Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Easy - Can it be said that Flynn was a piece within the Domino structure in which they wanted to set up in a precise order, otherwise in hopes that the rest would fall, thus eventually getting to Trump their ultimate prize if pushed Flynn hard enough in the line up ???Worked for Hillary Clinton. Sally Yates lies under oath. User Clip: Yates LIES under oathProbably just shouldn’t lie to the FBI then. It’s not that hard
You don't mind lies at all. You lie yourself all the time. You back liars. Why you hold a grudge against Michael Flynn is a mystery except your tiny brain is fixated on it.
And that firm has a major partner by the name of ERIC HOLDER, who was Obama's right hand man at removing Flynn. Thier advice was not in Flynn's interests.And how Flynn fired his shitty lawyers Covington Burling (who told Flynn just to plead guilty to everything and hope for mercy from the system....which was the worst advice ever) and brought on board someone who fought the DOJ for a living and that made all the difference.
Yes that could be said. Just like how the street guys are used to get the mob boss. If Trump was dirty then that would definitely be a tactic that would be considered. Is that kind of a tactic illegal/unethical?Easy - Can it be said that Flynn was a piece within the Domino structure in which they wanted to set up in a precise order, otherwise in hopes that the rest would fall, thus eventually getting to Trump their ultimate prize if pushed Flynn hard enough in the line up ???Worked for Hillary Clinton. Sally Yates lies under oath. User Clip: Yates LIES under oathProbably just shouldn’t lie to the FBI then. It’s not that hard
You don't mind lies at all. You lie yourself all the time. You back liars. Why you hold a grudge against Michael Flynn is a mystery except your tiny brain is fixated on it.
Flynn was fired by Trump and arrested by Trumps FBI/DoJ and prosecuted over the past three years by directors appointed by Trump. What were you saying about Obama and Holder again?And that firm has a major partner by the name of ERIC HOLDER, who was Obama's right hand man at removing Flynn. Thier advice was not in Flynn's interests.And how Flynn fired his shitty lawyers Covington Burling (who told Flynn just to plead guilty to everything and hope for mercy from the system....which was the worst advice ever) and brought on board someone who fought the DOJ for a living and that made all the difference.
Oh shit John Turley disagrees?! Well that settles it then!!! HahaInternal memos amongst the investigators are not relevant documents for a court case. Are you really being serious?! This is a joke right?The punchline IS the link “redstate” what a joke. So you think the deliberations between FBI members regarding strategy and procedure of how to run the case constitute relevant and mandatory materials for disclosure?! Are you shitting me?!When I ask “why” that’s a call for proof. “Because I said so” means nothingWhy do you say he was a politicized prosecutor. Another weak baseless claim your pulling out of your ass?!Whoa, that was a nice little rant there... did I hit a trigger? Calm down man.Oooh...how ominous! You are watching. I'm sure you are because you seemingly do nothing but argue this issue all day every day with little to no success.You’re point went off on your own little tangent and wasn’t relevant to the fact that lawyers are not arbitures of truth, especially defense lawyers. They defend their clients and used loopholes in the law and negotiation to achieve the best possible outcome for their clients. Pointing at what Flynn’s lawyers did proves nothing. The fact remains that Flynn is a liar and nothing can change that... you can’t win this argument. Sorry. Keep scrambling though. I’m having fun watching
Well, moron, I never said that lawyers were arbiters of truth (though ipso facto the truth was certainly on the side of Michael Flynn as the government tried to railroad him and their case abruptly failed).
But you must claim this since the case against Flynn utterly collapsed under the weight of it's own lies and fraud and like a little rat you have to scurry around for cover now.
Your remark about Johnny Cochran still remains hopelessly dumb and pointless. Yeah, lawyers like Cochran
can use appeals to prejudice as a demogogue in front of an OJ friendly jury. But nothing like went on in federal court.
I said that Flynn got himself a decent experienced lawyer that knew how DOJ prosecutors use the might
of the US government to extract capitulation from defendants like Flynn, who lost everything battling
against Comey and his crooked FBI investigation and couldn't afford to have Comey turn on
his son so he agreed to Comey's lies.
You can stamp your little feet and call Flynn a liar all you like but the case against him flamed out
and he has been exonerated and now the ball is in his court as frauds like James Comey and Adam Schiff
are now on the defensive as new documents come to light exposing them as the liars that they are.
You are just a little voice crying in the wilderness of the epic corruption of the anti Trump forces of
darkness.
You can pretend that there was some great revelation but this was a political game played by Barr and not an utter collapse of the case as you try and claim. Flynn lied to the FBI. That’s a crime. He admitted to it. A judge did not dismiss the case,Trumps lackey who now runs the DOJ is trying to sweep it under the rug. The lead prosecutor For the DOJ even resigned over the political decision to drop it. It’s an embarrassment.
dance around and pretend like he is vindicated but you are only acting like a fool.
The lead prosecutor For the DOJ even resigned over the political decision to drop it. It’s an embarrassment.
Yeah, a politicized prosecutor withdrew moments before the DOJ dropped the case. Yawn.
Why do you say he was a politicized prosecutor.
Because he was.
Ah, the duplicitous Mr. Brandon Van Grack. Mueller investigation team alumnus, Flynn prosecutor, liar.
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, the presiding judge in the government’s case against Gen. Michael Flynn, issued a standing order in February 2018 which lead prosecutor Brandon Van Grack was obligated to comply with. (It can be viewed here.) I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me such an order would be standard in any legal proceeding. The document states that, pursuant to Brady v. Maryland (and its progeny), the government has a continuing obligation to produce:
In repeated filings, Van Grack has maintained that he’s fulfilled his obligations. In an October 2019 filing, in response to Flynn attorney Sidney Powell’s request for Brady materials, he stated that the government “has complied, and will continue to comply, with its discovery and disclosure obligations, including those imposed pursuant to Brady and the Court’s Standing Order.” He denied that they had “affirmatively suppressed evidence.”All evidence in the government’s possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.
Known only to police investigators and not to the prosecutor and that the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the government’s behalf . . . , including the police.
Holding that the duty to disclose exculpatory evidence applies even when there has been no request by the accused.
Applies to inculpatory, as well as exculpatory, evidence.
Where doubt exists as to the usefulness of the evidence to the defendant, the government must resolve all such doubts in favor of full disclosure.
If the government has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material, the government shall submit such information to the Court for in camera review.
The Spotlight Shines on Flynn Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack (Spoiler - He's Not Looking Good)
The corruption runs deep.www.redstate.com
Punchline at the link...…..he was lying.
I think the exculpatory evidence Van Grack withheld, for YEARS, was relevant.
So we now know that the Justice Department was withholding a January 4, 2017 document entitled “Closing Communication” from the FBI Washington Field Office. That document declared that an investigation “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.” In what universe would that not be :favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment”? Moreover, it would be key impeachment evidence in examining investigators or other witnesses. As a criminal defense attorney for 30 years, I would have viewed the material above as a windfall of evidence favorable to my client.
Did The Mueller Team Violate Brady and Flynn Orders?
With the release of the new material from the case of Michael Flynn, an array of experts came forward to assure the public that it was all standard procedure for investigators to conclude that ther…jonathanturley.org
On January fourth, after they had the transcript of Flynn's call, for a fucking week, they said,
the investigation “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.” .
No need for an interview.
the crap that you all ingest and spew is unbelievable
Internal memos amongst the investigators are not relevant documents for a court case.
Jonathan Turley disagrees.
Are you really being serious?!
Yes, the prosecutorial misconduct is deadly serious.
Agreed, what’s your point?Believing something to be credible is not verification.As far as I know the FBI didnt seize on the entire dossier. They did reference elements that they believed were credible. Perhaps elements that aligned with other intel they had, or that they were able to corroborate. You keep spinning this dossier as an all'Misused' is a understatement. As you already posted, the Dossier was oppositional political research. Why did the FBI seize on it to get a FISA warrant, especially when you yourself said, parts were unverified? Also we have several accounts that it was nothing but Russian propaganda. Seems to me, the ones colluding with Russia were the DNC and their FBI henchmen.Perhaps it was misused, that’s for a judge or somebody who knows what Intel was used, how it was used and how it was verified. You sir don’t have all the intel so you don’t know. You’re playing politics and making ASSumptions.Fact remains that elements of the dossier were verified. Only elements were used in court. I didn’t see a warrant request to collect a urine sample to verified Trumps golden shower. Did you?It should have never have been used to get a FISA warrant then. That was criminal. A verified document does not mean "parts" were verified. Grasping at any straw to remove Trump was apparently paramount to the slime running the FBI at the time.I never said it outlined crimes and I also explained that mueller verified parts of it while other parts were not verified. Did Trump get a Golden Shower in Moscow? Who cares?! That story was national enquirer BS... opporesearch. But parts were true and followed up on by the FBI.The dossier didn't outline any crimes and was a document of fiction. Yet, here you are beating your dead horse of an argument once more. Why not just admit you hate Trump and be done with it? You don't give a shit about the law or justice at all by what you have posted here.The dossier wasn’t all about crimes dumbass. It was political dirt... some of which outlined relationships with Russians which Mueller investigated and corroborated Coyote laid it all out and none of you refuted it.Bullshit, Mueller found no crime and the corroboration was all hearsay that told a fantasy story by 2nd hand (hearsay). None of it was verified. Just a bunch of Russian propaganda that Hillary, Obama and the DNC tried to use to unseat Trump.The Steele dossier is not all of a sudden debunked. You just made that up. In fact much of it was corroborated by Muellers Investigation as Coyote very thoughtfully laid out a few pages back. Much of it was uncorroborated as well, as it was a mixed bag of intel. You seem to be ignoring all that.The Steele dossier is now debunked therefore there was no basis to investigate Trump for collusion and there was no crime. But then, you just go on believing in the fantasy bullshit the liars in the Obama administration fed you. It's looking like evidence is surfacing that Obama wanted Flynn gone because of a personal vendetta where he fired Flynn. His FBI henchmen were more than glad to help out. After all, as the FBI correspondence proves, they were out to get anyone even associated with Trump. If they hadn't taken Flynn out then Flynn would have been privy to the conspiracy to remove Trump so, he had to go.I never said there was evidence in the call. Cops do interview people involved with players of crimes they are investigating. That shouldn’t be news to youForeign interference in an election. You’re officially a dumbassOh you poor soul... no you don’t lie to cops about anything. You never know where details lead in the course of an investigation... facts need to be uncovered. You don’t set a precedent that if you don’t think a question is related to a crime that’s under investigation it’s ok to lie. As soon as Flynn started lying he deserved to get pressed. I would have been irresponsible to not go that route. If Flynn didn’t want to disclose something or If he didn’t remember he could have responded I’m several other ways. But lying was not ok. Stop making excuses for himThere was nothing wrong with Flynn’s phone call with Russia except for he lied about it and got fired because of it. Just because it happened after the election doesn’t make Flynn’s relationship with Russia and communications, known and unknown, not a relevant line of questioning. Are you playing stupid or do you really not get it?There was legitimate reason to question Flynn... they were investigating Russian interference in an election. Flynn was part of the trump campaign. Flynn had been in communication with the Russians. It doesn’t get any more material than thatHe wasn’t arrested for the phone call. He was questioned about it and arrested for lying about it. How do you still not understand this. We’ve been over it a dozen times now. Seriously... you’re just trolling at this point, am I right?No, when shown evidence of criminal conduct people should get arrested... when trying to cover for a liar the charges get dropped... isn’t that what y’all said about Comey and Clinton?Wow, Barr just dropped the case. Talk about the dirty dirty swamp. How embarrassing for our government
Yeah, when shown overwhelming evidence of FBI criminal conduct the DOJ only has one option, and that is to drop all charges.
That's what the RULE OF LAW, demands.
when shown evidence of criminal conduct people should get arrested...
Exactly. If there was any evidence of criminal conduct in the phone call, he should have been arrested.
He wasn’t arrested for the phone call.
Exactly. Because nothing in the call was a crime.
He was questioned about it and arrested for lying about it.
Yes. He was arrested for, supposedly, non-material lies in a phony investigation.
How do you still not understand this.
I understand it perfectly.
If the FBI questions you about a non-criminal phone call, they can charge you if you lie.
Even if the lies are not material and there isn't a legitimate legal reason to even question you.
There was legitimate reason to question Flynn...
What reason?
they were investigating Russian interference in an election.
Cool. The phone call was after the election.
Flynn was part of the trump campaign.
Then their questions should have been about stuff before the election.
Flynn had been in communication with the Russians.
Then question him about pre-election contacts. No crime in the post-election call.
It doesn’t get any more material than that
Durr.
There was nothing wrong with Flynn’s phone call with Russia except for he lied about it
Exactly. A lie that was not material.
Just because it happened after the election doesn’t make Flynn’s relationship with Russia and communications, known and unknown, not a relevant line of questioning.
Any lie about the known communication, the one that didn't involve the election or any wrongdoing, isn't material. And there was no wrongdoing uncovered about any other calls.
You don’t set a precedent that if you don’t think a question is related to a crime that’s under investigation it’s ok to lie.
What crime was under investigation?
Foreign interference in an election
No evidence in the call of foreign interference in an election.
So why do you feel that phone call was material?
Maldonado, if you recall. It wasn’t Obama that took Flynn out. Trump fired him. It wasn’t Obama’s DOJ that arrested him, it was Trumps under the leadership of Rosenstein and Wray both of whom Trump appointed. What’s happening now is all political and it’s rather transparent and pathetic.
Or nothing thing. I understand why you do it... but it’s not honest
Interesting that the information was provided by Oabama's FBI and his deep state plants. Now that info has been exposed as a lie and fraud. ITs so bad they had to MANUFACTURE the lies. Guess who is no longer employed in Trumps FBI and DOJ? These people are looking at very long prison sentences.. IF they find this was indeed a Coup D'e Tat they need to swing from gallows.Flynn was fired by Trump and arrested by Trumps FBI/DoJ and prosecuted over the past three years by directors appointed by Trump. What were you saying about Obama and Holder again?And that firm has a major partner by the name of ERIC HOLDER, who was Obama's right hand man at removing Flynn. Thier advice was not in Flynn's interests.And how Flynn fired his shitty lawyers Covington Burling (who told Flynn just to plead guilty to everything and hope for mercy from the system....which was the worst advice ever) and brought on board someone who fought the DOJ for a living and that made all the difference.
That's fantasy, Obama fired Flynn and was pissed that Trump made him National Security Advisor and would be privy to their little FBI coup attempt. Obama even told Trump to watch out for Flynn and knew all about Flynn's conversation with Kislyak. By the way, isn't it interesting that all the Democrats ever had on Trump and Flynn was hearsay and phone conversations that were blown way out of proportion by feeding the media with 'leaks?' In the case of Trump we had Adam Schiff outright LYING about the phone conversation Trump had. They mounted the phony impeachment hoax that was a 1-party coup attempt. At this point, the Democrat party has become the coup party and any American that votes for them is voting for a Banana Republic type government.Yes that could be said. Just like how the street guys are used to get the mob boss. If Trump was dirty then that would definitely be a tactic that would be considered. Is that kind of a tactic illegal/unethical?Easy - Can it be said that Flynn was a piece within the Domino structure in which they wanted to set up in a precise order, otherwise in hopes that the rest would fall, thus eventually getting to Trump their ultimate prize if pushed Flynn hard enough in the line up ???Worked for Hillary Clinton. Sally Yates lies under oath. User Clip: Yates LIES under oathProbably just shouldn’t lie to the FBI then. It’s not that hard
You don't mind lies at all. You lie yourself all the time. You back liars. Why you hold a grudge against Michael Flynn is a mystery except your tiny brain is fixated on it.
It is. No longer a secret anymore that we are a facist place state either,the people that are patriots and brave enough to say fuck you to the government,are getting arrested by the gestapo plo e around the country just for not following their bullshit facist social distaning they are forcing down our throats.thankfully i see people standing up, finally; and saying ENOUGH.People who don't mind living in a Banana Republic would not have an issue with it. sadi'm amazed people can see it any other way.Flynn was told having a lawyer present was not necessary by Comey even though he has publicly admittedwhy would he be if it's supposed to be a friendly discussion, not an interrogation?
your circular logic continues to crash into itself.
he wouldn't have said that to members of any other administration.
A perjury trap, pure and simple.
but like taking the security blanket from a child, it's gonna get nasty.
growing pains.
That statement was straight out of your asshole. How do I know? Because it smells like shit. I dont care if the “information came from Obama“... if new Trump people have been in charge for the past 3 YEARS then they are big boys and they can assess for themselves... not that there Is any legitimacy to your claim. I just like to show how idiotic your logic is even if what you were saying is true.Interesting that the information was provided by Oabama's FBI and his deep state plants. Now that info has been exposed as a lie and fraud. ITs so bad they had to MANUFACTURE the lies. Guess who is no longer employed in Trumps FBI and DOJ? These people are looking at very long prison sentences.. IF they find this was indeed a Coup D'e Tat they need to swing from gallows.Flynn was fired by Trump and arrested by Trumps FBI/DoJ and prosecuted over the past three years by directors appointed by Trump. What were you saying about Obama and Holder again?And that firm has a major partner by the name of ERIC HOLDER, who was Obama's right hand man at removing Flynn. Thier advice was not in Flynn's interests.And how Flynn fired his shitty lawyers Covington Burling (who told Flynn just to plead guilty to everything and hope for mercy from the system....which was the worst advice ever) and brought on board someone who fought the DOJ for a living and that made all the difference.
You posted:Agreed, what’s your point?Believing something to be credible is not verification.As far as I know the FBI didnt seize on the entire dossier. They did reference elements that they believed were credible. Perhaps elements that aligned with other intel they had, or that they were able to corroborate. You keep spinning this dossier as an all'Misused' is a understatement. As you already posted, the Dossier was oppositional political research. Why did the FBI seize on it to get a FISA warrant, especially when you yourself said, parts were unverified? Also we have several accounts that it was nothing but Russian propaganda. Seems to me, the ones colluding with Russia were the DNC and their FBI henchmen.Perhaps it was misused, that’s for a judge or somebody who knows what Intel was used, how it was used and how it was verified. You sir don’t have all the intel so you don’t know. You’re playing politics and making ASSumptions.Fact remains that elements of the dossier were verified. Only elements were used in court. I didn’t see a warrant request to collect a urine sample to verified Trumps golden shower. Did you?It should have never have been used to get a FISA warrant then. That was criminal. A verified document does not mean "parts" were verified. Grasping at any straw to remove Trump was apparently paramount to the slime running the FBI at the time.I never said it outlined crimes and I also explained that mueller verified parts of it while other parts were not verified. Did Trump get a Golden Shower in Moscow? Who cares?! That story was national enquirer BS... opporesearch. But parts were true and followed up on by the FBI.The dossier didn't outline any crimes and was a document of fiction. Yet, here you are beating your dead horse of an argument once more. Why not just admit you hate Trump and be done with it? You don't give a shit about the law or justice at all by what you have posted here.The dossier wasn’t all about crimes dumbass. It was political dirt... some of which outlined relationships with Russians which Mueller investigated and corroborated Coyote laid it all out and none of you refuted it.Bullshit, Mueller found no crime and the corroboration was all hearsay that told a fantasy story by 2nd hand (hearsay). None of it was verified. Just a bunch of Russian propaganda that Hillary, Obama and the DNC tried to use to unseat Trump.The Steele dossier is not all of a sudden debunked. You just made that up. In fact much of it was corroborated by Muellers Investigation as Coyote very thoughtfully laid out a few pages back. Much of it was uncorroborated as well, as it was a mixed bag of intel. You seem to be ignoring all that.The Steele dossier is now debunked therefore there was no basis to investigate Trump for collusion and there was no crime. But then, you just go on believing in the fantasy bullshit the liars in the Obama administration fed you. It's looking like evidence is surfacing that Obama wanted Flynn gone because of a personal vendetta where he fired Flynn. His FBI henchmen were more than glad to help out. After all, as the FBI correspondence proves, they were out to get anyone even associated with Trump. If they hadn't taken Flynn out then Flynn would have been privy to the conspiracy to remove Trump so, he had to go.I never said there was evidence in the call. Cops do interview people involved with players of crimes they are investigating. That shouldn’t be news to youForeign interference in an election. You’re officially a dumbassOh you poor soul... no you don’t lie to cops about anything. You never know where details lead in the course of an investigation... facts need to be uncovered. You don’t set a precedent that if you don’t think a question is related to a crime that’s under investigation it’s ok to lie. As soon as Flynn started lying he deserved to get pressed. I would have been irresponsible to not go that route. If Flynn didn’t want to disclose something or If he didn’t remember he could have responded I’m several other ways. But lying was not ok. Stop making excuses for himThere was nothing wrong with Flynn’s phone call with Russia except for he lied about it and got fired because of it. Just because it happened after the election doesn’t make Flynn’s relationship with Russia and communications, known and unknown, not a relevant line of questioning. Are you playing stupid or do you really not get it?There was legitimate reason to question Flynn... they were investigating Russian interference in an election. Flynn was part of the trump campaign. Flynn had been in communication with the Russians. It doesn’t get any more material than thatHe wasn’t arrested for the phone call. He was questioned about it and arrested for lying about it. How do you still not understand this. We’ve been over it a dozen times now. Seriously... you’re just trolling at this point, am I right?No, when shown evidence of criminal conduct people should get arrested... when trying to cover for a liar the charges get dropped... isn’t that what y’all said about Comey and Clinton?Wow, Barr just dropped the case. Talk about the dirty dirty swamp. How embarrassing for our government
Yeah, when shown overwhelming evidence of FBI criminal conduct the DOJ only has one option, and that is to drop all charges.
That's what the RULE OF LAW, demands.
when shown evidence of criminal conduct people should get arrested...
Exactly. If there was any evidence of criminal conduct in the phone call, he should have been arrested.
He wasn’t arrested for the phone call.
Exactly. Because nothing in the call was a crime.
He was questioned about it and arrested for lying about it.
Yes. He was arrested for, supposedly, non-material lies in a phony investigation.
How do you still not understand this.
I understand it perfectly.
If the FBI questions you about a non-criminal phone call, they can charge you if you lie.
Even if the lies are not material and there isn't a legitimate legal reason to even question you.
There was legitimate reason to question Flynn...
What reason?
they were investigating Russian interference in an election.
Cool. The phone call was after the election.
Flynn was part of the trump campaign.
Then their questions should have been about stuff before the election.
Flynn had been in communication with the Russians.
Then question him about pre-election contacts. No crime in the post-election call.
It doesn’t get any more material than that
Durr.
There was nothing wrong with Flynn’s phone call with Russia except for he lied about it
Exactly. A lie that was not material.
Just because it happened after the election doesn’t make Flynn’s relationship with Russia and communications, known and unknown, not a relevant line of questioning.
Any lie about the known communication, the one that didn't involve the election or any wrongdoing, isn't material. And there was no wrongdoing uncovered about any other calls.
You don’t set a precedent that if you don’t think a question is related to a crime that’s under investigation it’s ok to lie.
What crime was under investigation?
Foreign interference in an election
No evidence in the call of foreign interference in an election.
So why do you feel that phone call was material?
Maldonado, if you recall. It wasn’t Obama that took Flynn out. Trump fired him. It wasn’t Obama’s DOJ that arrested him, it was Trumps under the leadership of Rosenstein and Wray both of whom Trump appointed. What’s happening now is all political and it’s rather transparent and pathetic.
Or nothing thing. I understand why you do it... but it’s not honest
Oh shit John Turley disagrees?! Well that settles it then!!! HahaInternal memos amongst the investigators are not relevant documents for a court case. Are you really being serious?! This is a joke right?The punchline IS the link “redstate” what a joke. So you think the deliberations between FBI members regarding strategy and procedure of how to run the case constitute relevant and mandatory materials for disclosure?! Are you shitting me?!When I ask “why” that’s a call for proof. “Because I said so” means nothingWhy do you say he was a politicized prosecutor. Another weak baseless claim your pulling out of your ass?!Whoa, that was a nice little rant there... did I hit a trigger? Calm down man.Oooh...how ominous! You are watching. I'm sure you are because you seemingly do nothing but argue this issue all day every day with little to no success.You’re point went off on your own little tangent and wasn’t relevant to the fact that lawyers are not arbitures of truth, especially defense lawyers. They defend their clients and used loopholes in the law and negotiation to achieve the best possible outcome for their clients. Pointing at what Flynn’s lawyers did proves nothing. The fact remains that Flynn is a liar and nothing can change that... you can’t win this argument. Sorry. Keep scrambling though. I’m having fun watching
Well, moron, I never said that lawyers were arbiters of truth (though ipso facto the truth was certainly on the side of Michael Flynn as the government tried to railroad him and their case abruptly failed).
But you must claim this since the case against Flynn utterly collapsed under the weight of it's own lies and fraud and like a little rat you have to scurry around for cover now.
Your remark about Johnny Cochran still remains hopelessly dumb and pointless. Yeah, lawyers like Cochran
can use appeals to prejudice as a demogogue in front of an OJ friendly jury. But nothing like went on in federal court.
I said that Flynn got himself a decent experienced lawyer that knew how DOJ prosecutors use the might
of the US government to extract capitulation from defendants like Flynn, who lost everything battling
against Comey and his crooked FBI investigation and couldn't afford to have Comey turn on
his son so he agreed to Comey's lies.
You can stamp your little feet and call Flynn a liar all you like but the case against him flamed out
and he has been exonerated and now the ball is in his court as frauds like James Comey and Adam Schiff
are now on the defensive as new documents come to light exposing them as the liars that they are.
You are just a little voice crying in the wilderness of the epic corruption of the anti Trump forces of
darkness.
You can pretend that there was some great revelation but this was a political game played by Barr and not an utter collapse of the case as you try and claim. Flynn lied to the FBI. That’s a crime. He admitted to it. A judge did not dismiss the case,Trumps lackey who now runs the DOJ is trying to sweep it under the rug. The lead prosecutor For the DOJ even resigned over the political decision to drop it. It’s an embarrassment.
dance around and pretend like he is vindicated but you are only acting like a fool.
The lead prosecutor For the DOJ even resigned over the political decision to drop it. It’s an embarrassment.
Yeah, a politicized prosecutor withdrew moments before the DOJ dropped the case. Yawn.
Why do you say he was a politicized prosecutor.
Because he was.
Ah, the duplicitous Mr. Brandon Van Grack. Mueller investigation team alumnus, Flynn prosecutor, liar.
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, the presiding judge in the government’s case against Gen. Michael Flynn, issued a standing order in February 2018 which lead prosecutor Brandon Van Grack was obligated to comply with. (It can be viewed here.) I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me such an order would be standard in any legal proceeding. The document states that, pursuant to Brady v. Maryland (and its progeny), the government has a continuing obligation to produce:
In repeated filings, Van Grack has maintained that he’s fulfilled his obligations. In an October 2019 filing, in response to Flynn attorney Sidney Powell’s request for Brady materials, he stated that the government “has complied, and will continue to comply, with its discovery and disclosure obligations, including those imposed pursuant to Brady and the Court’s Standing Order.” He denied that they had “affirmatively suppressed evidence.”All evidence in the government’s possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.
Known only to police investigators and not to the prosecutor and that the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the government’s behalf . . . , including the police.
Holding that the duty to disclose exculpatory evidence applies even when there has been no request by the accused.
Applies to inculpatory, as well as exculpatory, evidence.
Where doubt exists as to the usefulness of the evidence to the defendant, the government must resolve all such doubts in favor of full disclosure.
If the government has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material, the government shall submit such information to the Court for in camera review.
The Spotlight Shines on Flynn Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack (Spoiler - He's Not Looking Good)
The corruption runs deep.
Punchline at the link...…..he was lying.
I think the exculpatory evidence Van Grack withheld, for YEARS, was relevant.
So we now know that the Justice Department was withholding a January 4, 2017 document entitled “Closing Communication” from the FBI Washington Field Office. That document declared that an investigation “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.” In what universe would that not be :favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment”? Moreover, it would be key impeachment evidence in examining investigators or other witnesses. As a criminal defense attorney for 30 years, I would have viewed the material above as a windfall of evidence favorable to my client.
Did The Mueller Team Violate Brady and Flynn Orders?
With the release of the new material from the case of Michael Flynn, an array of experts came forward to assure the public that it was all standard procedure for investigators to conclude that ther…
On January fourth, after they had the transcript of Flynn's call, for a fucking week, they said,
the investigation “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.” .
No need for an interview.
the crap that you all ingest and spew is unbelievable
Internal memos amongst the investigators are not relevant documents for a court case.
Jonathan Turley disagrees.
Are you really being serious?!
Yes, the prosecutorial misconduct is deadly serious.
Wow you are all twisted up. First of all impeachment was about the Ukraine call so let’s move past that little bit of nonesense you just tossed out. Second Obama warned Trump about Flynn because Flynn is a douche, subjectively speaking of course, but he did warn Trump because he knew Flynn was lying to America and the VP about his contacts with Russia. Something Uates warmed Trump about and e Trump lied to American about, not we can save that one for a different thread... Trump is cut from the same cloth as Flynn so he obviously doesn’t care about honesty, that’s where Obama went wrong... assuming trump cared about honesty. No, all trump wants is loyalty and praise.That's fantasy, Obama fired Flynn and was pissed that Trump made him National Security Advisor and would be privy to their little FBI coup attempt. Obama even told Trump to watch out for Flynn and knew all about Flynn's conversation with Kislyak. By the way, isn't it interesting that all the Democrats ever had on Trump and Flynn was hearsay and phone conversations that were blown way out of proportion by feeding the media with 'leaks?' In the case of Trump we had Adam Schiff outright LYING about the phone conversation Trump had. They mounted the phony impeachment hoax that was a 1-party coup attempt. At this point, the Democrat party has become the coup party and any American that votes for them is voting for a Banana Republic type government.Yes that could be said. Just like how the street guys are used to get the mob boss. If Trump was dirty then that would definitely be a tactic that would be considered. Is that kind of a tactic illegal/unethical?Easy - Can it be said that Flynn was a piece within the Domino structure in which they wanted to set up in a precise order, otherwise in hopes that the rest would fall, thus eventually getting to Trump their ultimate prize if pushed Flynn hard enough in the line up ???Worked for Hillary Clinton. Sally Yates lies under oath. User Clip: Yates LIES under oathProbably just shouldn’t lie to the FBI then. It’s not that hard
You don't mind lies at all. You lie yourself all the time. You back liars. Why you hold a grudge against Michael Flynn is a mystery except your tiny brain is fixated on it.
And if the FBI were dirty...Yes that could be said. Just like how the street guys are used to get the mob boss. If Trump was dirty then that would definitely be a tactic that would be considered. Is that kind of a tactic illegal/unethical?Easy - Can it be said that Flynn was a piece within the Domino structure in which they wanted to set up in a precise order, otherwise in hopes that the rest would fall, thus eventually getting to Trump their ultimate prize if pushed Flynn hard enough in the line up ???Worked for Hillary Clinton. Sally Yates lies under oath. User Clip: Yates LIES under oathProbably just shouldn’t lie to the FBI then. It’s not that hard
You don't mind lies at all. You lie yourself all the time. You back liars. Why you hold a grudge against Michael Flynn is a mystery except your tiny brain is fixated on it.
Just wow. Where did you come up with that bit of nonsense?Wow you are all twisted up. First of all impeachment was about the Ukraine call so let’s move past that little bit of nonesense you just tossed out. Second Obama warned Trump about Flynn because Flynn is a douche, subjectively speaking of course, but he did warn Trump because he knew Flynn was lying to America and the VP about his contacts with Russia. Something Uates warmed Trump about and e Trump lied to American about, not we can save that one for a different thread... Trump is cut from the same cloth as Flynn so he obviously doesn’t care about honesty, that’s where Obama went wrong... assuming trump cared about honesty. No, all trump wants is loyalty and praise.That's fantasy, Obama fired Flynn and was pissed that Trump made him National Security Advisor and would be privy to their little FBI coup attempt. Obama even told Trump to watch out for Flynn and knew all about Flynn's conversation with Kislyak. By the way, isn't it interesting that all the Democrats ever had on Trump and Flynn was hearsay and phone conversations that were blown way out of proportion by feeding the media with 'leaks?' In the case of Trump we had Adam Schiff outright LYING about the phone conversation Trump had. They mounted the phony impeachment hoax that was a 1-party coup attempt. At this point, the Democrat party has become the coup party and any American that votes for them is voting for a Banana Republic type government.Yes that could be said. Just like how the street guys are used to get the mob boss. If Trump was dirty then that would definitely be a tactic that would be considered. Is that kind of a tactic illegal/unethical?Easy - Can it be said that Flynn was a piece within the Domino structure in which they wanted to set up in a precise order, otherwise in hopes that the rest would fall, thus eventually getting to Trump their ultimate prize if pushed Flynn hard enough in the line up ???Worked for Hillary Clinton. Sally Yates lies under oath. User Clip: Yates LIES under oathProbably just shouldn’t lie to the FBI then. It’s not that hard
You don't mind lies at all. You lie yourself all the time. You back liars. Why you hold a grudge against Michael Flynn is a mystery except your tiny brain is fixated on it.
yes they referenced elements of the dossier that they found credible and relevant to their investigation. I hear all these right wing turds in the media along with people like you in this forum pretend like the entire dossier is phony and discredited. That’s not true, nor is it true that the entire dossier was used to get warrants.You posted:Agreed, what’s your point?Believing something to be credible is not verification.As far as I know the FBI didnt seize on the entire dossier. They did reference elements that they believed were credible. Perhaps elements that aligned with other intel they had, or that they were able to corroborate. You keep spinning this dossier as an all'Misused' is a understatement. As you already posted, the Dossier was oppositional political research. Why did the FBI seize on it to get a FISA warrant, especially when you yourself said, parts were unverified? Also we have several accounts that it was nothing but Russian propaganda. Seems to me, the ones colluding with Russia were the DNC and their FBI henchmen.Perhaps it was misused, that’s for a judge or somebody who knows what Intel was used, how it was used and how it was verified. You sir don’t have all the intel so you don’t know. You’re playing politics and making ASSumptions.Fact remains that elements of the dossier were verified. Only elements were used in court. I didn’t see a warrant request to collect a urine sample to verified Trumps golden shower. Did you?It should have never have been used to get a FISA warrant then. That was criminal. A verified document does not mean "parts" were verified. Grasping at any straw to remove Trump was apparently paramount to the slime running the FBI at the time.I never said it outlined crimes and I also explained that mueller verified parts of it while other parts were not verified. Did Trump get a Golden Shower in Moscow? Who cares?! That story was national enquirer BS... opporesearch. But parts were true and followed up on by the FBI.The dossier didn't outline any crimes and was a document of fiction. Yet, here you are beating your dead horse of an argument once more. Why not just admit you hate Trump and be done with it? You don't give a shit about the law or justice at all by what you have posted here.The dossier wasn’t all about crimes dumbass. It was political dirt... some of which outlined relationships with Russians which Mueller investigated and corroborated Coyote laid it all out and none of you refuted it.Bullshit, Mueller found no crime and the corroboration was all hearsay that told a fantasy story by 2nd hand (hearsay). None of it was verified. Just a bunch of Russian propaganda that Hillary, Obama and the DNC tried to use to unseat Trump.The Steele dossier is not all of a sudden debunked. You just made that up. In fact much of it was corroborated by Muellers Investigation as Coyote very thoughtfully laid out a few pages back. Much of it was uncorroborated as well, as it was a mixed bag of intel. You seem to be ignoring all that.The Steele dossier is now debunked therefore there was no basis to investigate Trump for collusion and there was no crime. But then, you just go on believing in the fantasy bullshit the liars in the Obama administration fed you. It's looking like evidence is surfacing that Obama wanted Flynn gone because of a personal vendetta where he fired Flynn. His FBI henchmen were more than glad to help out. After all, as the FBI correspondence proves, they were out to get anyone even associated with Trump. If they hadn't taken Flynn out then Flynn would have been privy to the conspiracy to remove Trump so, he had to go.I never said there was evidence in the call. Cops do interview people involved with players of crimes they are investigating. That shouldn’t be news to youForeign interference in an election. You’re officially a dumbassOh you poor soul... no you don’t lie to cops about anything. You never know where details lead in the course of an investigation... facts need to be uncovered. You don’t set a precedent that if you don’t think a question is related to a crime that’s under investigation it’s ok to lie. As soon as Flynn started lying he deserved to get pressed. I would have been irresponsible to not go that route. If Flynn didn’t want to disclose something or If he didn’t remember he could have responded I’m several other ways. But lying was not ok. Stop making excuses for himThere was nothing wrong with Flynn’s phone call with Russia except for he lied about it and got fired because of it. Just because it happened after the election doesn’t make Flynn’s relationship with Russia and communications, known and unknown, not a relevant line of questioning. Are you playing stupid or do you really not get it?There was legitimate reason to question Flynn... they were investigating Russian interference in an election. Flynn was part of the trump campaign. Flynn had been in communication with the Russians. It doesn’t get any more material than thatHe wasn’t arrested for the phone call. He was questioned about it and arrested for lying about it. How do you still not understand this. We’ve been over it a dozen times now. Seriously... you’re just trolling at this point, am I right?No, when shown evidence of criminal conduct people should get arrested... when trying to cover for a liar the charges get dropped... isn’t that what y’all said about Comey and Clinton?Wow, Barr just dropped the case. Talk about the dirty dirty swamp. How embarrassing for our government
Yeah, when shown overwhelming evidence of FBI criminal conduct the DOJ only has one option, and that is to drop all charges.
That's what the RULE OF LAW, demands.
when shown evidence of criminal conduct people should get arrested...
Exactly. If there was any evidence of criminal conduct in the phone call, he should have been arrested.
He wasn’t arrested for the phone call.
Exactly. Because nothing in the call was a crime.
He was questioned about it and arrested for lying about it.
Yes. He was arrested for, supposedly, non-material lies in a phony investigation.
How do you still not understand this.
I understand it perfectly.
If the FBI questions you about a non-criminal phone call, they can charge you if you lie.
Even if the lies are not material and there isn't a legitimate legal reason to even question you.
There was legitimate reason to question Flynn...
What reason?
they were investigating Russian interference in an election.
Cool. The phone call was after the election.
Flynn was part of the trump campaign.
Then their questions should have been about stuff before the election.
Flynn had been in communication with the Russians.
Then question him about pre-election contacts. No crime in the post-election call.
It doesn’t get any more material than that
Durr.
There was nothing wrong with Flynn’s phone call with Russia except for he lied about it
Exactly. A lie that was not material.
Just because it happened after the election doesn’t make Flynn’s relationship with Russia and communications, known and unknown, not a relevant line of questioning.
Any lie about the known communication, the one that didn't involve the election or any wrongdoing, isn't material. And there was no wrongdoing uncovered about any other calls.
You don’t set a precedent that if you don’t think a question is related to a crime that’s under investigation it’s ok to lie.
What crime was under investigation?
Foreign interference in an election
No evidence in the call of foreign interference in an election.
So why do you feel that phone call was material?
Maldonado, if you recall. It wasn’t Obama that took Flynn out. Trump fired him. It wasn’t Obama’s DOJ that arrested him, it was Trumps under the leadership of Rosenstein and Wray both of whom Trump appointed. What’s happening now is all political and it’s rather transparent and pathetic.
Or nothing thing. I understand why you do it... but it’s not honest
"As far as I know the FBI didnt seize on the entire dossier. They did reference elements that they believed were credible. "
You wrote it.......I was just replying.
I could waste my time finding a dozen other legal experts who would take the opposite POV as Turley, but what’s the point?Oh shit John Turley disagrees?! Well that settles it then!!! HahaInternal memos amongst the investigators are not relevant documents for a court case. Are you really being serious?! This is a joke right?The punchline IS the link “redstate” what a joke. So you think the deliberations between FBI members regarding strategy and procedure of how to run the case constitute relevant and mandatory materials for disclosure?! Are you shitting me?!When I ask “why” that’s a call for proof. “Because I said so” means nothingWhy do you say he was a politicized prosecutor. Another weak baseless claim your pulling out of your ass?!Whoa, that was a nice little rant there... did I hit a trigger? Calm down man.Oooh...how ominous! You are watching. I'm sure you are because you seemingly do nothing but argue this issue all day every day with little to no success.You’re point went off on your own little tangent and wasn’t relevant to the fact that lawyers are not arbitures of truth, especially defense lawyers. They defend their clients and used loopholes in the law and negotiation to achieve the best possible outcome for their clients. Pointing at what Flynn’s lawyers did proves nothing. The fact remains that Flynn is a liar and nothing can change that... you can’t win this argument. Sorry. Keep scrambling though. I’m having fun watching
Well, moron, I never said that lawyers were arbiters of truth (though ipso facto the truth was certainly on the side of Michael Flynn as the government tried to railroad him and their case abruptly failed).
But you must claim this since the case against Flynn utterly collapsed under the weight of it's own lies and fraud and like a little rat you have to scurry around for cover now.
Your remark about Johnny Cochran still remains hopelessly dumb and pointless. Yeah, lawyers like Cochran
can use appeals to prejudice as a demogogue in front of an OJ friendly jury. But nothing like went on in federal court.
I said that Flynn got himself a decent experienced lawyer that knew how DOJ prosecutors use the might
of the US government to extract capitulation from defendants like Flynn, who lost everything battling
against Comey and his crooked FBI investigation and couldn't afford to have Comey turn on
his son so he agreed to Comey's lies.
You can stamp your little feet and call Flynn a liar all you like but the case against him flamed out
and he has been exonerated and now the ball is in his court as frauds like James Comey and Adam Schiff
are now on the defensive as new documents come to light exposing them as the liars that they are.
You are just a little voice crying in the wilderness of the epic corruption of the anti Trump forces of
darkness.
You can pretend that there was some great revelation but this was a political game played by Barr and not an utter collapse of the case as you try and claim. Flynn lied to the FBI. That’s a crime. He admitted to it. A judge did not dismiss the case,Trumps lackey who now runs the DOJ is trying to sweep it under the rug. The lead prosecutor For the DOJ even resigned over the political decision to drop it. It’s an embarrassment.
dance around and pretend like he is vindicated but you are only acting like a fool.
The lead prosecutor For the DOJ even resigned over the political decision to drop it. It’s an embarrassment.
Yeah, a politicized prosecutor withdrew moments before the DOJ dropped the case. Yawn.
Why do you say he was a politicized prosecutor.
Because he was.
Ah, the duplicitous Mr. Brandon Van Grack. Mueller investigation team alumnus, Flynn prosecutor, liar.
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, the presiding judge in the government’s case against Gen. Michael Flynn, issued a standing order in February 2018 which lead prosecutor Brandon Van Grack was obligated to comply with. (It can be viewed here.) I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me such an order would be standard in any legal proceeding. The document states that, pursuant to Brady v. Maryland (and its progeny), the government has a continuing obligation to produce:
In repeated filings, Van Grack has maintained that he’s fulfilled his obligations. In an October 2019 filing, in response to Flynn attorney Sidney Powell’s request for Brady materials, he stated that the government “has complied, and will continue to comply, with its discovery and disclosure obligations, including those imposed pursuant to Brady and the Court’s Standing Order.” He denied that they had “affirmatively suppressed evidence.”All evidence in the government’s possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.
Known only to police investigators and not to the prosecutor and that the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the government’s behalf . . . , including the police.
Holding that the duty to disclose exculpatory evidence applies even when there has been no request by the accused.
Applies to inculpatory, as well as exculpatory, evidence.
Where doubt exists as to the usefulness of the evidence to the defendant, the government must resolve all such doubts in favor of full disclosure.
If the government has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material, the government shall submit such information to the Court for in camera review.
The Spotlight Shines on Flynn Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack (Spoiler - He's Not Looking Good)
The corruption runs deep.
Punchline at the link...…..he was lying.
I think the exculpatory evidence Van Grack withheld, for YEARS, was relevant.
So we now know that the Justice Department was withholding a January 4, 2017 document entitled “Closing Communication” from the FBI Washington Field Office. That document declared that an investigation “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.” In what universe would that not be :favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment”? Moreover, it would be key impeachment evidence in examining investigators or other witnesses. As a criminal defense attorney for 30 years, I would have viewed the material above as a windfall of evidence favorable to my client.
Did The Mueller Team Violate Brady and Flynn Orders?
With the release of the new material from the case of Michael Flynn, an array of experts came forward to assure the public that it was all standard procedure for investigators to conclude that ther…
On January fourth, after they had the transcript of Flynn's call, for a fucking week, they said,
the investigation “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.” .
No need for an interview.
the crap that you all ingest and spew is unbelievable
Internal memos amongst the investigators are not relevant documents for a court case.
Jonathan Turley disagrees.
Are you really being serious?!
Yes, the prosecutorial misconduct is deadly serious.
Well that settles it then!!!
Yes, between his legal experience and yours...…..
What exactly do you take issue with and what counter argument can you make? My guess is nothing substantialJust wow. Where did you come up with that bit of nonsense?Wow you are all twisted up. First of all impeachment was about the Ukraine call so let’s move past that little bit of nonesense you just tossed out. Second Obama warned Trump about Flynn because Flynn is a douche, subjectively speaking of course, but he did warn Trump because he knew Flynn was lying to America and the VP about his contacts with Russia. Something Uates warmed Trump about and e Trump lied to American about, not we can save that one for a different thread... Trump is cut from the same cloth as Flynn so he obviously doesn’t care about honesty, that’s where Obama went wrong... assuming trump cared about honesty. No, all trump wants is loyalty and praise.That's fantasy, Obama fired Flynn and was pissed that Trump made him National Security Advisor and would be privy to their little FBI coup attempt. Obama even told Trump to watch out for Flynn and knew all about Flynn's conversation with Kislyak. By the way, isn't it interesting that all the Democrats ever had on Trump and Flynn was hearsay and phone conversations that were blown way out of proportion by feeding the media with 'leaks?' In the case of Trump we had Adam Schiff outright LYING about the phone conversation Trump had. They mounted the phony impeachment hoax that was a 1-party coup attempt. At this point, the Democrat party has become the coup party and any American that votes for them is voting for a Banana Republic type government.Yes that could be said. Just like how the street guys are used to get the mob boss. If Trump was dirty then that would definitely be a tactic that would be considered. Is that kind of a tactic illegal/unethical?Easy - Can it be said that Flynn was a piece within the Domino structure in which they wanted to set up in a precise order, otherwise in hopes that the rest would fall, thus eventually getting to Trump their ultimate prize if pushed Flynn hard enough in the line up ???Worked for Hillary Clinton. Sally Yates lies under oath. User Clip: Yates LIES under oathProbably just shouldn’t lie to the FBI then. It’s not that hard
You don't mind lies at all. You lie yourself all the time. You back liars. Why you hold a grudge against Michael Flynn is a mystery except your tiny brain is fixated on it.
the prosecutor in the Flynn case quit in rebellion of the action, then that cleared Barr's guys to withdraw the prosecution against Flynn, right after he quit.The FBI has been held to account. That's why the prosecutor in the Flynn case threw in the towel and the case against Flynn has been dropped. It's been nice chatting.This is where your narrative falls apart. Flynn wasn’t under any of that pressure at the time
of the interview when he LIED. If the FBI used that lie to try and extract more information from him in a way that fell
outside the law then the FBI should be held to account. That’s a separate issue and it does not exonerate Flynn for the crime he committed. Keep trying to muddy the water by conflating the two issues though. You’re totally fooling us all!
Exactly what did they find 'credible?'yes they referenced elements of the dossier that they found credible and relevant to their investigation. I hear all these right wing turds in the media along with people like you in this forum pretend like the entire dossier is phony and discredited. That’s not true, nor is it true that the entire dossier was used to get warrants.You posted:Agreed, what’s your point?Believing something to be credible is not verification.As far as I know the FBI didnt seize on the entire dossier. They did reference elements that they believed were credible. Perhaps elements that aligned with other intel they had, or that they were able to corroborate. You keep spinning this dossier as an all'Misused' is a understatement. As you already posted, the Dossier was oppositional political research. Why did the FBI seize on it to get a FISA warrant, especially when you yourself said, parts were unverified? Also we have several accounts that it was nothing but Russian propaganda. Seems to me, the ones colluding with Russia were the DNC and their FBI henchmen.Perhaps it was misused, that’s for a judge or somebody who knows what Intel was used, how it was used and how it was verified. You sir don’t have all the intel so you don’t know. You’re playing politics and making ASSumptions.Fact remains that elements of the dossier were verified. Only elements were used in court. I didn’t see a warrant request to collect a urine sample to verified Trumps golden shower. Did you?It should have never have been used to get a FISA warrant then. That was criminal. A verified document does not mean "parts" were verified. Grasping at any straw to remove Trump was apparently paramount to the slime running the FBI at the time.I never said it outlined crimes and I also explained that mueller verified parts of it while other parts were not verified. Did Trump get a Golden Shower in Moscow? Who cares?! That story was national enquirer BS... opporesearch. But parts were true and followed up on by the FBI.The dossier didn't outline any crimes and was a document of fiction. Yet, here you are beating your dead horse of an argument once more. Why not just admit you hate Trump and be done with it? You don't give a shit about the law or justice at all by what you have posted here.The dossier wasn’t all about crimes dumbass. It was political dirt... some of which outlined relationships with Russians which Mueller investigated and corroborated Coyote laid it all out and none of you refuted it.Bullshit, Mueller found no crime and the corroboration was all hearsay that told a fantasy story by 2nd hand (hearsay). None of it was verified. Just a bunch of Russian propaganda that Hillary, Obama and the DNC tried to use to unseat Trump.The Steele dossier is not all of a sudden debunked. You just made that up. In fact much of it was corroborated by Muellers Investigation as Coyote very thoughtfully laid out a few pages back. Much of it was uncorroborated as well, as it was a mixed bag of intel. You seem to be ignoring all that.The Steele dossier is now debunked therefore there was no basis to investigate Trump for collusion and there was no crime. But then, you just go on believing in the fantasy bullshit the liars in the Obama administration fed you. It's looking like evidence is surfacing that Obama wanted Flynn gone because of a personal vendetta where he fired Flynn. His FBI henchmen were more than glad to help out. After all, as the FBI correspondence proves, they were out to get anyone even associated with Trump. If they hadn't taken Flynn out then Flynn would have been privy to the conspiracy to remove Trump so, he had to go.I never said there was evidence in the call. Cops do interview people involved with players of crimes they are investigating. That shouldn’t be news to youForeign interference in an election. You’re officially a dumbassOh you poor soul... no you don’t lie to cops about anything. You never know where details lead in the course of an investigation... facts need to be uncovered. You don’t set a precedent that if you don’t think a question is related to a crime that’s under investigation it’s ok to lie. As soon as Flynn started lying he deserved to get pressed. I would have been irresponsible to not go that route. If Flynn didn’t want to disclose something or If he didn’t remember he could have responded I’m several other ways. But lying was not ok. Stop making excuses for himThere was nothing wrong with Flynn’s phone call with Russia except for he lied about it and got fired because of it. Just because it happened after the election doesn’t make Flynn’s relationship with Russia and communications, known and unknown, not a relevant line of questioning. Are you playing stupid or do you really not get it?There was legitimate reason to question Flynn... they were investigating Russian interference in an election. Flynn was part of the trump campaign. Flynn had been in communication with the Russians. It doesn’t get any more material than thatHe wasn’t arrested for the phone call. He was questioned about it and arrested for lying about it. How do you still not understand this. We’ve been over it a dozen times now. Seriously... you’re just trolling at this point, am I right?No, when shown evidence of criminal conduct people should get arrested... when trying to cover for a liar the charges get dropped... isn’t that what y’all said about Comey and Clinton?Wow, Barr just dropped the case. Talk about the dirty dirty swamp. How embarrassing for our government
Yeah, when shown overwhelming evidence of FBI criminal conduct the DOJ only has one option, and that is to drop all charges.
That's what the RULE OF LAW, demands.
when shown evidence of criminal conduct people should get arrested...
Exactly. If there was any evidence of criminal conduct in the phone call, he should have been arrested.
He wasn’t arrested for the phone call.
Exactly. Because nothing in the call was a crime.
He was questioned about it and arrested for lying about it.
Yes. He was arrested for, supposedly, non-material lies in a phony investigation.
How do you still not understand this.
I understand it perfectly.
If the FBI questions you about a non-criminal phone call, they can charge you if you lie.
Even if the lies are not material and there isn't a legitimate legal reason to even question you.
There was legitimate reason to question Flynn...
What reason?
they were investigating Russian interference in an election.
Cool. The phone call was after the election.
Flynn was part of the trump campaign.
Then their questions should have been about stuff before the election.
Flynn had been in communication with the Russians.
Then question him about pre-election contacts. No crime in the post-election call.
It doesn’t get any more material than that
Durr.
There was nothing wrong with Flynn’s phone call with Russia except for he lied about it
Exactly. A lie that was not material.
Just because it happened after the election doesn’t make Flynn’s relationship with Russia and communications, known and unknown, not a relevant line of questioning.
Any lie about the known communication, the one that didn't involve the election or any wrongdoing, isn't material. And there was no wrongdoing uncovered about any other calls.
You don’t set a precedent that if you don’t think a question is related to a crime that’s under investigation it’s ok to lie.
What crime was under investigation?
Foreign interference in an election
No evidence in the call of foreign interference in an election.
So why do you feel that phone call was material?
Maldonado, if you recall. It wasn’t Obama that took Flynn out. Trump fired him. It wasn’t Obama’s DOJ that arrested him, it was Trumps under the leadership of Rosenstein and Wray both of whom Trump appointed. What’s happening now is all political and it’s rather transparent and pathetic.
Or nothing thing. I understand why you do it... but it’s not honest
"As far as I know the FBI didnt seize on the entire dossier. They did reference elements that they believed were credible. "
You wrote it.......I was just replying.
