Looks Like the Trump Admin is Bringing Dark Secrets to The Light

[Leo123]

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!

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.

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.

much like the prosecutors over the Roger Stone case quit, the day Barr's guys came in and changed the recommended sentence under the guidelines to a ''cushy'' lower sentence for the president's ''friend''.


dirty is, as dirty does

crooked is, as crooked does....

I can't comprehend how even you guys don't see this.....?

"Van Grack has long informed Sullivan that the government’s so-called "Brady" obligations, referring to prosecutors' duty to turn over exculpatory materials to defendants, have been met. In an October 2019 filing, Van Grack denied governmental misconduct and assured the court 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.”

"What Van Grack didn’t inform the court about – and didn’t provide to Flynn – was the newly unsealed January 4, 2017 "Closing Communication" from the FBI Washington Field Office, which recommended the FBI close its investigation of Flynn, as its exhaustive search through government databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts."

Flynn bombshells cast doubt on Mueller prosecutor Brandon Van Grack's compliance with court order

Newly unsealed bombshell evidence documenting the FBI's efforts to target national security adviser Michael Flynn -- including a top official's memo debating whether their "goal" was "to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired" -- calls into question whether Brandon Van Grack, a...

www.foxnews.com

So WTF? Grack suddenly denied exculpatory materials to Flynn? Why? Seriously, can anyone here answer that question?

 

[Slade3200]

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.

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?

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. 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?

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... 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 that

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 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 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.

Oh 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 him

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. You’re officially a dumbass

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?

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 you

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

'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.

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
Or nothing thing. I understand why you do it... but it’s not honest

Believing something to be credible is not verification.

Agreed, what’s your point?

You posted:
"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.

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.

Exactly what did they find 'credible?'

For the third time... Coyote laid it all out earlier in this thread. She stayed each point from the dossier and showed which were corroborated and which where not. You’re head must have been back in the sand

 

[Slade3200]

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!

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.

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.

much like the prosecutors over the Roger Stone case quit, the day Barr's guys came in and changed the recommended sentence under the guidelines to a ''cushy'' lower sentence for the president's ''friend''.


dirty is, as dirty does

crooked is, as crooked does....

I can't comprehend how even you guys don't see this.....?

"Van Grack has long informed Sullivan that the government’s so-called "Brady" obligations, referring to prosecutors' duty to turn over exculpatory materials to defendants, have been met. In an October 2019 filing, Van Grack denied governmental misconduct and assured the court 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.”

"What Van Grack didn’t inform the court about – and didn’t provide to Flynn – was the newly unsealed January 4, 2017 "Closing Communication" from the FBI Washington Field Office, which recommended the FBI close its investigation of Flynn, as its exhaustive search through government databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts."

Flynn bombshells cast doubt on Mueller prosecutor Brandon Van Grack's compliance with court order

Newly unsealed bombshell evidence documenting the FBI's efforts to target national security adviser Michael Flynn -- including a top official's memo debating whether their "goal" was "to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired" -- calls into question whether Brandon Van Grack, a...

www.foxnews.com

So WTF? Grack suddenly denied exculpatory materials to Flynn? Why? Seriously, can anyone here answer that question?

internal memos are not exculpatory evidence... that’s such a load of crap

 

[Leo123]

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.

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?

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. 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?

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... 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 that

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 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 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.

Oh 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 him

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. You’re officially a dumbass

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?

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 you

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

'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.

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
Or nothing thing. I understand why you do it... but it’s not honest

Believing something to be credible is not verification.

Agreed, what’s your point?

You posted:
"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.

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.

Exactly what did they find 'credible?'

For the third time... Coyote laid it all out earlier in this thread. She stayed each point from the dossier and showed which were corroborated and which where not. You’re head must have been back in the sand

It was all hearsay....Mueller had 0. Give it up already.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

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?

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. 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?

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... 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 that

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 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 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.

Oh 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 him

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. You’re officially a dumbass

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?

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 you

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

'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.

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
Or nothing thing. I understand why you do it... but it’s not honest

Believing something to be credible is not verification.

Agreed, what’s your point?

You posted:
"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.

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.

Exactly what did they find 'credible?'

For the third time... Coyote laid it all out earlier in this thread. She stayed each point from the dossier and showed which were corroborated and which where not. You’re head must have been back in the sand

It was all hearsay....Mueller had 0. Give it up already.

What was all hearsay?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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.

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.

Whoa, that was a nice little rant there... did I hit a trigger? Calm down man.

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. Another weak baseless claim your pulling out of your ass?!

Why do you say he was a politicized prosecutor.

Because he was.

When I ask “why” that’s a call for proof. “Because I said so” means nothing

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:

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.

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.”

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.

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?!

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.

Internal memos amongst the investigators are not relevant documents for a court case. Are you really being serious?! This is a joke right?

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.

Oh shit John Turley disagrees?! Well that settles it then!!! Haha

Well that settles it then!!!

Yes, between his legal experience and yours...…..

I could waste my time finding a dozen other legal experts who would take the opposite POV as Turley, but what’s the point?

I'm sure you have lots of legal experts who'd say withholding exculpatory evidence is fine.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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!

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.

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.

much like the prosecutors over the Roger Stone case quit, the day Barr's guys came in and changed the recommended sentence under the guidelines to a ''cushy'' lower sentence for the president's ''friend''.


dirty is, as dirty does

crooked is, as crooked does....

I can't comprehend how even you guys don't see this.....?

"Van Grack has long informed Sullivan that the government’s so-called "Brady" obligations, referring to prosecutors' duty to turn over exculpatory materials to defendants, have been met. In an October 2019 filing, Van Grack denied governmental misconduct and assured the court 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.”

"What Van Grack didn’t inform the court about – and didn’t provide to Flynn – was the newly unsealed January 4, 2017 "Closing Communication" from the FBI Washington Field Office, which recommended the FBI close its investigation of Flynn, as its exhaustive search through government databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts."

Flynn bombshells cast doubt on Mueller prosecutor Brandon Van Grack's compliance with court order

Newly unsealed bombshell evidence documenting the FBI's efforts to target national security adviser Michael Flynn -- including a top official's memo debating whether their "goal" was "to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired" -- calls into question whether Brandon Van Grack, a...

www.foxnews.com

So WTF? Grack suddenly denied exculpatory materials to Flynn? Why? Seriously, can anyone here answer that question?

internal memos are not exculpatory evidence... that’s such a load of crap

internal memos are not exculpatory evidence...

Well, you're the legal expert.....DURR

 

[Slade3200]

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

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.

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.

Whoa, that was a nice little rant there... did I hit a trigger? Calm down man.

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. Another weak baseless claim your pulling out of your ass?!

Why do you say he was a politicized prosecutor.

Because he was.

When I ask “why” that’s a call for proof. “Because I said so” means nothing

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:

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.

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.”

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.

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?!

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.

Internal memos amongst the investigators are not relevant documents for a court case. Are you really being serious?! This is a joke right?

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.

Oh shit John Turley disagrees?! Well that settles it then!!! Haha

Well that settles it then!!!

Yes, between his legal experience and yours...…..

I could waste my time finding a dozen other legal experts who would take the opposite POV as Turley, but what’s the point?

I'm sure you have lots of legal experts who'd say withholding exculpatory evidence is fine.

Withholding exculpatory evidence is not fine. What you’re pointing to is not exculpatory evidence

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Withholding exculpatory evidence is not fine. What you’re pointing to is not exculpatory evidence

What you’re pointing to is not exculpatory evidence

Why not?

 

[westwall]

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

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.

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.

Whoa, that was a nice little rant there... did I hit a trigger? Calm down man.

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. Another weak baseless claim your pulling out of your ass?!

Why do you say he was a politicized prosecutor.

Because he was.

When I ask “why” that’s a call for proof. “Because I said so” means nothing

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:

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.

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.”

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.

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?!

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.

Internal memos amongst the investigators are not relevant documents for a court case. Are you really being serious?! This is a joke right?

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.

Oh shit John Turley disagrees?! Well that settles it then!!! Haha

Well that settles it then!!!

Yes, between his legal experience and yours...…..

I could waste my time finding a dozen other legal experts who would take the opposite POV as Turley, but what’s the point?

I'm sure you have lots of legal experts who'd say withholding exculpatory evidence is fine.

Withholding exculpatory evidence is not fine. What you’re pointing to is not exculpatory evidence

What planet do you live on again? Cause it sure ain't this one.

 

[Slade3200]

Withholding exculpatory evidence is not fine. What you’re pointing to is not exculpatory evidence

What you’re pointing to is not exculpatory evidence

Why not?

Because it was an internal memo. I thought you were a prosecutor. You don’t know this?

 

[Slade3200]

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

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.

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.

Whoa, that was a nice little rant there... did I hit a trigger? Calm down man.

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. Another weak baseless claim your pulling out of your ass?!

Why do you say he was a politicized prosecutor.

Because he was.

When I ask “why” that’s a call for proof. “Because I said so” means nothing

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:

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.

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.”

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.

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?!

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.

Internal memos amongst the investigators are not relevant documents for a court case. Are you really being serious?! This is a joke right?

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.

Oh shit John Turley disagrees?! Well that settles it then!!! Haha

Well that settles it then!!!

Yes, between his legal experience and yours...…..

I could waste my time finding a dozen other legal experts who would take the opposite POV as Turley, but what’s the point?

I'm sure you have lots of legal experts who'd say withholding exculpatory evidence is fine.

Withholding exculpatory evidence is not fine. What you’re pointing to is not exculpatory evidence

What planet do you live on again? Cause it sure ain't this one.

I’m right here man. You got a point to make?

 

[westwall]

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

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.

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.

Whoa, that was a nice little rant there... did I hit a trigger? Calm down man.

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. Another weak baseless claim your pulling out of your ass?!

Why do you say he was a politicized prosecutor.

Because he was.

When I ask “why” that’s a call for proof. “Because I said so” means nothing

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:

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.

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.”

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.

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?!

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.

Internal memos amongst the investigators are not relevant documents for a court case. Are you really being serious?! This is a joke right?

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.

Oh shit John Turley disagrees?! Well that settles it then!!! Haha

Well that settles it then!!!

Yes, between his legal experience and yours...…..

I could waste my time finding a dozen other legal experts who would take the opposite POV as Turley, but what’s the point?

I'm sure you have lots of legal experts who'd say withholding exculpatory evidence is fine.

Withholding exculpatory evidence is not fine. What you’re pointing to is not exculpatory evidence

What planet do you live on again? Cause it sure ain't this one.

I’m right here man. You got a point to make?

Yeah, you live on bizarro planet where up is down, and facts, aren't.

 

[Slade3200]

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

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.

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.

Whoa, that was a nice little rant there... did I hit a trigger? Calm down man.

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. Another weak baseless claim your pulling out of your ass?!

Why do you say he was a politicized prosecutor.

Because he was.

When I ask “why” that’s a call for proof. “Because I said so” means nothing

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:

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.

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.”

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.

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?!

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.

Internal memos amongst the investigators are not relevant documents for a court case. Are you really being serious?! This is a joke right?

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.

Oh shit John Turley disagrees?! Well that settles it then!!! Haha

Well that settles it then!!!

Yes, between his legal experience and yours...…..

I could waste my time finding a dozen other legal experts who would take the opposite POV as Turley, but what’s the point?

I'm sure you have lots of legal experts who'd say withholding exculpatory evidence is fine.

Withholding exculpatory evidence is not fine. What you’re pointing to is not exculpatory evidence

What planet do you live on again? Cause it sure ain't this one.

I’m right here man. You got a point to make?

Yeah, you live on bizarro planet where up is down, and facts, aren't.

that’s all fine and dandy but do you have a point to make regarding this discussion. If you think I’m so crazy then show where anything I said was incorrect

 

[westwall]

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

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.

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.

Whoa, that was a nice little rant there... did I hit a trigger? Calm down man.

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. Another weak baseless claim your pulling out of your ass?!

Why do you say he was a politicized prosecutor.

Because he was.

When I ask “why” that’s a call for proof. “Because I said so” means nothing

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:

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.

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.”

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.

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?!

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.

Internal memos amongst the investigators are not relevant documents for a court case. Are you really being serious?! This is a joke right?

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.

Oh shit John Turley disagrees?! Well that settles it then!!! Haha

Well that settles it then!!!

Yes, between his legal experience and yours...…..

I could waste my time finding a dozen other legal experts who would take the opposite POV as Turley, but what’s the point?

I'm sure you have lots of legal experts who'd say withholding exculpatory evidence is fine.

Withholding exculpatory evidence is not fine. What you’re pointing to is not exculpatory evidence

What planet do you live on again? Cause it sure ain't this one.

I’m right here man. You got a point to make?

Yeah, you live on bizarro planet where up is down, and facts, aren't.

that’s all fine and dandy but do you have a point to make regarding this discussion. If you think I’m so crazy then show where anything I said was incorrect

You have been shown multiple times. You have decided to ignore reality. That's on you.

 

[Slade3200]

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

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.

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.

Whoa, that was a nice little rant there... did I hit a trigger? Calm down man.

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. Another weak baseless claim your pulling out of your ass?!

Why do you say he was a politicized prosecutor.

Because he was.

When I ask “why” that’s a call for proof. “Because I said so” means nothing

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:

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.

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.”

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.

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?!

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.

Internal memos amongst the investigators are not relevant documents for a court case. Are you really being serious?! This is a joke right?

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.

Oh shit John Turley disagrees?! Well that settles it then!!! Haha

Well that settles it then!!!

Yes, between his legal experience and yours...…..

I could waste my time finding a dozen other legal experts who would take the opposite POV as Turley, but what’s the point?

I'm sure you have lots of legal experts who'd say withholding exculpatory evidence is fine.

Withholding exculpatory evidence is not fine. What you’re pointing to is not exculpatory evidence

What planet do you live on again? Cause it sure ain't this one.

I’m right here man. You got a point to make?

Yeah, you live on bizarro planet where up is down, and facts, aren't.

that’s all fine and dandy but do you have a point to make regarding this discussion. If you think I’m so crazy then show where anything I said was incorrect

You have been shown multiple times. You have decided to ignore reality. That's on you.

No I have not... you just repeat empty insults like you’re doing right now. Sounds like you’re out of substance or you can’t respond to my points. Weak

 

[westwall]

Yeah, you have been shown chapter and verse how the FBI lied, and crea

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

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.

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.

Whoa, that was a nice little rant there... did I hit a trigger? Calm down man.

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. Another weak baseless claim your pulling out of your ass?!

Why do you say he was a politicized prosecutor.

Because he was.

When I ask “why” that’s a call for proof. “Because I said so” means nothing

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:

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.

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.”

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.

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?!

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.

Internal memos amongst the investigators are not relevant documents for a court case. Are you really being serious?! This is a joke right?

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.

Oh shit John Turley disagrees?! Well that settles it then!!! Haha

Well that settles it then!!!

Yes, between his legal experience and yours...…..

I could waste my time finding a dozen other legal experts who would take the opposite POV as Turley, but what’s the point?

I'm sure you have lots of legal experts who'd say withholding exculpatory evidence is fine.

Withholding exculpatory evidence is not fine. What you’re pointing to is not exculpatory evidence

What planet do you live on again? Cause it sure ain't this one.

I’m right here man. You got a point to make?

Yeah, you live on bizarro planet where up is down, and facts, aren't.

that’s all fine and dandy but do you have a point to make regarding this discussion. If you think I’m so crazy then show where anything I said was incorrect

You have been shown multiple times. You have decided to ignore reality. That's on you.

No I have not... you just repeat empty insults like you’re doing right now. Sounds like you’re out of substance or you can’t respond to my points. Weak

Yeah, you have been shown chapter and verse how the agents stipulated that flynn didn't lie to them, then they perjured themselves by falsifying the 302's, then they lied to the judge claiming all Brady material had been turned over.

All of this has been shown to you and your response is to put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and screech out lalala.

Good luck with that.

 

[beagle9]

Probably just shouldn’t lie to the FBI then. It’s not that hard

Worked for Hillary Clinton. Sally Yates lies under oath. User Clip: Yates LIES under oath
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.

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 ???

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?

Both if the ultimate target was innocent, and the ploy was purely political.

 

[Leo123]

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!

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.

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.

much like the prosecutors over the Roger Stone case quit, the day Barr's guys came in and changed the recommended sentence under the guidelines to a ''cushy'' lower sentence for the president's ''friend''.


dirty is, as dirty does

crooked is, as crooked does....

I can't comprehend how even you guys don't see this.....?

"Van Grack has long informed Sullivan that the government’s so-called "Brady" obligations, referring to prosecutors' duty to turn over exculpatory materials to defendants, have been met. In an October 2019 filing, Van Grack denied governmental misconduct and assured the court 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.”

"What Van Grack didn’t inform the court about – and didn’t provide to Flynn – was the newly unsealed January 4, 2017 "Closing Communication" from the FBI Washington Field Office, which recommended the FBI close its investigation of Flynn, as its exhaustive search through government databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts."

Flynn bombshells cast doubt on Mueller prosecutor Brandon Van Grack's compliance with court order

Newly unsealed bombshell evidence documenting the FBI's efforts to target national security adviser Michael Flynn -- including a top official's memo debating whether their "goal" was "to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired" -- calls into question whether Brandon Van Grack, a...

www.foxnews.com

So WTF? Grack suddenly denied exculpatory materials to Flynn? Why? Seriously, can anyone here answer that question?

internal memos are not exculpatory evidence... that’s such a load of crap

Yes they are. They are discovery.

 

[iceberg]

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!

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.

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.

much like the prosecutors over the Roger Stone case quit, the day Barr's guys came in and changed the recommended sentence under the guidelines to a ''cushy'' lower sentence for the president's ''friend''.


dirty is, as dirty does

crooked is, as crooked does....

I can't comprehend how even you guys don't see this.....?

oh be honest, theres a whole lot more than this you can't comprehend. the pile of bullshit you have to willfully push aside to keep this alive is simply what can't be comprehended. compounded with the emotional BUT REALLY GUYS WE HATE HIM doesn't help your case.

then again not much of ANYTHING you've ever fucking said helped your case.