - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Comments about the Trump administration
During the first two years of the Trump presidency, Barr frequently criticized legal challenges against Trump and investigations into the Trump 2016 campaign and presidency.[75][76]

In 2017, Barr said there was "nothing inherently wrong" with Donald Trump's calls for investigating Hillary Clinton while the two were both running for president. Barr added that an investigation into an alleged Uranium One controversy was more warranted than looking into whether Trump conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 elections.[77] Barr also said in 2017 that he didn't think "all this stuff" about incarcerating or prosecuting Hillary Clinton was appropriate to say, but added that "there are things that should be investigated that haven't been investigated," although the FBI began investigating the Clinton Foundation and the related Uranium One matter in 2015, followed by investigations by Republican congressional committees.[78][79][80]

In February 2017, Barr argued Trump was justified in firing Acting Attorney General Sally Yates over her refusal to defend Executive Order 13769.[81]

Barr was publicly critical of the special counsel investigation. In 2017, he faulted Mueller for hiring prosecutors who have contributed to Democratic politicians, saying that his team should have had more "balance," and characterized the obstruction of justice investigation as "asinine" and that it was "taking on the look of an entirely political operation to overthrow the president."[82][83]

In June 2018, Barr sent an unsolicited 20-page memo to senior Justice Department officials. He also provided copies to members of Trump's legal team and discussed it with some of them.[84] In his memo, Barr argued that the Special Counsel should not be investigating Trump for obstruction of justice because Trump's actions, such as firing FBI Director James Comey, were within his powers as head of the executive branch.[85][86][87] He characterized the obstruction investigation as "fatally misconceived" and "grossly irresponsible" and "potentially disastrous" to the executive branch.[88][89] The day after the existence of the memo became known, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said "our decisions are informed by our knowledge of the actual facts of the case, which Mr. Barr didn't have."[90] Democrats later characterized the memo as Barr's "job application" for the Attorney General position.[91]
Phone surveillance program
In 1992, Barr launched a surveillance program to gather records of innocent Americans' international phone calls.[52] The DoJ inspector general concluded that this program had been launched without a review of its legality.[52] According to USA Today, the program "provided a blueprint for far broader phone-data surveillance the government launched after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."[52]

On December 5, 2019, Democratic Senators Ron Wyden and Patrick J. Leahy asked the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate Barr for approving an illegal surveillance program without legal analysis.[53]
Executive powers
Barr is proponent of the unitary executive theory, which holds that the President has broad executive powers.[3][218][219][220] Prior to joining the Trump administration, he argued that the president has "complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding."[3

I have also heard and repeated that Barr has been known to eat shit and run rabbits like dog, but I was corrected and told he has never run a rabbit. I don't like him.

A blog dude?

Hey anyone wanna quote, me for validation????

Same fucking concept.

Yes the law blog and Wikipedia. You want me to just say I don't like the sonovobitch? OK, I don't like the sonovibitch. I have also heard and repeated that Barr has been known to eat shit and run rabbits like dog, but I was corrected and told he has never run a rabbit. I don't like him.

Everything you posted from wiki came from articles they noted, such as the NYT’s, WP, politico, etc. so yeah, there is that.

Have no doubt. Been out most of afternoon, just grabbed the low hanging fruit pasted in and moved on. Probably not going to spend much time chasing his legal opinions from pardon pleas on Iran Contra to reversals of legal opinions between obstruction views during Slick Willie and trump. You like him. I don't and undoubtedly won't. So, feel free to count any claims I made against him unfounded, cept maybe the one about him eating shit and running rabbits. I have it on good authority he has never run a rabbit.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

All that's left is to screw the bad guys who pulled this travesty of justice as hard as they screwed Flynn.

Justice Department is dropping Flynn's Trump-Russia case

They are requesting it be dropped. It still needs to be adjudicated.

What the hell needs to be "adjudicated?" The DOJ has the authority to drop a case.

Derp....
He's plead guilty in federal court. He's convicted of a federal felony, dope.
The DOJ certainly cannot undo that.

He withdrew his plea, moron.

Which no one can do after being convicted, dope. Either way, it still needs to be adjudicated.

As usual, you're wrong. Also, your use of the word "adjudicated" is meaningless.

As usual, you're wrong. Also, your use of the word "adjudicated" is meaningless.

Explain to us what the next step(s) are, professor. What action(s) and by whom must be done to finalize this?

~~~~~~
It means that the criminal act of railroading the perpetrators of this should be indicted, and tried for their crime(s) and adjudged by their peers.

It means that the criminal act of railroading the perpetrators of this should be indicted, and tried for their crime(s) and adjudged by their peers.

This move by the DOJ only works on idiots like yourself. There were no "criminal acts of railroading", dope.

Opinion | Don’t Forget, Michael Flynn Pleaded Guilty. Twice. (Published 2020)

Even President Trump has said his former national security adviser lied to the F.B.I.

www.google.com

"Last year Mr. Flynn asked the federal judge to throw out his conviction because, he claimed, the prosecutors and F.B.I. agents on his case had engaged in misconduct. The judge rejected his request, finding that the agents had not entrapped Mr. Flynn. And a report by the Justice Department’s inspector general found that the bureau had sufficient evidence to investigate Mr. Flynn as part of its inquiry into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, even as the report was sharply critical of the F.B.I.’s broader handling of that investigation."

"Last year Mr. Flynn asked the federal judge to throw out his conviction because, he claimed, the prosecutors and F.B.I. agents on his case had engaged in misconduct.

And boy was he right.

Except the judge said no, dope. You know, in the part of the quote you left out.

The judge, last year, didn't have the exculpatory evidence that the prosecutors illegally withheld.

The judge ruled on this in January of this year.

Before the evidence was released, just in the last couple of weeks.

We'll see what the judge says about your "evidence".

 

[Hutch Starskey]

All that's left is to screw the bad guys who pulled this travesty of justice as hard as they screwed Flynn.

Justice Department is dropping Flynn's Trump-Russia case

They are requesting it be dropped. It still needs to be adjudicated.

What the hell needs to be "adjudicated?" The DOJ has the authority to drop a case.

Derp....
He's plead guilty in federal court. He's convicted of a federal felony, dope.

He withdrew his guilty plea, so they were back to square one.

Derp....
He's already convicted, dope. He was awaiting sentencing.

No, he's not convicted. The DOJ dropped the charges. Don't you know what that means?

Gawd your a dope.
He was convicted and awaiting sentencing, dope. He plead guilty. The judge will need to vacate the conviction. If he is so inclined.

He withdrew his plea, moron. What part of that don't you understand? There is no conviction to vacate.

LOL...
Once he plead guilty and the judge signed off, he was convicted, dope. The only reason he's not behind bars is his cooperation agreement that is holding up his sentencing.

Do you imagine any convict can simply say the wish to change their plea and get out of their conviction?
Idiot

Hmmmm, no. he withdrew his plea, jackass. How many times do you have to be told?

LOL...
One must be convicted before they can be sentenced.
A convict can not simply withdraw their plea and go free, dope.

They can when exculpatory evedince is found. Moron.

LOL...
Let us know when that happens.

It happened last week. You ignoring it didn’t make it go away.

LOL...

You saying it is in no way makes it so.

The documents provided recently say you’re full of shit.

He plead guilty and is convicted. Those documents don't change that.

He plead guilty to protect his son.

So?
Why is that important?

That means he took a fall for his son. who has a new born son . Guess you don't have children

That means he took a fall for his son. who has a new born son . Guess you don't have children

I do. They just don't commit federal felonies that I have to cover for.

He didn’t commit a felony. They admitted it in the original 302 which went missing until Durham finally got hold of it.

He didn’t commit a felony. They admitted it in the original 302 which went missing until Durham finally got hold of it.

Says who?

~~~~~~

Judge Overseeing Michael Flynn’s Sentencing Just Dropped A Bombshell

The sentencing memorandum reveals for the first time concrete evidence that the FBI created multiple summaries of Michael Flynn’s questioning.

thefederalist.com

DOJ Admits in Michael Flynn Case That FBI ‘Mistakenly Identified’ Peter Strzok Notes

The attorneys prosecuting former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn were forced to admit in a Tuesday letter to Flynn’s legal defense that the notes which formed the official document describing Flynn’s January 2017 interview were not written by agent Peter Strzok, as they've...

news.yahoo.com

Neither of those links say anything about Flynn's son, dope.

View attachment 333976

None of that changes the fact that Flynn lied, was fired from the admin for doing so, was charged and pleaded guilty. Twice.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You could just say you are an asshole and save the words.

And you could put on your big girl panties and try to tackle some of the arguments the academically published law professor made. But you won't. Because you know you would embarrass yourself. So instead you would just cackle and dance and prance and blurt out "BLOG!!" every few minutes until you feel better.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

All that's left is to screw the bad guys who pulled this travesty of justice as hard as they screwed Flynn.

Justice Department is dropping Flynn's Trump-Russia case

They are requesting it be dropped. It still needs to be adjudicated.

What the hell needs to be "adjudicated?" The DOJ has the authority to drop a case.

Derp....
He's plead guilty in federal court. He's convicted of a federal felony, dope.

He withdrew his guilty plea, so they were back to square one.

Derp....
He's already convicted, dope. He was awaiting sentencing.

No, he's not convicted. The DOJ dropped the charges. Don't you know what that means?

Gawd your a dope.
He was convicted and awaiting sentencing, dope. He plead guilty. The judge will need to vacate the conviction. If he is so inclined.

He withdrew his plea, moron. What part of that don't you understand? There is no conviction to vacate.

LOL...
Once he plead guilty and the judge signed off, he was convicted, dope. The only reason he's not behind bars is his cooperation agreement that is holding up his sentencing.

Do you imagine any convict can simply say the wish to change their plea and get out of their conviction?
Idiot

Hmmmm, no. he withdrew his plea, jackass. How many times do you have to be told?

LOL...
One must be convicted before they can be sentenced.
A convict can not simply withdraw their plea and go free, dope.

They can when exculpatory evedince is found. Moron.

LOL...
Let us know when that happens.

It happened last week. You ignoring it didn’t make it go away.

LOL...

You saying it is in no way makes it so.

The documents provided recently say you’re full of shit.

He plead guilty and is convicted. Those documents don't change that.

He plead guilty to protect his son.

So?
Why is that important?

That means he took a fall for his son. who has a new born son . Guess you don't have children

That means he took a fall for his son. who has a new born son . Guess you don't have children

I do. They just don't commit federal felonies that I have to cover for.

He didn’t commit a felony. They admitted it in the original 302 which went missing until Durham finally got hold of it.

He didn’t commit a felony. They admitted it in the original 302 which went missing until Durham finally got hold of it.

Says who?

~~~~~~

Judge Overseeing Michael Flynn’s Sentencing Just Dropped A Bombshell

The sentencing memorandum reveals for the first time concrete evidence that the FBI created multiple summaries of Michael Flynn’s questioning.

thefederalist.com

DOJ Admits in Michael Flynn Case That FBI ‘Mistakenly Identified’ Peter Strzok Notes

The attorneys prosecuting former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn were forced to admit in a Tuesday letter to Flynn’s legal defense that the notes which formed the official document describing Flynn’s January 2017 interview were not written by agent Peter Strzok, as they've...

news.yahoo.com

Neither of those links say anything about Flynn's son, dope.

Will Michael Flynn Plead Guilty And Cooperate To Protect His Son?

With Michael T. Flynn facing possible indictment, Special Counsel Mueller likely is using the threat of also prosecuting Flynn’s son for leverage. This Wall Street prosecution tested tactic from Enron and Drexel may result in a guilty plea, with the question cooperation against whom.

www.forbes.com

The extensive reporting around the involvement of Flynn’s son certainly suggests there is legitimate justification for interpreting the Flynn component of the investigation as a prosecutable family affair.

That doesn't speak to my point at all, dope.
Try reading before responding.

Your only response is DERP? WOW

Yes, Derp, dope.
You still aren't speaking to my point.

Whether than addressing the facts and relevance from the link you responded with DERP and continue to respond with DERP.

Whether than addressing the facts and relevance from the link you responded with DERP and continue to respond with DERP.

WTF?
Why do you continue to show your incompetence rather than just honestly addressing the points made by others? Is it deliberate? What does such behavior get you?

Your link is irrelevant to the discussion you inserted yourself into, dope.

You and Alinsky’s rules. You really are dumb if you think we aren’t on to them.

You and Alinsky’s rules. You really are dumb if you think we aren’t on to them.

LOL....
You really are dumb if you think you "are on to them".

Flynn pleaded guilty twice under the advisement of counsel.
Keep on trying, fool.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

All that's left is to screw the bad guys who pulled this travesty of justice as hard as they screwed Flynn.

Justice Department is dropping Flynn's Trump-Russia case

They are requesting it be dropped. It still needs to be adjudicated.

What the hell needs to be "adjudicated?" The DOJ has the authority to drop a case.

Derp....
He's plead guilty in federal court. He's convicted of a federal felony, dope.

He withdrew his guilty plea, so they were back to square one.

Derp....
He's already convicted, dope. He was awaiting sentencing.

No, he's not convicted. The DOJ dropped the charges. Don't you know what that means?

Gawd your a dope.
He was convicted and awaiting sentencing, dope. He plead guilty. The judge will need to vacate the conviction. If he is so inclined.

He withdrew his plea, moron. What part of that don't you understand? There is no conviction to vacate.

LOL...
Once he plead guilty and the judge signed off, he was convicted, dope. The only reason he's not behind bars is his cooperation agreement that is holding up his sentencing.

Do you imagine any convict can simply say the wish to change their plea and get out of their conviction?
Idiot

Hmmmm, no. he withdrew his plea, jackass. How many times do you have to be told?

LOL...
One must be convicted before they can be sentenced.
A convict can not simply withdraw their plea and go free, dope.

They can when exculpatory evedince is found. Moron.

LOL...
Let us know when that happens.

It happened last week. You ignoring it didn’t make it go away.

LOL...

You saying it is in no way makes it so.

The documents provided recently say you’re full of shit.

He plead guilty and is convicted. Those documents don't change that.

He plead guilty to protect his son.

So?
Why is that important?

That means he took a fall for his son. who has a new born son . Guess you don't have children

That means he took a fall for his son. who has a new born son . Guess you don't have children

I do. They just don't commit federal felonies that I have to cover for.

He didn’t commit a felony. They admitted it in the original 302 which went missing until Durham finally got hold of it.

He didn’t commit a felony. They admitted it in the original 302 which went missing until Durham finally got hold of it.

Says who?

~~~~~~

Judge Overseeing Michael Flynn’s Sentencing Just Dropped A Bombshell

The sentencing memorandum reveals for the first time concrete evidence that the FBI created multiple summaries of Michael Flynn’s questioning.

thefederalist.com

DOJ Admits in Michael Flynn Case That FBI ‘Mistakenly Identified’ Peter Strzok Notes

The attorneys prosecuting former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn were forced to admit in a Tuesday letter to Flynn’s legal defense that the notes which formed the official document describing Flynn’s January 2017 interview were not written by agent Peter Strzok, as they've...

news.yahoo.com

Neither of those links say anything about Flynn's son, dope.

Will Michael Flynn Plead Guilty And Cooperate To Protect His Son?

With Michael T. Flynn facing possible indictment, Special Counsel Mueller likely is using the threat of also prosecuting Flynn’s son for leverage. This Wall Street prosecution tested tactic from Enron and Drexel may result in a guilty plea, with the question cooperation against whom.

www.forbes.com

The extensive reporting around the involvement of Flynn’s son certainly suggests there is legitimate justification for interpreting the Flynn component of the investigation as a prosecutable family affair.

That doesn't speak to my point at all, dope.
Try reading before responding.

Your only response is DERP? WOW

Yes, Derp, dope.
You still aren't speaking to my point.

Whether than addressing the facts and relevance from the link you responded with DERP and continue to respond with DERP.

Whether than addressing the facts and relevance from the link you responded with DERP and continue to respond with DERP.

WTF?
Why do you continue to show your incompetence rather than just honestly addressing the points made by others? Is it deliberate? What does such behavior get you?

Your link is irrelevant to the discussion you inserted yourself into, dope.

You and Alinsky’s rules. You really are dumb if you think we aren’t on to them.

You and Alinsky’s rules. You really are dumb if you think we aren’t on to them.

LOL....
You really are dumb if you think you "are on to them".

Flynn pleaded guilty twice under the advisement of counsel.
Keep on trying, fool.

Baswed on advisement from counsel....who turned out to be crooked.

Who's dumb ?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I guess we won't see Faun here anymore since he was so wrong about Flynn and I was right all along.....poor Faun.....Flynn will walk and with a ton of money too....here come the lawsuits.....

you and i both know they just shift narrative.

The shift will be - DOJ is corrupt because Trump appointed Barr. Not very clever, but Dems ran out of intelligence and love of country long ago.

Like I mentioned several times. This administration is the most amateur and inept president that Americans has ever seen.

if you have to do this kind of corruption why not play it safely and don’t make the justice system a total joke. Flynn plead guilty and there’s no such thing as someone just goes free. All Trump has to do is let it play the sentencing then pardon him before he goes to jail. Now he just made Barr a corrupted AG and the justice system a total joke under his own leadership.

.

That may just be the play.
To undermine our systems and create mistrust.
Sounds like what his handler Vlad might like to see. Notice that was Trump's first call after this broke.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Baswed on advisement from counsel....who turned out to be crooked.

Lie, just made up

 

[Hutch Starskey]

All that's left is to screw the bad guys who pulled this travesty of justice as hard as they screwed Flynn.

Justice Department is dropping Flynn's Trump-Russia case

They are requesting it be dropped. It still needs to be adjudicated.

What the hell needs to be "adjudicated?" The DOJ has the authority to drop a case.

Derp....
He's plead guilty in federal court. He's convicted of a federal felony, dope.

He withdrew his guilty plea, so they were back to square one.

Derp....
He's already convicted, dope. He was awaiting sentencing.

No, he's not convicted. The DOJ dropped the charges. Don't you know what that means?

Gawd your a dope.
He was convicted and awaiting sentencing, dope. He plead guilty. The judge will need to vacate the conviction. If he is so inclined.

He withdrew his plea, moron. What part of that don't you understand? There is no conviction to vacate.

LOL...
Once he plead guilty and the judge signed off, he was convicted, dope. The only reason he's not behind bars is his cooperation agreement that is holding up his sentencing.

Do you imagine any convict can simply say the wish to change their plea and get out of their conviction?
Idiot

Hmmmm, no. he withdrew his plea, jackass. How many times do you have to be told?

LOL...
One must be convicted before they can be sentenced.
A convict can not simply withdraw their plea and go free, dope.

They can when exculpatory evedince is found. Moron.

LOL...
Let us know when that happens.

It happened last week. You ignoring it didn’t make it go away.

LOL...

You saying it is in no way makes it so.

The documents provided recently say you’re full of shit.

He plead guilty and is convicted. Those documents don't change that.

He plead guilty to protect his son.

So?
Why is that important?

That means he took a fall for his son. who has a new born son . Guess you don't have children

That means he took a fall for his son. who has a new born son . Guess you don't have children

I do. They just don't commit federal felonies that I have to cover for.

He didn’t commit a felony. They admitted it in the original 302 which went missing until Durham finally got hold of it.

He didn’t commit a felony. They admitted it in the original 302 which went missing until Durham finally got hold of it.

Says who?

~~~~~~

Judge Overseeing Michael Flynn’s Sentencing Just Dropped A Bombshell

The sentencing memorandum reveals for the first time concrete evidence that the FBI created multiple summaries of Michael Flynn’s questioning.

thefederalist.com

DOJ Admits in Michael Flynn Case That FBI ‘Mistakenly Identified’ Peter Strzok Notes

The attorneys prosecuting former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn were forced to admit in a Tuesday letter to Flynn’s legal defense that the notes which formed the official document describing Flynn’s January 2017 interview were not written by agent Peter Strzok, as they've...

news.yahoo.com

Neither of those links say anything about Flynn's son, dope.

Will Michael Flynn Plead Guilty And Cooperate To Protect His Son?

With Michael T. Flynn facing possible indictment, Special Counsel Mueller likely is using the threat of also prosecuting Flynn’s son for leverage. This Wall Street prosecution tested tactic from Enron and Drexel may result in a guilty plea, with the question cooperation against whom.

www.forbes.com

The extensive reporting around the involvement of Flynn’s son certainly suggests there is legitimate justification for interpreting the Flynn component of the investigation as a prosecutable family affair.

That doesn't speak to my point at all, dope.
Try reading before responding.

Your only response is DERP? WOW

Yes, Derp, dope.
You still aren't speaking to my point.

Whether than addressing the facts and relevance from the link you responded with DERP and continue to respond with DERP.

Whether than addressing the facts and relevance from the link you responded with DERP and continue to respond with DERP.

WTF?
Why do you continue to show your incompetence rather than just honestly addressing the points made by others? Is it deliberate? What does such behavior get you?

Your link is irrelevant to the discussion you inserted yourself into, dope.

You and Alinsky’s rules. You really are dumb if you think we aren’t on to them.

You and Alinsky’s rules. You really are dumb if you think we aren’t on to them.

LOL....
You really are dumb if you think you "are on to them".

Flynn pleaded guilty twice under the advisement of counsel.
Keep on trying, fool.

Baswed on advisement from counsel....who turned out to be crooked.

Who's dumb ?

Baswed on advisement from counsel....who turned out to be crooked.

Who's dumb ?

LOL...

You're dumb, of course.
Isn't it funny that the only defense you have is making an American general an inept, clueless tool? I think so.
" My lawyer fucked me"

 

[bripat9643]

All that's left is to screw the bad guys who pulled this travesty of justice as hard as they screwed Flynn.

Justice Department is dropping Flynn's Trump-Russia case

They are requesting it be dropped. It still needs to be adjudicated.

What the hell needs to be "adjudicated?" The DOJ has the authority to drop a case.

Derp....
He's plead guilty in federal court. He's convicted of a federal felony, dope.

He withdrew his guilty plea, so they were back to square one.

Derp....
He's already convicted, dope. He was awaiting sentencing.

No, he's not convicted. The DOJ dropped the charges. Don't you know what that means?

Gawd your a dope.
He was convicted and awaiting sentencing, dope. He plead guilty. The judge will need to vacate the conviction. If he is so inclined.

He withdrew his plea, moron. What part of that don't you understand? There is no conviction to vacate.

LOL...
Once he plead guilty and the judge signed off, he was convicted, dope. The only reason he's not behind bars is his cooperation agreement that is holding up his sentencing.

Do you imagine any convict can simply say the wish to change their plea and get out of their conviction?
Idiot

Hmmmm, no. he withdrew his plea, jackass. How many times do you have to be told?

LOL...
One must be convicted before they can be sentenced.
A convict can not simply withdraw their plea and go free, dope.

They can when exculpatory evedince is found. Moron.

LOL...
Let us know when that happens.

It happened last week. You ignoring it didn’t make it go away.

LOL...

You saying it is in no way makes it so.

The documents provided recently say you’re full of shit.

He plead guilty and is convicted. Those documents don't change that.

He plead guilty to protect his son.

So?
Why is that important?

That means he took a fall for his son. who has a new born son . Guess you don't have children

That means he took a fall for his son. who has a new born son . Guess you don't have children

I do. They just don't commit federal felonies that I have to cover for.

He didn’t commit a felony. They admitted it in the original 302 which went missing until Durham finally got hold of it.

He didn’t commit a felony. They admitted it in the original 302 which went missing until Durham finally got hold of it.

Says who?

~~~~~~

Judge Overseeing Michael Flynn’s Sentencing Just Dropped A Bombshell

The sentencing memorandum reveals for the first time concrete evidence that the FBI created multiple summaries of Michael Flynn’s questioning.

thefederalist.com

DOJ Admits in Michael Flynn Case That FBI ‘Mistakenly Identified’ Peter Strzok Notes

The attorneys prosecuting former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn were forced to admit in a Tuesday letter to Flynn’s legal defense that the notes which formed the official document describing Flynn’s January 2017 interview were not written by agent Peter Strzok, as they've...

news.yahoo.com

Neither of those links say anything about Flynn's son, dope.

View attachment 333976

None of that changes the fact that Flynn lied, was fired from the admin for doing so, was charged and pleaded guilty. Twice.

That isn't a fact, moron.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That isn't a fact,

Of course it is.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

Link when it comes out.

Dopey Donald Trump fired Michael Flynn because he was a liar. First Liar Dopey Donald Trump does not like competition.

Trump Says He Fired Michael Flynn ‘Because He Lied’ to F.B.I.

Is not lying to the FBI at anytime a crime?

All Trump family and associates lie to the FBI because if they didn't they would be in jail.

Fake news. Got a link ? Of course not .

 

[bripat9643]

That isn't a fact,

Of course it is.

Wrong.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

All that's left is to screw the bad guys who pulled this travesty of justice as hard as they screwed Flynn.

Justice Department is dropping Flynn's Trump-Russia case

They are requesting it be dropped. It still needs to be adjudicated.

What the hell needs to be "adjudicated?" The DOJ has the authority to drop a case.

Derp....
He's plead guilty in federal court. He's convicted of a federal felony, dope.
The DOJ certainly cannot undo that.

He withdrew his plea, moron.

Which no one can do after being convicted, dope. Either way, it still needs to be adjudicated.

As usual, you're wrong. Also, your use of the word "adjudicated" is meaningless.

As usual, you're wrong. Also, your use of the word "adjudicated" is meaningless.

Explain to us what the next step(s) are, professor. What action(s) and by whom must be done to finalize this?

~~~~~~
It means that the criminal act of railroading the perpetrators of this should be indicted, and tried for their crime(s) and adjudged by their peers.

It means that the criminal act of railroading the perpetrators of this should be indicted, and tried for their crime(s) and adjudged by their peers.

This move by the DOJ only works on idiots like yourself. There were no "criminal acts of railroading", dope.

Opinion | Don’t Forget, Michael Flynn Pleaded Guilty. Twice. (Published 2020)

Even President Trump has said his former national security adviser lied to the F.B.I.

www.google.com

"Last year Mr. Flynn asked the federal judge to throw out his conviction because, he claimed, the prosecutors and F.B.I. agents on his case had engaged in misconduct. The judge rejected his request, finding that the agents had not entrapped Mr. Flynn. And a report by the Justice Department’s inspector general found that the bureau had sufficient evidence to investigate Mr. Flynn as part of its inquiry into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, even as the report was sharply critical of the F.B.I.’s broader handling of that investigation."

"Last year Mr. Flynn asked the federal judge to throw out his conviction because, he claimed, the prosecutors and F.B.I. agents on his case had engaged in misconduct.

And boy was he right.

Except the judge said no, dope. You know, in the part of the quote you left out.

The judge, last year, didn't have the exculpatory evidence that the prosecutors illegally withheld.

The judge ruled on this in January of this year.

The exculpatory evidence that the prosecutors illegally withheld was just revealed in the last 2 weeks.

There is no exculpatory evidence, fool.
A 302 saying he didn't exhibit outward physical signs of lying doesn't mean he didn't lie. He was charged with doing so and admitted to doing so.

(CNN)The Justice Department said Friday it shared with Michael Flynn's lawyers a number of documents uncovered in a review ordered by Attorney General William Barr, raising the prospect that the department now believes potentially exculpatory information wasn't turned over as required before the former Trump national security adviser pleaded guilty.

Justice Department provides Flynn's attorneys with documents from Barr's re-examination | CNN Politics

The Justice Department said Friday it shared with Michael Flynn's lawyers a number of documents uncovered in a review ordered by Attorney General William Barr, raising the prospect that the department now believes potentially exculpatory information wasn't turned over as required before the...

www.cnn.com

raising the prospect that the department now believes potentially exculpatory

We'll see just how "potentially exculpatory" the judge believes this to be.

 

[bripat9643]

All that's left is to screw the bad guys who pulled this travesty of justice as hard as they screwed Flynn.

Justice Department is dropping Flynn's Trump-Russia case

They are requesting it be dropped. It still needs to be adjudicated.

What the hell needs to be "adjudicated?" The DOJ has the authority to drop a case.

Derp....
He's plead guilty in federal court. He's convicted of a federal felony, dope.
The DOJ certainly cannot undo that.

He withdrew his plea, moron.

Which no one can do after being convicted, dope. Either way, it still needs to be adjudicated.

As usual, you're wrong. Also, your use of the word "adjudicated" is meaningless.

As usual, you're wrong. Also, your use of the word "adjudicated" is meaningless.

Explain to us what the next step(s) are, professor. What action(s) and by whom must be done to finalize this?

~~~~~~
It means that the criminal act of railroading the perpetrators of this should be indicted, and tried for their crime(s) and adjudged by their peers.

It means that the criminal act of railroading the perpetrators of this should be indicted, and tried for their crime(s) and adjudged by their peers.

This move by the DOJ only works on idiots like yourself. There were no "criminal acts of railroading", dope.

Opinion | Don’t Forget, Michael Flynn Pleaded Guilty. Twice. (Published 2020)

Even President Trump has said his former national security adviser lied to the F.B.I.

www.google.com

"Last year Mr. Flynn asked the federal judge to throw out his conviction because, he claimed, the prosecutors and F.B.I. agents on his case had engaged in misconduct. The judge rejected his request, finding that the agents had not entrapped Mr. Flynn. And a report by the Justice Department’s inspector general found that the bureau had sufficient evidence to investigate Mr. Flynn as part of its inquiry into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, even as the report was sharply critical of the F.B.I.’s broader handling of that investigation."

"Last year Mr. Flynn asked the federal judge to throw out his conviction because, he claimed, the prosecutors and F.B.I. agents on his case had engaged in misconduct.

And boy was he right.

Except the judge said no, dope. You know, in the part of the quote you left out.

The judge, last year, didn't have the exculpatory evidence that the prosecutors illegally withheld.

The judge ruled on this in January of this year.

The exculpatory evidence that the prosecutors illegally withheld was just revealed in the last 2 weeks.

There is no exculpatory evidence, fool.
A 302 saying he didn't exhibit outward physical signs of lying doesn't mean he didn't lie. He was charged with doing so and admitted to doing so.

(CNN)The Justice Department said Friday it shared with Michael Flynn's lawyers a number of documents uncovered in a review ordered by Attorney General William Barr, raising the prospect that the department now believes potentially exculpatory information wasn't turned over as required before the former Trump national security adviser pleaded guilty.

Justice Department provides Flynn's attorneys with documents from Barr's re-examination | CNN Politics

The Justice Department said Friday it shared with Michael Flynn's lawyers a number of documents uncovered in a review ordered by Attorney General William Barr, raising the prospect that the department now believes potentially exculpatory information wasn't turned over as required before the...

www.cnn.com

raising the prospect that the department now believes potentially exculpatory

We'll see just how "potentially exculpatory" the judge believes this to be.

It doesn't matter. The DOJ dropped the case. End of story. The judge can't order the DOJ to continue prosecuting the case.

 

[beagle9]

All that's left is to screw the bad guys who pulled this travesty of justice as hard as they screwed Flynn.

Justice Department is dropping Flynn's Trump-Russia case

They are requesting it be dropped. It still needs to be adjudicated.

What the hell needs to be "adjudicated?" The DOJ has the authority to drop a case.

Derp....
He's plead guilty in federal court. He's convicted of a federal felony, dope.
The DOJ certainly cannot undo that.

He withdrew his plea, moron.

Which no one can do after being convicted, dope. Either way, it still needs to be adjudicated.

As usual, you're wrong. Also, your use of the word "adjudicated" is meaningless.

As usual, you're wrong. Also, your use of the word "adjudicated" is meaningless.

Explain to us what the next step(s) are, professor. What action(s) and by whom must be done to finalize this?

~~~~~~
It means that the criminal act of railroading the perpetrators of this should be indicted, and tried for their crime(s) and adjudged by their peers.

It means that the criminal act of railroading the perpetrators of this should be indicted, and tried for their crime(s) and adjudged by their peers.

This move by the DOJ only works on idiots like yourself. There were no "criminal acts of railroading", dope.

Opinion | Don’t Forget, Michael Flynn Pleaded Guilty. Twice. (Published 2020)

Even President Trump has said his former national security adviser lied to the F.B.I.

www.google.com

"Last year Mr. Flynn asked the federal judge to throw out his conviction because, he claimed, the prosecutors and F.B.I. agents on his case had engaged in misconduct. The judge rejected his request, finding that the agents had not entrapped Mr. Flynn. And a report by the Justice Department’s inspector general found that the bureau had sufficient evidence to investigate Mr. Flynn as part of its inquiry into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, even as the report was sharply critical of the F.B.I.’s broader handling of that investigation."

"Last year Mr. Flynn asked the federal judge to throw out his conviction because, he claimed, the prosecutors and F.B.I. agents on his case had engaged in misconduct.

And boy was he right.

Except the judge said no, dope. You know, in the part of the quote you left out.

The judge, last year, didn't have the exculpatory evidence that the prosecutors illegally withheld.

The judge ruled on this in January of this year.

The exculpatory evidence that the prosecutors illegally withheld was just revealed in the last 2 weeks.

There is no exculpatory evidence, fool.
A 302 saying he didn't exhibit outward physical signs of lying doesn't mean he didn't lie. He was charged with doing so and admitted to doing so.

(CNN)The Justice Department said Friday it shared with Michael Flynn's lawyers a number of documents uncovered in a review ordered by Attorney General William Barr, raising the prospect that the department now believes potentially exculpatory information wasn't turned over as required before the former Trump national security adviser pleaded guilty.

Justice Department provides Flynn's attorneys with documents from Barr's re-examination | CNN Politics

The Justice Department said Friday it shared with Michael Flynn's lawyers a number of documents uncovered in a review ordered by Attorney General William Barr, raising the prospect that the department now believes potentially exculpatory information wasn't turned over as required before the...

www.cnn.com

raising the prospect that the department now believes potentially exculpatory

We'll see just how "potentially exculpatory" the judge believes this to be.

One things for sure, and that is that you have been placed on defense, because the case is being dropped. Now go and fight the system if you think it's wrong, because fighting here is just bloviating because of your butt hurt. I guess trying to make yourself look all lawyer like and such here, just feeds the narcissistic ego.. lol

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That isn't a fact,

Of course it is.

Wrong.

He lied. It's a fact. Even his lawyers still admit it.