Judge Sullivan Scrambles For A Lifeline To Bail HIMSELF Out Of Dropped Flynn Case

[Billiejeens]

The Supreme Court just unanimously overturned a similar case from the 9th circuit where the Judge tried this.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Supreme Court just unanimously overturned a similar case from the 9th circuit where the Judge tried this.

Informative.

 

[Desperado]

"D.C. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order Tuesday indicating that he'll soon accept "amicus curiae," or "friend of the court" submissions, in the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn -- essentially allowing the court to use an "ask the audience" lifeline in what has already proved to be an unpredictable and chaotic prosecution.

Sullivan's minute order indicated that an upcoming scheduling order would clarify the parameters of who specifically could submit the amicus briefs, which are submissions by non-parties that claim an interest in the case. Sullivan specifically said he anticipates that "individuals and organizations" will file briefs "for the benefit of the court."

The move attracted immediate criticism -- and a planned ethics complaint against Sullivan, who had previously refused to hear amicus briefs in the case. ("Options exist for a private citizen to express his views about matters of public interest, but the Court's docket is not an available option," Sullivan wrote in the past.)

"Judge Sullivan, who denied leave to file amicus briefs when he knew third parties would have spoken favorably of Flynn, now solicits briefs critical of Flynn," independent journalist Michael Cernovich wrote on Twitter. "This is a violation of the judicial oath and applicable ethical rules."

It appears Sullivan, who viciously rebuked Flynn in court based on the lies presented in court now doesn't want to simply drop the case and walk away with egg on his face.

The easiest thing to do to make this all go away quietly would have been to allow the case to be dropped....but it appears Sullivan wants the circus to continue...

Flynn judge to allow 'amicus' submissions, delaying immediate resolution and drawing planned ethics complaint

D.C. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order Tuesday indicating he'll soon accept "amicus curiae," or "friend of the court" submissions, in the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn -- drawing immediate scrutiny and a planned ethics complaint against Sullivan, who...

www.foxnews.com

.

D.C. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan is a judge in name only he is just a political hack

 

[AntonToo]

The Last Refuge

Outrageous – Flynn Judge Orders Retired Judicial Ally to File Brief Supporting Prosecution of Michael Flynn…

Posted on May 13, 2020 by sundance

Excerpt:

Stunning and outrageous doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of this move by DC Judge Emett Sullivan in the Flynn case.

Judge Sullivan is requesting retired judge John Gleeson to file an amicus brief outlining why: (a) the charge against Flynn should not be dropped; and (b) frame the argument about how to prosecute Flynn for perjury.

LINK

=====

It appears to be another venal attempt to trash innocent people because they are disliked. The Judge is now acting like a rogue lawyer, trying to dredge up a series of bogus hurdles to a now dead case, the one the Lead Prosecutor dropped....., the one the DOJ dropped.

Flynn lied. Flynn admitted he lied. Flynn pled guilty to criminal charges. Why shouldn't the judge proceed with sentencing?

This is why the Democrat party is going down in flames, the determined drive to ignore and be ignorant of the Exculpatory evidence presented through legal documents, is why YOU are making a fool of yourself in your blind partisan drive.

I have posted several times the evidence that Obama officials CONSPIRED to entrap General Flynn, they even say so in their now released memos!

Democrats are trying hard to drag this out because they don't respect the rule of law.

It's not entrapment. It's how the FBI operates and their methods are backed by the Judicial branch.

​

While the essence of the entrapment defense is the defendant's lack of predisposition to commit the offense, the "defense" of outrageous government conduct presupposes predisposition but seeks dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the conduct of law enforcement agents was "so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction." United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1973). Thus, the outrageous government conduct defense is not really a defense at all. Rather, it is a claim that the institution of the prosecution suffers from a purely legal defect; as such, the claim is waived unless raised prior to trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(2). See, e.g., United States v. Henderson-Durand, 985 F.2d 970, 973 & n. 5 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 856 (1993); United States v. Duncan, 896 F.2d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Nunez-Rios, 622 F.2d 1093, 1099 (2d Cir. 1980).​

​

The Supreme Court has never held that the government's mere use of undercover agents or informants, or the use of deception by them, gives rise to a due process violation, although in Russell it left open that possibility. The requisite level of outrageousness could be reached only where government conduct is so fundamentally unfair as to be "shocking to the universal sense of justice." Id. at 432. No court of appeals has held that a predisposed defendant may establish a due process violation simply because he purportedly was induced to commit the crime by an undercover agent or informant. See, e.g., United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515, 1521 (10th Cir.) (not outrageous for government "to infiltrate an ongoing criminal enterprise, or to induce a defendant to repeat, continue, or even expand criminal activity."), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 347 (1994).​

​

Defendants who claim to be victims of outrageous government conduct sometimes also argue that the district court should dismiss the indictment in the exercise of its supervisory power. In the absence of a due process violation, however, a district court has no authority to dismiss an indictment on this basis. See, e.g., United States v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1991).​

​

648. Entrapment—Outrageous Government Conduct

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact [email protected] if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

Another Googler not reading and thinking.. Entrapment in the general sense is misconduct where the law enforcers LEAD someone INTO an ACTUAL crime.. Like getting the Ruby Ridge Weaver guy to "saw off" a shot-gun for them or giving a potential suspected Jihadist a "fake bomb" to go try and explode...

Doesn't APPLY to "process crimes" when no ACTUAL crime has been committed or when NO WARRANT can be sought.. All of the futile googling you did is for "entrapment" where there IS a warrant to investigate this person existing...

This "process crime" was the ONLY way "get Flynn" open to them.. No GROUNDS for any further CRIMINAL investigation were left open.. That's what that "hand-written" memo that was lately uncovered TOLD YOU... The agents wanted to know "what their goal was here"?? "To get Flynn FIRED"? To get him to LIE" ??? NOTHING ABOUT PURSUING A LEGITIMATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION..

Was not LEGALLY "entrapment".. It was a Hail Mary desperation AMBUSH to PRODUCE a process crime where NO REAL CRIME was under investigation..

Carefully premeditated lying to Investigators is a “process crime”?? No silly, it’s just STRAIGHT UP CRIME.

Flynn was well aware that lying like this can land him in deep shit, and he did it anyway. Ever wonder why?

The only lies, we have learned, are from Obamunists. Flynn didn't lie......

“The FBI possessed word-for-word transcripts of Flynn's December 2016 conversations with Kislyak, and publicly admitted to reviewing those transcripts and clearing Flynn of any wrongdoing.”

"FBI publicly admitted"??

Let me give a couple of clues:

1. FBI did not publicly admit anything like that. What they said was that initially, Flynn was a target in the Russia investigation...and he wasn't until he conspicuously started lying to everyone and their mother about his conversations with Kysliak.

2. Flynn's conversations with Kislyak and his directly contradicting statements to investigators were all reviewed by the court. This is not a he-said, she-said situation, this is irrefutable, ON TAPE lying.

Any other idiocy to share with us? You always come with a bag full.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Last Refuge

Outrageous – Flynn Judge Orders Retired Judicial Ally to File Brief Supporting Prosecution of Michael Flynn…

Posted on May 13, 2020 by sundance

Excerpt:

Stunning and outrageous doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of this move by DC Judge Emett Sullivan in the Flynn case.

Judge Sullivan is requesting retired judge John Gleeson to file an amicus brief outlining why: (a) the charge against Flynn should not be dropped; and (b) frame the argument about how to prosecute Flynn for perjury.

LINK

=====

It appears to be another venal attempt to trash innocent people because they are disliked. The Judge is now acting like a rogue lawyer, trying to dredge up a series of bogus hurdles to a now dead case, the one the Lead Prosecutor dropped....., the one the DOJ dropped.

Flynn lied. Flynn admitted he lied. Flynn pled guilty to criminal charges. Why shouldn't the judge proceed with sentencing?

This is why the Democrat party is going down in flames, the determined drive to ignore and be ignorant of the Exculpatory evidence presented through legal documents, is why YOU are making a fool of yourself in your blind partisan drive.

I have posted several times the evidence that Obama officials CONSPIRED to entrap General Flynn, they even say so in their now released memos!

Democrats are trying hard to drag this out because they don't respect the rule of law.

It's not entrapment. It's how the FBI operates and their methods are backed by the Judicial branch.

​

While the essence of the entrapment defense is the defendant's lack of predisposition to commit the offense, the "defense" of outrageous government conduct presupposes predisposition but seeks dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the conduct of law enforcement agents was "so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction." United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1973). Thus, the outrageous government conduct defense is not really a defense at all. Rather, it is a claim that the institution of the prosecution suffers from a purely legal defect; as such, the claim is waived unless raised prior to trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(2). See, e.g., United States v. Henderson-Durand, 985 F.2d 970, 973 & n. 5 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 856 (1993); United States v. Duncan, 896 F.2d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Nunez-Rios, 622 F.2d 1093, 1099 (2d Cir. 1980).​

​

The Supreme Court has never held that the government's mere use of undercover agents or informants, or the use of deception by them, gives rise to a due process violation, although in Russell it left open that possibility. The requisite level of outrageousness could be reached only where government conduct is so fundamentally unfair as to be "shocking to the universal sense of justice." Id. at 432. No court of appeals has held that a predisposed defendant may establish a due process violation simply because he purportedly was induced to commit the crime by an undercover agent or informant. See, e.g., United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515, 1521 (10th Cir.) (not outrageous for government "to infiltrate an ongoing criminal enterprise, or to induce a defendant to repeat, continue, or even expand criminal activity."), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 347 (1994).​

​

Defendants who claim to be victims of outrageous government conduct sometimes also argue that the district court should dismiss the indictment in the exercise of its supervisory power. In the absence of a due process violation, however, a district court has no authority to dismiss an indictment on this basis. See, e.g., United States v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1991).​

​

648. Entrapment—Outrageous Government Conduct

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact [email protected] if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

Another Googler not reading and thinking.. Entrapment in the general sense is misconduct where the law enforcers LEAD someone INTO an ACTUAL crime.. Like getting the Ruby Ridge Weaver guy to "saw off" a shot-gun for them or giving a potential suspected Jihadist a "fake bomb" to go try and explode...

Doesn't APPLY to "process crimes" when no ACTUAL crime has been committed or when NO WARRANT can be sought.. All of the futile googling you did is for "entrapment" where there IS a warrant to investigate this person existing...

This "process crime" was the ONLY way "get Flynn" open to them.. No GROUNDS for any further CRIMINAL investigation were left open.. That's what that "hand-written" memo that was lately uncovered TOLD YOU... The agents wanted to know "what their goal was here"?? "To get Flynn FIRED"? To get him to LIE" ??? NOTHING ABOUT PURSUING A LEGITIMATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION..

Was not LEGALLY "entrapment".. It was a Hail Mary desperation AMBUSH to PRODUCE a process crime where NO REAL CRIME was under investigation..

Carefully premeditated lying to Investigators is a “process crime”?? No silly, it’s just STRAIGHT UP CRIME.

Flynn was well aware that lying like this can land him in deep shit, and he did it anyway. Ever wonder why?

The only lies, we have learned, are from Obamunists. Flynn didn't lie......

“The FBI possessed word-for-word transcripts of Flynn's December 2016 conversations with Kislyak, and publicly admitted to reviewing those transcripts and clearing Flynn of any wrongdoing.”

"FBI publicly admitted"??

Let me give a couple of clues:

1. FBI did not publicly admit anything like that. There was an "anonymous source" who was OBVIOUSLY wrong.

2. Flynn's conversations with Kislyak and his directly contradicting statements to investigators were all reviewed by the court. This is not a he-said, she-said situation, this is irrefutable, ON TAPE lying.

Any other idiocy to share with us? You always come with a bag full.

I love it.

It's unraveling before everyone's eyes, and the longer dolts like you hold on, the more it's gonna hurt when you have to give up.


What I just posted would be understood and accepted by anybody with any judgment at all, as well as anybody that follows the news and was capable of understanding same, but apparently you don’t fall into either of those categories.


Keep holdin' on, dolt.

 

[AntonToo]

The Last Refuge

Outrageous – Flynn Judge Orders Retired Judicial Ally to File Brief Supporting Prosecution of Michael Flynn…

Posted on May 13, 2020 by sundance

Excerpt:

Stunning and outrageous doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of this move by DC Judge Emett Sullivan in the Flynn case.

Judge Sullivan is requesting retired judge John Gleeson to file an amicus brief outlining why: (a) the charge against Flynn should not be dropped; and (b) frame the argument about how to prosecute Flynn for perjury.

LINK

=====

It appears to be another venal attempt to trash innocent people because they are disliked. The Judge is now acting like a rogue lawyer, trying to dredge up a series of bogus hurdles to a now dead case, the one the Lead Prosecutor dropped....., the one the DOJ dropped.

Flynn lied. Flynn admitted he lied. Flynn pled guilty to criminal charges. Why shouldn't the judge proceed with sentencing?

This is why the Democrat party is going down in flames, the determined drive to ignore and be ignorant of the Exculpatory evidence presented through legal documents, is why YOU are making a fool of yourself in your blind partisan drive.

I have posted several times the evidence that Obama officials CONSPIRED to entrap General Flynn, they even say so in their now released memos!

Democrats are trying hard to drag this out because they don't respect the rule of law.

It's not entrapment. It's how the FBI operates and their methods are backed by the Judicial branch.

​

While the essence of the entrapment defense is the defendant's lack of predisposition to commit the offense, the "defense" of outrageous government conduct presupposes predisposition but seeks dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the conduct of law enforcement agents was "so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction." United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1973). Thus, the outrageous government conduct defense is not really a defense at all. Rather, it is a claim that the institution of the prosecution suffers from a purely legal defect; as such, the claim is waived unless raised prior to trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(2). See, e.g., United States v. Henderson-Durand, 985 F.2d 970, 973 & n. 5 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 856 (1993); United States v. Duncan, 896 F.2d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Nunez-Rios, 622 F.2d 1093, 1099 (2d Cir. 1980).​

​

The Supreme Court has never held that the government's mere use of undercover agents or informants, or the use of deception by them, gives rise to a due process violation, although in Russell it left open that possibility. The requisite level of outrageousness could be reached only where government conduct is so fundamentally unfair as to be "shocking to the universal sense of justice." Id. at 432. No court of appeals has held that a predisposed defendant may establish a due process violation simply because he purportedly was induced to commit the crime by an undercover agent or informant. See, e.g., United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515, 1521 (10th Cir.) (not outrageous for government "to infiltrate an ongoing criminal enterprise, or to induce a defendant to repeat, continue, or even expand criminal activity."), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 347 (1994).​

​

Defendants who claim to be victims of outrageous government conduct sometimes also argue that the district court should dismiss the indictment in the exercise of its supervisory power. In the absence of a due process violation, however, a district court has no authority to dismiss an indictment on this basis. See, e.g., United States v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1991).​

​

648. Entrapment—Outrageous Government Conduct

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact [email protected] if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

Another Googler not reading and thinking.. Entrapment in the general sense is misconduct where the law enforcers LEAD someone INTO an ACTUAL crime.. Like getting the Ruby Ridge Weaver guy to "saw off" a shot-gun for them or giving a potential suspected Jihadist a "fake bomb" to go try and explode...

Doesn't APPLY to "process crimes" when no ACTUAL crime has been committed or when NO WARRANT can be sought.. All of the futile googling you did is for "entrapment" where there IS a warrant to investigate this person existing...

This "process crime" was the ONLY way "get Flynn" open to them.. No GROUNDS for any further CRIMINAL investigation were left open.. That's what that "hand-written" memo that was lately uncovered TOLD YOU... The agents wanted to know "what their goal was here"?? "To get Flynn FIRED"? To get him to LIE" ??? NOTHING ABOUT PURSUING A LEGITIMATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION..

Was not LEGALLY "entrapment".. It was a Hail Mary desperation AMBUSH to PRODUCE a process crime where NO REAL CRIME was under investigation..

Carefully premeditated lying to Investigators is a “process crime”?? No silly, it’s just STRAIGHT UP CRIME.

Flynn was well aware that lying like this can land him in deep shit, and he did it anyway. Ever wonder why?

The only lies, we have learned, are from Obamunists. Flynn didn't lie......

“The FBI possessed word-for-word transcripts of Flynn's December 2016 conversations with Kislyak, and publicly admitted to reviewing those transcripts and clearing Flynn of any wrongdoing.”

"FBI publicly admitted"??

Let me give a couple of clues:

1. FBI did not publicly admit anything like that. There was an "anonymous source" who was OBVIOUSLY wrong.

2. Flynn's conversations with Kislyak and his directly contradicting statements to investigators were all reviewed by the court. This is not a he-said, she-said situation, this is irrefutable, ON TAPE lying.

Any other idiocy to share with us? You always come with a bag full.

I love it.

It's unraveling before everyone's eyes, and the longer dolts like you hold on, the more it's gonna hurt when you have to give up.


What I just posted would be understood and accepted by anybody with any judgment at all, as well as anybody that follows the news and was capable of understanding same, but apparently you don’t fall into either of those categories.


Keep holdin' on, dolt.

That's a lot of words to say nothing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Last Refuge

Outrageous – Flynn Judge Orders Retired Judicial Ally to File Brief Supporting Prosecution of Michael Flynn…

Posted on May 13, 2020 by sundance

Excerpt:

Stunning and outrageous doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of this move by DC Judge Emett Sullivan in the Flynn case.

Judge Sullivan is requesting retired judge John Gleeson to file an amicus brief outlining why: (a) the charge against Flynn should not be dropped; and (b) frame the argument about how to prosecute Flynn for perjury.

LINK

=====

It appears to be another venal attempt to trash innocent people because they are disliked. The Judge is now acting like a rogue lawyer, trying to dredge up a series of bogus hurdles to a now dead case, the one the Lead Prosecutor dropped....., the one the DOJ dropped.

Flynn lied. Flynn admitted he lied. Flynn pled guilty to criminal charges. Why shouldn't the judge proceed with sentencing?

This is why the Democrat party is going down in flames, the determined drive to ignore and be ignorant of the Exculpatory evidence presented through legal documents, is why YOU are making a fool of yourself in your blind partisan drive.

I have posted several times the evidence that Obama officials CONSPIRED to entrap General Flynn, they even say so in their now released memos!

Democrats are trying hard to drag this out because they don't respect the rule of law.

It's not entrapment. It's how the FBI operates and their methods are backed by the Judicial branch.

​

While the essence of the entrapment defense is the defendant's lack of predisposition to commit the offense, the "defense" of outrageous government conduct presupposes predisposition but seeks dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the conduct of law enforcement agents was "so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction." United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1973). Thus, the outrageous government conduct defense is not really a defense at all. Rather, it is a claim that the institution of the prosecution suffers from a purely legal defect; as such, the claim is waived unless raised prior to trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(2). See, e.g., United States v. Henderson-Durand, 985 F.2d 970, 973 & n. 5 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 856 (1993); United States v. Duncan, 896 F.2d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Nunez-Rios, 622 F.2d 1093, 1099 (2d Cir. 1980).​

​

The Supreme Court has never held that the government's mere use of undercover agents or informants, or the use of deception by them, gives rise to a due process violation, although in Russell it left open that possibility. The requisite level of outrageousness could be reached only where government conduct is so fundamentally unfair as to be "shocking to the universal sense of justice." Id. at 432. No court of appeals has held that a predisposed defendant may establish a due process violation simply because he purportedly was induced to commit the crime by an undercover agent or informant. See, e.g., United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515, 1521 (10th Cir.) (not outrageous for government "to infiltrate an ongoing criminal enterprise, or to induce a defendant to repeat, continue, or even expand criminal activity."), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 347 (1994).​

​

Defendants who claim to be victims of outrageous government conduct sometimes also argue that the district court should dismiss the indictment in the exercise of its supervisory power. In the absence of a due process violation, however, a district court has no authority to dismiss an indictment on this basis. See, e.g., United States v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1991).​

​

648. Entrapment—Outrageous Government Conduct

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact [email protected] if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

Another Googler not reading and thinking.. Entrapment in the general sense is misconduct where the law enforcers LEAD someone INTO an ACTUAL crime.. Like getting the Ruby Ridge Weaver guy to "saw off" a shot-gun for them or giving a potential suspected Jihadist a "fake bomb" to go try and explode...

Doesn't APPLY to "process crimes" when no ACTUAL crime has been committed or when NO WARRANT can be sought.. All of the futile googling you did is for "entrapment" where there IS a warrant to investigate this person existing...

This "process crime" was the ONLY way "get Flynn" open to them.. No GROUNDS for any further CRIMINAL investigation were left open.. That's what that "hand-written" memo that was lately uncovered TOLD YOU... The agents wanted to know "what their goal was here"?? "To get Flynn FIRED"? To get him to LIE" ??? NOTHING ABOUT PURSUING A LEGITIMATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION..

Was not LEGALLY "entrapment".. It was a Hail Mary desperation AMBUSH to PRODUCE a process crime where NO REAL CRIME was under investigation..

Carefully premeditated lying to Investigators is a “process crime”?? No silly, it’s just STRAIGHT UP CRIME.

Flynn was well aware that lying like this can land him in deep shit, and he did it anyway. Ever wonder why?

The only lies, we have learned, are from Obamunists. Flynn didn't lie......

“The FBI possessed word-for-word transcripts of Flynn's December 2016 conversations with Kislyak, and publicly admitted to reviewing those transcripts and clearing Flynn of any wrongdoing.”

"FBI publicly admitted"??

Let me give a couple of clues:

1. FBI did not publicly admit anything like that. There was an "anonymous source" who was OBVIOUSLY wrong.

2. Flynn's conversations with Kislyak and his directly contradicting statements to investigators were all reviewed by the court. This is not a he-said, she-said situation, this is irrefutable, ON TAPE lying.

Any other idiocy to share with us? You always come with a bag full.

I love it.

It's unraveling before everyone's eyes, and the longer dolts like you hold on, the more it's gonna hurt when you have to give up.


What I just posted would be understood and accepted by anybody with any judgment at all, as well as anybody that follows the news and was capable of understanding same, but apparently you don’t fall into either of those categories.


Keep holdin' on, dolt.

That's a lot of words to say nothing.

The key term was 'dolt.'

You need to monogram it all of your outfits....it will save new acquaintances lots of time.




“Previously undisclosed documents in the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn offer us a chilling blueprint on how top FBI officials not only sought to entrap the former White House aide but sought to do so on such blatantly unconstitutional and manufactured grounds.

These new documents further undermine the view of both the legitimacy and motivations of those investigations under former FBI director James Comey. For all of those who have long seen a concerted effort within the Justice Department to target the Trump administration, the fragments will read like a Dead Sea Scrolls version of a “deep state” conspiracy."

The Flynn Case Should Be Dismissed In The Name Of Justice

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the new evidence released in the case of Michael Flynn. As I said two years ago, it is unlikely the Judge Emmet Sullivan will dismiss this case regardle…

jonathanturley.org

Hold tight!

It ain't over yet......dolt.

 

[Nostra]

Flynn had a choice and he chose to break the law.

More garbage from the left. The situation now is the prosecutor wants the charges dropped. What part of that don't you understand?

Lead prosecutor quit and the only signature on the motion to dismiss is from Barr’s political appointee. Wtf are you even taking about?

He quit because he was the one withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense.

 

[Faun]

The Last Refuge

Outrageous – Flynn Judge Orders Retired Judicial Ally to File Brief Supporting Prosecution of Michael Flynn…

Posted on May 13, 2020 by sundance

Excerpt:

Stunning and outrageous doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of this move by DC Judge Emett Sullivan in the Flynn case.

Judge Sullivan is requesting retired judge John Gleeson to file an amicus brief outlining why: (a) the charge against Flynn should not be dropped; and (b) frame the argument about how to prosecute Flynn for perjury.

LINK

=====

It appears to be another venal attempt to trash innocent people because they are disliked. The Judge is now acting like a rogue lawyer, trying to dredge up a series of bogus hurdles to a now dead case, the one the Lead Prosecutor dropped....., the one the DOJ dropped.

Flynn lied. Flynn admitted he lied. Flynn pled guilty to criminal charges. Why shouldn't the judge proceed with sentencing?

This is why the Democrat party is going down in flames, the determined drive to ignore and be ignorant of the Exculpatory evidence presented through legal documents, is why YOU are making a fool of yourself in your blind partisan drive.

I have posted several times the evidence that Obama officials CONSPIRED to entrap General Flynn, they even say so in their now released memos!

Democrats are trying hard to drag this out because they don't respect the rule of law.

It's not entrapment. It's how the FBI operates and their methods are backed by the Judicial branch.

​

While the essence of the entrapment defense is the defendant's lack of predisposition to commit the offense, the "defense" of outrageous government conduct presupposes predisposition but seeks dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the conduct of law enforcement agents was "so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction." United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1973). Thus, the outrageous government conduct defense is not really a defense at all. Rather, it is a claim that the institution of the prosecution suffers from a purely legal defect; as such, the claim is waived unless raised prior to trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(2). See, e.g., United States v. Henderson-Durand, 985 F.2d 970, 973 & n. 5 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 856 (1993); United States v. Duncan, 896 F.2d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Nunez-Rios, 622 F.2d 1093, 1099 (2d Cir. 1980).​

​

The Supreme Court has never held that the government's mere use of undercover agents or informants, or the use of deception by them, gives rise to a due process violation, although in Russell it left open that possibility. The requisite level of outrageousness could be reached only where government conduct is so fundamentally unfair as to be "shocking to the universal sense of justice." Id. at 432. No court of appeals has held that a predisposed defendant may establish a due process violation simply because he purportedly was induced to commit the crime by an undercover agent or informant. See, e.g., United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515, 1521 (10th Cir.) (not outrageous for government "to infiltrate an ongoing criminal enterprise, or to induce a defendant to repeat, continue, or even expand criminal activity."), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 347 (1994).​

​

Defendants who claim to be victims of outrageous government conduct sometimes also argue that the district court should dismiss the indictment in the exercise of its supervisory power. In the absence of a due process violation, however, a district court has no authority to dismiss an indictment on this basis. See, e.g., United States v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1991).​

​

648. Entrapment—Outrageous Government Conduct

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact [email protected] if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

Another Googler not reading and thinking.. Entrapment in the general sense is misconduct where the law enforcers LEAD someone INTO an ACTUAL crime.. Like getting the Ruby Ridge Weaver guy to "saw off" a shot-gun for them or giving a potential suspected Jihadist a "fake bomb" to go try and explode...

Doesn't APPLY to "process crimes" when no ACTUAL crime has been committed or when NO WARRANT can be sought.. All of the futile googling you did is for "entrapment" where there IS a warrant to investigate this person existing...

This "process crime" was the ONLY way "get Flynn" open to them.. No GROUNDS for any further CRIMINAL investigation were left open.. That's what that "hand-written" memo that was lately uncovered TOLD YOU... The agents wanted to know "what their goal was here"?? "To get Flynn FIRED"? To get him to LIE" ??? NOTHING ABOUT PURSUING A LEGITIMATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION..

Was not LEGALLY "entrapment".. It was a Hail Mary desperation AMBUSH to PRODUCE a process crime where NO REAL CRIME was under investigation..

LOLOL

You're truly a fucking moron. Even after being shown how the courts have consistently sided with law enforcement's efforts in such fashion to extract information from suspects, you still cling to your idiocy that it's entrapment.

 

[Nostra]

The Last Refuge

Outrageous – Flynn Judge Orders Retired Judicial Ally to File Brief Supporting Prosecution of Michael Flynn…

Posted on May 13, 2020 by sundance

Excerpt:

Stunning and outrageous doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of this move by DC Judge Emett Sullivan in the Flynn case.

Judge Sullivan is requesting retired judge John Gleeson to file an amicus brief outlining why: (a) the charge against Flynn should not be dropped; and (b) frame the argument about how to prosecute Flynn for perjury.

LINK

=====

It appears to be another venal attempt to trash innocent people because they are disliked. The Judge is now acting like a rogue lawyer, trying to dredge up a series of bogus hurdles to a now dead case, the one the Lead Prosecutor dropped....., the one the DOJ dropped.

Flynn lied. Flynn admitted he lied. Flynn pled guilty to criminal charges. Why shouldn't the judge proceed with sentencing?

This is why the Democrat party is going down in flames, the determined drive to ignore and be ignorant of the Exculpatory evidence presented through legal documents, is why YOU are making a fool of yourself in your blind partisan drive.

I have posted several times the evidence that Obama officials CONSPIRED to entrap General Flynn, they even say so in their now released memos!

Democrats are trying hard to drag this out because they don't respect the rule of law.

It's not entrapment. It's how the FBI operates and their methods are backed by the Judicial branch.

​

While the essence of the entrapment defense is the defendant's lack of predisposition to commit the offense, the "defense" of outrageous government conduct presupposes predisposition but seeks dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the conduct of law enforcement agents was "so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction." United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1973). Thus, the outrageous government conduct defense is not really a defense at all. Rather, it is a claim that the institution of the prosecution suffers from a purely legal defect; as such, the claim is waived unless raised prior to trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(2). See, e.g., United States v. Henderson-Durand, 985 F.2d 970, 973 & n. 5 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 856 (1993); United States v. Duncan, 896 F.2d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Nunez-Rios, 622 F.2d 1093, 1099 (2d Cir. 1980).​

​

The Supreme Court has never held that the government's mere use of undercover agents or informants, or the use of deception by them, gives rise to a due process violation, although in Russell it left open that possibility. The requisite level of outrageousness could be reached only where government conduct is so fundamentally unfair as to be "shocking to the universal sense of justice." Id. at 432. No court of appeals has held that a predisposed defendant may establish a due process violation simply because he purportedly was induced to commit the crime by an undercover agent or informant. See, e.g., United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515, 1521 (10th Cir.) (not outrageous for government "to infiltrate an ongoing criminal enterprise, or to induce a defendant to repeat, continue, or even expand criminal activity."), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 347 (1994).​

​

Defendants who claim to be victims of outrageous government conduct sometimes also argue that the district court should dismiss the indictment in the exercise of its supervisory power. In the absence of a due process violation, however, a district court has no authority to dismiss an indictment on this basis. See, e.g., United States v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1991).​

​

648. Entrapment—Outrageous Government Conduct

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact [email protected] if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

Another Googler not reading and thinking.. Entrapment in the general sense is misconduct where the law enforcers LEAD someone INTO an ACTUAL crime.. Like getting the Ruby Ridge Weaver guy to "saw off" a shot-gun for them or giving a potential suspected Jihadist a "fake bomb" to go try and explode...

Doesn't APPLY to "process crimes" when no ACTUAL crime has been committed or when NO WARRANT can be sought.. All of the futile googling you did is for "entrapment" where there IS a warrant to investigate this person existing...

This "process crime" was the ONLY way "get Flynn" open to them.. No GROUNDS for any further CRIMINAL investigation were left open.. That's what that "hand-written" memo that was lately uncovered TOLD YOU... The agents wanted to know "what their goal was here"?? "To get Flynn FIRED"? To get him to LIE" ??? NOTHING ABOUT PURSUING A LEGITIMATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION..

Was not LEGALLY "entrapment".. It was a Hail Mary desperation AMBUSH to PRODUCE a process crime where NO REAL CRIME was under investigation..

LOLOL

You're truly a fucking moron. Even after being shown how the courts have consistently sided with law enforcement's efforts in such fashion to extract information from suspects, you still cling to your idiocy that it's entrapment.

It is documented that the FBI went there to get him fired, or trick him into lying.

That is a fact, but you never worry about those.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Last Refuge

Outrageous – Flynn Judge Orders Retired Judicial Ally to File Brief Supporting Prosecution of Michael Flynn…

Posted on May 13, 2020 by sundance

Excerpt:

Stunning and outrageous doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of this move by DC Judge Emett Sullivan in the Flynn case.

Judge Sullivan is requesting retired judge John Gleeson to file an amicus brief outlining why: (a) the charge against Flynn should not be dropped; and (b) frame the argument about how to prosecute Flynn for perjury.

LINK

=====

It appears to be another venal attempt to trash innocent people because they are disliked. The Judge is now acting like a rogue lawyer, trying to dredge up a series of bogus hurdles to a now dead case, the one the Lead Prosecutor dropped....., the one the DOJ dropped.

Flynn lied. Flynn admitted he lied. Flynn pled guilty to criminal charges. Why shouldn't the judge proceed with sentencing?

This is why the Democrat party is going down in flames, the determined drive to ignore and be ignorant of the Exculpatory evidence presented through legal documents, is why YOU are making a fool of yourself in your blind partisan drive.

I have posted several times the evidence that Obama officials CONSPIRED to entrap General Flynn, they even say so in their now released memos!

Democrats are trying hard to drag this out because they don't respect the rule of law.

It's not entrapment. It's how the FBI operates and their methods are backed by the Judicial branch.

​

While the essence of the entrapment defense is the defendant's lack of predisposition to commit the offense, the "defense" of outrageous government conduct presupposes predisposition but seeks dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the conduct of law enforcement agents was "so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction." United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1973). Thus, the outrageous government conduct defense is not really a defense at all. Rather, it is a claim that the institution of the prosecution suffers from a purely legal defect; as such, the claim is waived unless raised prior to trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(2). See, e.g., United States v. Henderson-Durand, 985 F.2d 970, 973 & n. 5 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 856 (1993); United States v. Duncan, 896 F.2d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Nunez-Rios, 622 F.2d 1093, 1099 (2d Cir. 1980).​

​

The Supreme Court has never held that the government's mere use of undercover agents or informants, or the use of deception by them, gives rise to a due process violation, although in Russell it left open that possibility. The requisite level of outrageousness could be reached only where government conduct is so fundamentally unfair as to be "shocking to the universal sense of justice." Id. at 432. No court of appeals has held that a predisposed defendant may establish a due process violation simply because he purportedly was induced to commit the crime by an undercover agent or informant. See, e.g., United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515, 1521 (10th Cir.) (not outrageous for government "to infiltrate an ongoing criminal enterprise, or to induce a defendant to repeat, continue, or even expand criminal activity."), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 347 (1994).​

​

Defendants who claim to be victims of outrageous government conduct sometimes also argue that the district court should dismiss the indictment in the exercise of its supervisory power. In the absence of a due process violation, however, a district court has no authority to dismiss an indictment on this basis. See, e.g., United States v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1991).​

​

648. Entrapment—Outrageous Government Conduct

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact [email protected] if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

Another Googler not reading and thinking.. Entrapment in the general sense is misconduct where the law enforcers LEAD someone INTO an ACTUAL crime.. Like getting the Ruby Ridge Weaver guy to "saw off" a shot-gun for them or giving a potential suspected Jihadist a "fake bomb" to go try and explode...

Doesn't APPLY to "process crimes" when no ACTUAL crime has been committed or when NO WARRANT can be sought.. All of the futile googling you did is for "entrapment" where there IS a warrant to investigate this person existing...

This "process crime" was the ONLY way "get Flynn" open to them.. No GROUNDS for any further CRIMINAL investigation were left open.. That's what that "hand-written" memo that was lately uncovered TOLD YOU... The agents wanted to know "what their goal was here"?? "To get Flynn FIRED"? To get him to LIE" ??? NOTHING ABOUT PURSUING A LEGITIMATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION..

Was not LEGALLY "entrapment".. It was a Hail Mary desperation AMBUSH to PRODUCE a process crime where NO REAL CRIME was under investigation..

LOLOL

You're truly a fucking moron. Even after being shown how the courts have consistently sided with law enforcement's efforts in such fashion to extract information from suspects, you still cling to your idiocy that it's entrapment.

Why is your language always so.....low class?

 

[Sunsettommy]

The Last Refuge

Outrageous – Flynn Judge Orders Retired Judicial Ally to File Brief Supporting Prosecution of Michael Flynn…

Posted on May 13, 2020 by sundance

Excerpt:

Stunning and outrageous doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of this move by DC Judge Emett Sullivan in the Flynn case.

Judge Sullivan is requesting retired judge John Gleeson to file an amicus brief outlining why: (a) the charge against Flynn should not be dropped; and (b) frame the argument about how to prosecute Flynn for perjury.

LINK

=====

It appears to be another venal attempt to trash innocent people because they are disliked. The Judge is now acting like a rogue lawyer, trying to dredge up a series of bogus hurdles to a now dead case, the one the Lead Prosecutor dropped....., the one the DOJ dropped.

Flynn lied. Flynn admitted he lied. Flynn pled guilty to criminal charges. Why shouldn't the judge proceed with sentencing?

This is why the Democrat party is going down in flames, the determined drive to ignore and be ignorant of the Exculpatory evidence presented through legal documents, is why YOU are making a fool of yourself in your blind partisan drive.

I have posted several times the evidence that Obama officials CONSPIRED to entrap General Flynn, they even say so in their now released memos!

Democrats are trying hard to drag this out because they don't respect the rule of law.

It's not entrapment. It's how the FBI operates and their methods are backed by the Judicial branch.

​

While the essence of the entrapment defense is the defendant's lack of predisposition to commit the offense, the "defense" of outrageous government conduct presupposes predisposition but seeks dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the conduct of law enforcement agents was "so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction." United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1973). Thus, the outrageous government conduct defense is not really a defense at all. Rather, it is a claim that the institution of the prosecution suffers from a purely legal defect; as such, the claim is waived unless raised prior to trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(2). See, e.g., United States v. Henderson-Durand, 985 F.2d 970, 973 & n. 5 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 856 (1993); United States v. Duncan, 896 F.2d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Nunez-Rios, 622 F.2d 1093, 1099 (2d Cir. 1980).​

​

The Supreme Court has never held that the government's mere use of undercover agents or informants, or the use of deception by them, gives rise to a due process violation, although in Russell it left open that possibility. The requisite level of outrageousness could be reached only where government conduct is so fundamentally unfair as to be "shocking to the universal sense of justice." Id. at 432. No court of appeals has held that a predisposed defendant may establish a due process violation simply because he purportedly was induced to commit the crime by an undercover agent or informant. See, e.g., United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515, 1521 (10th Cir.) (not outrageous for government "to infiltrate an ongoing criminal enterprise, or to induce a defendant to repeat, continue, or even expand criminal activity."), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 347 (1994).​

​

Defendants who claim to be victims of outrageous government conduct sometimes also argue that the district court should dismiss the indictment in the exercise of its supervisory power. In the absence of a due process violation, however, a district court has no authority to dismiss an indictment on this basis. See, e.g., United States v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1991).​

​

648. Entrapment—Outrageous Government Conduct

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact [email protected] if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

Another Googler not reading and thinking.. Entrapment in the general sense is misconduct where the law enforcers LEAD someone INTO an ACTUAL crime.. Like getting the Ruby Ridge Weaver guy to "saw off" a shot-gun for them or giving a potential suspected Jihadist a "fake bomb" to go try and explode...

Doesn't APPLY to "process crimes" when no ACTUAL crime has been committed or when NO WARRANT can be sought.. All of the futile googling you did is for "entrapment" where there IS a warrant to investigate this person existing...

This "process crime" was the ONLY way "get Flynn" open to them.. No GROUNDS for any further CRIMINAL investigation were left open.. That's what that "hand-written" memo that was lately uncovered TOLD YOU... The agents wanted to know "what their goal was here"?? "To get Flynn FIRED"? To get him to LIE" ??? NOTHING ABOUT PURSUING A LEGITIMATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION..

Was not LEGALLY "entrapment".. It was a Hail Mary desperation AMBUSH to PRODUCE a process crime where NO REAL CRIME was under investigation..

Carefully premeditated lying to Investigators is a “process crime”?? No silly, it’s just STRAIGHT UP CRIME.

Flynn was well aware that lying like this can land him in deep shit, and he did it anyway. Ever wonder why?

The only lies, we have learned, are from Obamunists. Flynn didn't lie......

“The FBI possessed word-for-word transcripts of Flynn's December 2016 conversations with Kislyak, and publicly admitted to reviewing those transcripts and clearing Flynn of any wrongdoing.”

"FBI publicly admitted"??

Let me give a couple of clues:

1. FBI did not publicly admit anything like that. There was an "anonymous source" who was OBVIOUSLY wrong.

2. Flynn's conversations with Kislyak and his directly contradicting statements to investigators were all reviewed by the court. This is not a he-said, she-said situation, this is irrefutable, ON TAPE lying.

Any other idiocy to share with us? You always come with a bag full.

I love it.

It's unraveling before everyone's eyes, and the longer dolts like you hold on, the more it's gonna hurt when you have to give up.


What I just posted would be understood and accepted by anybody with any judgment at all, as well as anybody that follows the news and was capable of understanding same, but apparently you don’t fall into either of those categories.


Keep holdin' on, dolt.

That's a lot of words to say nothing.

The key term was 'dolt.'

You need to monogram it all of your outfits....it will save new acquaintances lots of time.




“Previously undisclosed documents in the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn offer us a chilling blueprint on how top FBI officials not only sought to entrap the former White House aide but sought to do so on such blatantly unconstitutional and manufactured grounds.

These new documents further undermine the view of both the legitimacy and motivations of those investigations under former FBI director James Comey. For all of those who have long seen a concerted effort within the Justice Department to target the Trump administration, the fragments will read like a Dead Sea Scrolls version of a “deep state” conspiracy."

The Flynn Case Should Be Dismissed In The Name Of Justice

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the new evidence released in the case of Michael Flynn. As I said two years ago, it is unlikely the Judge Emmet Sullivan will dismiss this case regardle…

jonathanturley.org

Hold tight!

It ain't over yet......dolt.

He and many leftist partisan hacks will NEVER allow documentary evidence creep into them. They will fight that reality of General Flynn's being a legitimate National Security advisor, that he didn't break any laws in those 6 phone calls. The initial FBI investigation didn't find any problems, thus planned to close the case.

 

[charwin95]

Lets all file an amicus brief telling judge sullivan he's an ASSHOLE!

Have about half a million veterans with Flynn signs
show up at his next court session.

I did that. A TRAITOR. Not a single one supported traitor Gen. Flynn. This a US General sitting next to Putin eating dinner. Ask any military personnel retired or active if that is acceptable? They want to fry him. Why and since when that is acceptable? Then a dumb moron president hired him as NSA. God deng that is scary.

Don’t tell me Obama sent Flynn to Putin.

You obviously are ignorant of the definition of "traitor", Moron.

charwin95

Get a a life a Dude. Flynn is nothing but a TRAITOR.

 

[the other mike]

Get a a life a Dude. Flynn is nothing but a TRAITOR.

Thank god your queen lost.

Well, well, well. This doesn't bode well for Hillary

The IG report stated that most of Hillary's emails were "sent to another country" or they were hacked. A member of the House Committee on the Judiciary said during a hearing Thursday that a government watchdog found that nearly all of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails were sent...

caucus99percent.com

 

[charwin95]

What crimes?
What law was broken?

Flynn crossed The Black Messiah somehow.

Why the enmity?
One simple reason.....Flynn opposed Hussein Obama's signature foreign policy aim: to nuclear arm his co-religionists in the 7th century barbarian kingdom. Flynn saw through the absurd plan to arm the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism, and advance a deal that never had any inspections of the murderous blood-drenched savages.

"Obama Allies Torpedoed Flynn to Protect Iran Deal
...moving behind the scenes to kneecap someone they've long viewed as a threat to the future of their signature accord.
... include former Obama administration adviser Ben Rhodes—the architect of a separate White House effort to create what he described as a pro-Iran echo chamber—included a small task force of Obama loyalists who deluged media outlets with stories aimed at eroding Flynn's credibility, multiple sources revealed."

​

Oh My: Did Obama Allies Torpedoed Michael Flynn to Protect the Iran Deal?

Subterfuge.

townhall.com

That is just a load of nonsense. Most or all GOPs opposed all of Obama’s policies. These GOPs even allowed Bibi to speak against Obama Iran Nuclear program in Congress.
So why should Obama even care about Flynn disagreements?

Did Obama told Flynn to call ambassador Kislyak? That is where Flynn got himself in trouble. Your IRAN bullshit has nothing to do with your nonsense.

Did Obama told Flynn to call ambassador Kislyak?

Is English your fourth language?

My 6th language. Do you have problems with that?

 

[Billiejeens]

The Last Refuge

Outrageous – Flynn Judge Orders Retired Judicial Ally to File Brief Supporting Prosecution of Michael Flynn…

Posted on May 13, 2020 by sundance

Excerpt:

Stunning and outrageous doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of this move by DC Judge Emett Sullivan in the Flynn case.

Judge Sullivan is requesting retired judge John Gleeson to file an amicus brief outlining why: (a) the charge against Flynn should not be dropped; and (b) frame the argument about how to prosecute Flynn for perjury.

LINK

=====

It appears to be another venal attempt to trash innocent people because they are disliked. The Judge is now acting like a rogue lawyer, trying to dredge up a series of bogus hurdles to a now dead case, the one the Lead Prosecutor dropped....., the one the DOJ dropped.

Flynn lied. Flynn admitted he lied. Flynn pled guilty to criminal charges. Why shouldn't the judge proceed with sentencing?

This is why the Democrat party is going down in flames, the determined drive to ignore and be ignorant of the Exculpatory evidence presented through legal documents, is why YOU are making a fool of yourself in your blind partisan drive.

I have posted several times the evidence that Obama officials CONSPIRED to entrap General Flynn, they even say so in their now released memos!

Democrats are trying hard to drag this out because they don't respect the rule of law.

It's not entrapment. It's how the FBI operates and their methods are backed by the Judicial branch.

​

While the essence of the entrapment defense is the defendant's lack of predisposition to commit the offense, the "defense" of outrageous government conduct presupposes predisposition but seeks dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the conduct of law enforcement agents was "so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction." United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1973). Thus, the outrageous government conduct defense is not really a defense at all. Rather, it is a claim that the institution of the prosecution suffers from a purely legal defect; as such, the claim is waived unless raised prior to trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(2). See, e.g., United States v. Henderson-Durand, 985 F.2d 970, 973 & n. 5 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 856 (1993); United States v. Duncan, 896 F.2d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Nunez-Rios, 622 F.2d 1093, 1099 (2d Cir. 1980).​

​

The Supreme Court has never held that the government's mere use of undercover agents or informants, or the use of deception by them, gives rise to a due process violation, although in Russell it left open that possibility. The requisite level of outrageousness could be reached only where government conduct is so fundamentally unfair as to be "shocking to the universal sense of justice." Id. at 432. No court of appeals has held that a predisposed defendant may establish a due process violation simply because he purportedly was induced to commit the crime by an undercover agent or informant. See, e.g., United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515, 1521 (10th Cir.) (not outrageous for government "to infiltrate an ongoing criminal enterprise, or to induce a defendant to repeat, continue, or even expand criminal activity."), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 347 (1994).​

​

Defendants who claim to be victims of outrageous government conduct sometimes also argue that the district court should dismiss the indictment in the exercise of its supervisory power. In the absence of a due process violation, however, a district court has no authority to dismiss an indictment on this basis. See, e.g., United States v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1991).​

​

648. Entrapment—Outrageous Government Conduct

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact [email protected] if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

Another Googler not reading and thinking.. Entrapment in the general sense is misconduct where the law enforcers LEAD someone INTO an ACTUAL crime.. Like getting the Ruby Ridge Weaver guy to "saw off" a shot-gun for them or giving a potential suspected Jihadist a "fake bomb" to go try and explode...

Doesn't APPLY to "process crimes" when no ACTUAL crime has been committed or when NO WARRANT can be sought.. All of the futile googling you did is for "entrapment" where there IS a warrant to investigate this person existing...

This "process crime" was the ONLY way "get Flynn" open to them.. No GROUNDS for any further CRIMINAL investigation were left open.. That's what that "hand-written" memo that was lately uncovered TOLD YOU... The agents wanted to know "what their goal was here"?? "To get Flynn FIRED"? To get him to LIE" ??? NOTHING ABOUT PURSUING A LEGITIMATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION..

Was not LEGALLY "entrapment".. It was a Hail Mary desperation AMBUSH to PRODUCE a process crime where NO REAL CRIME was under investigation..

LOLOL

You're truly a fucking moron. Even after being shown how the courts have consistently sided with law enforcement's efforts in such fashion to extract information from suspects, you still cling to your idiocy that it's entrapment.

Literally everything that you have said/predicted about President Trump ends up being wrong.
Yet, that doesn't affect you a bit.
It's weird
But you do you.

 

[Nostra]

Lets all file an amicus brief telling judge sullivan he's an ASSHOLE!

Have about half a million veterans with Flynn signs
show up at his next court session.

I did that. A TRAITOR. Not a single one supported traitor Gen. Flynn. This a US General sitting next to Putin eating dinner. Ask any military personnel retired or active if that is acceptable? They want to fry him. Why and since when that is acceptable? Then a dumb moron president hired him as NSA. God deng that is scary.

Don’t tell me Obama sent Flynn to Putin.

You obviously are ignorant of the definition of "traitor", Moron.

charwin95

Get a a life a Dude. Flynn is nothing but a TRAITOR.

Another single digit IQ Dimwinger who doesn’t know the definition of treason.

How cute.

 

[charwin95]

Ehy

Get a a life a Dude. Flynn is nothing but a TRAITOR.

Thank god your queen lost.

Well, well, well. This doesn't bode well for Hillary

The IG report stated that most of Hillary's emails were "sent to another country" or they were hacked. A member of the House Committee on the Judiciary said during a hearing Thursday that a government watchdog found that nearly all of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails were sent...

caucus99percent.com

Why am I an anti American when I m fighting corruption of this administration? This country deserves better than this lousy inept incompetent president.

 

[charwin95]

Lets all file an amicus brief telling judge sullivan he's an ASSHOLE!

Have about half a million veterans with Flynn signs
show up at his next court session.

I did that. A TRAITOR. Not a single one supported traitor Gen. Flynn. This a US General sitting next to Putin eating dinner. Ask any military personnel retired or active if that is acceptable? They want to fry him. Why and since when that is acceptable? Then a dumb moron president hired him as NSA. God deng that is scary.

Don’t tell me Obama sent Flynn to Putin.

You obviously are ignorant of the definition of "traitor", Moron.

charwin95

Get a a life a Dude. Flynn is nothing but a TRAITOR.

Another single digit IQ Dimwinger who doesn’t know the definition of treason.

How cute.

And how low is your IQ? All your post are nothing but low class insults. What that makes you? Poorly uneducated American.

 

[charwin95]

Get a a life a Dude. Flynn is nothing but a TRAITOR.

Thank god your queen lost.

Well, well, well. This doesn't bode well for Hillary

The IG report stated that most of Hillary's emails were "sent to another country" or they were hacked. A member of the House Committee on the Judiciary said during a hearing Thursday that a government watchdog found that nearly all of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails were sent...

caucus99percent.com

Understand truth hurts.