The Basic Case Against Judge Sullivan in Flynn case

[eagle1462010]

Did Biden know that it was Flynn who was talking to Kisliak when he requested that unmasking?

LOL...............you will try to sell that he didn't....

Please explain his need to know in a counter intel op right before leaving office........and tell me how he didn't know this was from the incoming admin..........

You know the answer...........as you ignore the years of Abuse by the Obama Administration which is WELL DOCUMENTED.

Why would Biden go through the process of making an official unmasking request if he knew the name of the person who was communicating with Kisliak?

To what end?

Why would do so with weeks left in office............and with the NSA with Clapper and Brennon in their back pockets........................Was Biden DOING counter intel ops right before he left office...............It's their job to do this..........then report to the DOJ...............

Spin away.......you know damned well they were using this to spy on the incoming administration....................They did it for YEARS............unless you didn't look at what Admiral Rogers did before he left the NSA............................he stopped them back then.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Did Biden know that it was Flynn who was talking to Kisliak when he requested that unmasking?

LOL...............you will try to sell that he didn't....

Please explain his need to know in a counter intel op right before leaving office........and tell me how he didn't know this was from the incoming admin..........

You know the answer...........as you ignore the years of Abuse by the Obama Administration which is WELL DOCUMENTED.

Why would Biden go through the process of making an official unmasking request if he knew the name of the person who was communicating with Kisliak?

To what end?

Why would do so with weeks left in office............and with the NSA with Clapper and Brennon in their back pockets........................Was Biden DOING counter intel ops right before he left office...............It's their job to do this..........then report to the DOJ...............

Spin away.......you know damned well they were using this to spy on the incoming administration....................They did it for YEARS............unless you didn't look at what Admiral Rogers did before he left the NSA............................he stopped them back then.

Is making an unmasking request something that is needed if you operate a corrupt national security regime and you want to spy on the Trump transition?

 

[eagle1462010]

Did Biden know that it was Flynn who was talking to Kisliak when he requested that unmasking?

LOL...............you will try to sell that he didn't....

Please explain his need to know in a counter intel op right before leaving office........and tell me how he didn't know this was from the incoming admin..........

You know the answer...........as you ignore the years of Abuse by the Obama Administration which is WELL DOCUMENTED.

Why would Biden go through the process of making an official unmasking request if he knew the name of the person who was communicating with Kisliak?

To what end?

Why would do so with weeks left in office............and with the NSA with Clapper and Brennon in their back pockets........................Was Biden DOING counter intel ops right before he left office...............It's their job to do this..........then report to the DOJ...............

Spin away.......you know damned well they were using this to spy on the incoming administration....................They did it for YEARS............unless you didn't look at what Admiral Rogers did before he left the NSA............................he stopped them back then.

Is making an unmasking request something that is needed if you operate a corrupt national security regime and you want to spy on the Trump transition?

LOL

You ignore how they abused the unmasking from the articles I supplied......YEARS of doing this shit.................PROVEN BY FISA Courts......

Only now are they finally releasing names of the ones doing this crap............Spin all you want........they are guilty as hell and you know it.

But the establishment will not charge them............this will be used for politics only.......maybe some peon will take a fall..........but that will be about it........

 

[LoneLaugher]

Did Biden know that it was Flynn who was talking to Kisliak when he requested that unmasking?

LOL...............you will try to sell that he didn't....

Please explain his need to know in a counter intel op right before leaving office........and tell me how he didn't know this was from the incoming admin..........

You know the answer...........as you ignore the years of Abuse by the Obama Administration which is WELL DOCUMENTED.

Why would Biden go through the process of making an official unmasking request if he knew the name of the person who was communicating with Kisliak?

To what end?

Why would do so with weeks left in office............and with the NSA with Clapper and Brennon in their back pockets........................Was Biden DOING counter intel ops right before he left office...............It's their job to do this..........then report to the DOJ...............

Spin away.......you know damned well they were using this to spy on the incoming administration....................They did it for YEARS............unless you didn't look at what Admiral Rogers did before he left the NSA............................he stopped them back then.

Is making an unmasking request something that is needed if you operate a corrupt national security regime and you want to spy on the Trump transition?

LOL

You ignore how they abused the unmasking from the articles I supplied......YEARS of doing this shit.................PROVEN BY FISA Courts......

Only now are they finally releasing names of the ones doing this crap............Spin all you want........they are guilty as hell and you know it.

But the establishment will not charge them............this will be used for politics only.......maybe some peon will take a fall..........but that will be about it........

You cover all bases. You know that Obama and Biden were corrupt and spied on Trump. But you also know that the Trump administration ( the establishment? ) will not carry out justice and charge them with these obvious crimes.

You know that this is a nutbag conspiracy type of argument, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yup...right from the Trump playbook.

Thou shalt not in any way shape or form abridge Trump's almightiness - the means don't diss him or his friends, and corruption isn't corruption when applied to the Mighty T & Co.

So you be OK if Trump charged you or Obama or anyone with lying to the FBI but they couldn't present the original report on the interview as evidence.

Right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yup...right from the Trump playbook.

Thou shalt not in any way shape or form abridge Trump's almightiness - the means don't diss him or his friends, and corruption isn't corruption when applied to the Mighty T & Co.

And that is right out of the Ayles handbook; ignore the facts and resort to personalities.

IT is amazing that you libs have abandoned civil rights across the board, your main calling card in most people's minds.

But here you have abandoned:
1) The right of the accused to a lawyer.
2) The right of the accused to know that they are being interviewed in a criminal investigation, instead of just a 'friendly conversation'.
3) The right to relvant Brady material, like the ORIGINAL 302 that stated what Flynn said and the authors of which cleared Flynn of any wrong doing. Where is it?
4) The rejection of coerced pleas. For Christ's Sake, Coyote, these fascist thugs THREATENED TO INVESTIGATE FLYNNS CHILDREN! But thats all OK in love and war, huh? No due process rights for Republicans or is it only Trump supporters?
5) The entire prosecution was merely a device to get Flynn to flip and make up shit on Trump. Flynn was not dishonest enough to allow his conscience to go along, so the jack boot Andrew Weisman destroyed Flynn personally, financially and his reputation nuked.
6) The right to a fair judge who has not already condemned the accused to being a traitor in public statements.

My Gawd, how do you liberals live with yourselves any more?

This is a perfect summation! Our Progressives are Fascists

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yup...right from the Trump playbook.

Thou shalt not in any way shape or form abridge Trump's almightiness - the means don't diss him or his friends, and corruption isn't corruption when applied to the Mighty T & Co.

So you don't mind that the FBI altered the 302 record of the interview, or that they falsified the email about Carter Page?

Imagine how different your posts would be had you been given the proper upbringing.

 

[forkup]

This judge has made some bizar rulings.

1) He said that there is no lacking Brady evidence in this case that has not been produced by the government to the defense. But the initial 302 which had the original transcript of what was said is missing, and no one seems to know where it is. It is the prosecutions responsibility to produce this document but only edited docs have been given for it instead. This is crucial in a case where the accused is charged with perjury relating to his testimony vrs what he actually said. There is no reliable proof that Flynn lied about anything without that 302.
2) Sullivans appointment of a known biased/prejudiced judge to play an advisory role is just bullshit, and the SCOTUS ruled against such things in criminal cases. The court is to decide on evidence brought to it, not go on a fishing expedition.
3) Sullivan himself early on in the case smeared Flynn as a traitor and a liar. He is not an objective judge at all.
4) Sullivan continues to deny the obvious reality that the DOJ extorted the confession from Flynn by threatening to prosecute/investigate Flynns son. This is hideous Beria type evil shit, and Democrats are defending it like we lived in their Chicom Paradise.

I have been wondering what can be done and Mark Levin brought up this idea of submitting a 'Writ of Prohibition' to the 5th Circuit Court, IIRC.

When you have a judge that ignores the law and thinks he is a legal author of law, I guess that is what you have to do. Boot this jack ass yesterday, DOJ.

Former DOJ spokesman Ian Prior suggests original FBI report on Flynn interview was 'intentionally lost'

Former Department of Justice Deputy Director of Public Affairs Ian Prior told Fox News Friday that the missing FBI report on a crucial interview of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is “a big issue.”

www.foxnews.com

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo last week on "Sunday Morning Futures" that the original 302 document — which typically summarizes witness interviews with agents — was “missing.”​

​

“It’s gone. Poof. It’s out of — we can’t find it," he said....​

​

Nunes claimed the original interview report was written and transcribed and recalled FBI sources telling him, “Look, there’s nothing to see here, Flynn wasn’t lying.”​

​

“So we knew this at the beginning of 2017, so you can imagine my astonishment when it began to leak out in the press that General Flynn was being busted for lying to the FBI,” he said. “And that, that’s what the Mueller team — the dirty Mueller team — that’s what they were going to bust him on.​

​

​

“And I told people at the highest levels of the FBI and the DOJ, I said, 'What are you doing here?' Like, we have, on the record, from the highest-level people that he didn't lie to the FBI,” he said.​

​

Prior said Friday that he can’t imagine the original 302 document was mislaid as a “mistake.”​

1) Guess what pleading guilty to lying is reliable proof that he did. Brady evidence is required for proving a case NOT for the sentencing phase. And even then nobody is alleging Flynn didn't lie nor is it allegged that the original 302 showed otherwise. Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show
2) It is the suspicion of bias on the side of the DOJ concerning the withdrawal of the charges that compels Sullivan to allow Amicus Briefs, something that SCOTUS as far as I'm aware of has no objection too. A suspicion that stems directly from the virtually unheard-of nature of charges being dropped AFTER a guilty plea and the equally unusual circumstances of the leadership of the DOJ interfering into criminal cases against the people tasked with prosecuting those cases. The motion to dismiss was not signed by the prosecutors in the case and one withdrew.
3) Guess what, if you stand before a judge and plead guilty before him that judge will have some choice words for you. Please link your assertion of "traitor and liar" That is not proof of bias.
4) He doesn't deny anything. What he denies is that the fact that pressure or coercion is applied a guilty plea is invalidated. In fact, most guilty pleas are in fact obtained by coercion. The only thing the court is concerned with is if that coercion violated the rights of the accused.

Lastly, every judge is an author of the law. That's literally in his job description. He's supposed to interpret the case before him and then judge it's merit. That interpretation can and is regularly challenged as it proceeds through the court.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This judge has made some bizar rulings.

1) He said that there is no lacking Brady evidence in this case that has not been produced by the government to the defense. But the initial 302 which had the original transcript of what was said is missing, and no one seems to know where it is. It is the prosecutions responsibility to produce this document but only edited docs have been given for it instead. This is crucial in a case where the accused is charged with perjury relating to his testimony vrs what he actually said. There is no reliable proof that Flynn lied about anything without that 302.
2) Sullivans appointment of a known biased/prejudiced judge to play an advisory role is just bullshit, and the SCOTUS ruled against such things in criminal cases. The court is to decide on evidence brought to it, not go on a fishing expedition.
3) Sullivan himself early on in the case smeared Flynn as a traitor and a liar. He is not an objective judge at all.
4) Sullivan continues to deny the obvious reality that the DOJ extorted the confession from Flynn by threatening to prosecute/investigate Flynns son. This is hideous Beria type evil shit, and Democrats are defending it like we lived in their Chicom Paradise.

I have been wondering what can be done and Mark Levin brought up this idea of submitting a 'Writ of Prohibition' to the 5th Circuit Court, IIRC.

When you have a judge that ignores the law and thinks he is a legal author of law, I guess that is what you have to do. Boot this jack ass yesterday, DOJ.

Former DOJ spokesman Ian Prior suggests original FBI report on Flynn interview was 'intentionally lost'

Former Department of Justice Deputy Director of Public Affairs Ian Prior told Fox News Friday that the missing FBI report on a crucial interview of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is “a big issue.”

www.foxnews.com

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo last week on "Sunday Morning Futures" that the original 302 document — which typically summarizes witness interviews with agents — was “missing.”​

​

“It’s gone. Poof. It’s out of — we can’t find it," he said....​

​

Nunes claimed the original interview report was written and transcribed and recalled FBI sources telling him, “Look, there’s nothing to see here, Flynn wasn’t lying.”​

​

“So we knew this at the beginning of 2017, so you can imagine my astonishment when it began to leak out in the press that General Flynn was being busted for lying to the FBI,” he said. “And that, that’s what the Mueller team — the dirty Mueller team — that’s what they were going to bust him on.​

​

​

“And I told people at the highest levels of the FBI and the DOJ, I said, 'What are you doing here?' Like, we have, on the record, from the highest-level people that he didn't lie to the FBI,” he said.​

​

Prior said Friday that he can’t imagine the original 302 document was mislaid as a “mistake.”​

1) Guess what pleading guilty to lying is reliable proof that he did. Brady evidence is required for proving a case NOT for the sentencing phase. And even then nobody is alleging Flynn didn't lie nor is it allegged that the original 302 showed otherwise. Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show
2) It is the suspicion of bias on the side of the DOJ concerning the withdrawal of the charges that compels Sullivan to allow Amicus Briefs, something that SCOTUS as far as I'm aware of has no objection too. A suspicion that stems directly from the virtually unheard-of nature of charges being dropped AFTER a guilty plea and the equally unusual circumstances of the leadership of the DOJ interfering into criminal cases against the people tasked with prosecuting those cases. The motion to dismiss was not signed by the prosecutors in the case and one withdrew.
3) Guess what, if you stand before a judge and plead guilty before him that judge will have some choice words for you. Please link your assertion of "traitor and liar" That is not proof of bias.
4) He doesn't deny anything. What he denies is that the fact that pressure of coercion is applied a guilty plea is invalidated. In fact, most guilty pleas are in fact obtained by coercion. The only thing the court is concerned with is if that coercion violated the rights of the accused.

Lastly, every judge is an author of the law. That's literally in his job description. He's supposed to interpret the case before him and then judge it's merit. That interpretation can and is regularly challenged as it proceeds through the court.

" Guess what pleading guilty to lying is reliable proof that he did."


Bogus.



Sydney Powell, Flynn's new lawyer:


Lead attorney for Gen. Flynn Sidney Powell argues the government intentionally hid documents in order to protect their prosecution of him.






“…a guilty plea is supposed to be knowing and voluntary….we have evidence that it was coerced….”
Flynn’s previous lawyers “had a secret side deal with the prosecutor….”

“…they hid all the evidence we’ve uncovered that shows he is completely innocent….”

The original law firm, with Eric Holder as a partner, had a deal with the government to make sure he pled guilty.

The FBI needed the prosecution of Flynn in order to keep the obstruction hoax against Trump, going. “Comey knew that they had no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign.”

“…we have messages that the 7th floor was in on this…and that’s Comey and McCabe.”

 

[forkup]

This judge has made some bizar rulings.

1) He said that there is no lacking Brady evidence in this case that has not been produced by the government to the defense. But the initial 302 which had the original transcript of what was said is missing, and no one seems to know where it is. It is the prosecutions responsibility to produce this document but only edited docs have been given for it instead. This is crucial in a case where the accused is charged with perjury relating to his testimony vrs what he actually said. There is no reliable proof that Flynn lied about anything without that 302.
2) Sullivans appointment of a known biased/prejudiced judge to play an advisory role is just bullshit, and the SCOTUS ruled against such things in criminal cases. The court is to decide on evidence brought to it, not go on a fishing expedition.
3) Sullivan himself early on in the case smeared Flynn as a traitor and a liar. He is not an objective judge at all.
4) Sullivan continues to deny the obvious reality that the DOJ extorted the confession from Flynn by threatening to prosecute/investigate Flynns son. This is hideous Beria type evil shit, and Democrats are defending it like we lived in their Chicom Paradise.

I have been wondering what can be done and Mark Levin brought up this idea of submitting a 'Writ of Prohibition' to the 5th Circuit Court, IIRC.

When you have a judge that ignores the law and thinks he is a legal author of law, I guess that is what you have to do. Boot this jack ass yesterday, DOJ.

Former DOJ spokesman Ian Prior suggests original FBI report on Flynn interview was 'intentionally lost'

Former Department of Justice Deputy Director of Public Affairs Ian Prior told Fox News Friday that the missing FBI report on a crucial interview of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is “a big issue.”

www.foxnews.com

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo last week on "Sunday Morning Futures" that the original 302 document — which typically summarizes witness interviews with agents — was “missing.”​

​

“It’s gone. Poof. It’s out of — we can’t find it," he said....​

​

Nunes claimed the original interview report was written and transcribed and recalled FBI sources telling him, “Look, there’s nothing to see here, Flynn wasn’t lying.”​

​

“So we knew this at the beginning of 2017, so you can imagine my astonishment when it began to leak out in the press that General Flynn was being busted for lying to the FBI,” he said. “And that, that’s what the Mueller team — the dirty Mueller team — that’s what they were going to bust him on.​

​

​

“And I told people at the highest levels of the FBI and the DOJ, I said, 'What are you doing here?' Like, we have, on the record, from the highest-level people that he didn't lie to the FBI,” he said.​

​

Prior said Friday that he can’t imagine the original 302 document was mislaid as a “mistake.”​

1) Guess what pleading guilty to lying is reliable proof that he did. Brady evidence is required for proving a case NOT for the sentencing phase. And even then nobody is alleging Flynn didn't lie nor is it allegged that the original 302 showed otherwise. Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show
2) It is the suspicion of bias on the side of the DOJ concerning the withdrawal of the charges that compels Sullivan to allow Amicus Briefs, something that SCOTUS as far as I'm aware of has no objection too. A suspicion that stems directly from the virtually unheard-of nature of charges being dropped AFTER a guilty plea and the equally unusual circumstances of the leadership of the DOJ interfering into criminal cases against the people tasked with prosecuting those cases. The motion to dismiss was not signed by the prosecutors in the case and one withdrew.
3) Guess what, if you stand before a judge and plead guilty before him that judge will have some choice words for you. Please link your assertion of "traitor and liar" That is not proof of bias.
4) He doesn't deny anything. What he denies is that the fact that pressure of coercion is applied a guilty plea is invalidated. In fact, most guilty pleas are in fact obtained by coercion. The only thing the court is concerned with is if that coercion violated the rights of the accused.

Lastly, every judge is an author of the law. That's literally in his job description. He's supposed to interpret the case before him and then judge it's merit. That interpretation can and is regularly challenged as it proceeds through the court.

" Guess what pleading guilty to lying is reliable proof that he did."


Bogus.



Sydney Powell, Flynn's new lawyer:


Lead attorney for Gen. Flynn Sidney Powell argues the government intentionally hid documents in order to protect their prosecution of him.






“…a guilty plea is supposed to be knowing and voluntary….we have evidence that it was coerced….”
Flynn’s previous lawyers “had a secret side deal with the prosecutor….”

“…they hid all the evidence we’ve uncovered that shows he is completely innocent….”

The original law firm, with Eric Holder as a partner, had a deal with the government to make sure he pled guilty.

The FBI needed the prosecution of Flynn in order to keep the obstruction hoax against Trump, going. “Comey knew that they had no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign.”

“…we have messages that the 7th floor was in on this…and that’s Comey and McCabe.”

Wait, the attorney for Flynn argues the prosecution withheld documents and that his guilty plea was coerced? He can, of course, provide evidence to back up that accusation to Sullivan? And you can, of course, find a single recent statement from Flynn, or anybody for that matter that he in fact did not lie to federal investigators?

 

[PoliticalChic]

This judge has made some bizar rulings.

1) He said that there is no lacking Brady evidence in this case that has not been produced by the government to the defense. But the initial 302 which had the original transcript of what was said is missing, and no one seems to know where it is. It is the prosecutions responsibility to produce this document but only edited docs have been given for it instead. This is crucial in a case where the accused is charged with perjury relating to his testimony vrs what he actually said. There is no reliable proof that Flynn lied about anything without that 302.
2) Sullivans appointment of a known biased/prejudiced judge to play an advisory role is just bullshit, and the SCOTUS ruled against such things in criminal cases. The court is to decide on evidence brought to it, not go on a fishing expedition.
3) Sullivan himself early on in the case smeared Flynn as a traitor and a liar. He is not an objective judge at all.
4) Sullivan continues to deny the obvious reality that the DOJ extorted the confession from Flynn by threatening to prosecute/investigate Flynns son. This is hideous Beria type evil shit, and Democrats are defending it like we lived in their Chicom Paradise.

I have been wondering what can be done and Mark Levin brought up this idea of submitting a 'Writ of Prohibition' to the 5th Circuit Court, IIRC.

When you have a judge that ignores the law and thinks he is a legal author of law, I guess that is what you have to do. Boot this jack ass yesterday, DOJ.

Former DOJ spokesman Ian Prior suggests original FBI report on Flynn interview was 'intentionally lost'

Former Department of Justice Deputy Director of Public Affairs Ian Prior told Fox News Friday that the missing FBI report on a crucial interview of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is “a big issue.”

www.foxnews.com

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo last week on "Sunday Morning Futures" that the original 302 document — which typically summarizes witness interviews with agents — was “missing.”​

​

“It’s gone. Poof. It’s out of — we can’t find it," he said....​

​

Nunes claimed the original interview report was written and transcribed and recalled FBI sources telling him, “Look, there’s nothing to see here, Flynn wasn’t lying.”​

​

“So we knew this at the beginning of 2017, so you can imagine my astonishment when it began to leak out in the press that General Flynn was being busted for lying to the FBI,” he said. “And that, that’s what the Mueller team — the dirty Mueller team — that’s what they were going to bust him on.​

​

​

“And I told people at the highest levels of the FBI and the DOJ, I said, 'What are you doing here?' Like, we have, on the record, from the highest-level people that he didn't lie to the FBI,” he said.​

​

Prior said Friday that he can’t imagine the original 302 document was mislaid as a “mistake.”​

1) Guess what pleading guilty to lying is reliable proof that he did. Brady evidence is required for proving a case NOT for the sentencing phase. And even then nobody is alleging Flynn didn't lie nor is it allegged that the original 302 showed otherwise. Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show
2) It is the suspicion of bias on the side of the DOJ concerning the withdrawal of the charges that compels Sullivan to allow Amicus Briefs, something that SCOTUS as far as I'm aware of has no objection too. A suspicion that stems directly from the virtually unheard-of nature of charges being dropped AFTER a guilty plea and the equally unusual circumstances of the leadership of the DOJ interfering into criminal cases against the people tasked with prosecuting those cases. The motion to dismiss was not signed by the prosecutors in the case and one withdrew.
3) Guess what, if you stand before a judge and plead guilty before him that judge will have some choice words for you. Please link your assertion of "traitor and liar" That is not proof of bias.
4) He doesn't deny anything. What he denies is that the fact that pressure of coercion is applied a guilty plea is invalidated. In fact, most guilty pleas are in fact obtained by coercion. The only thing the court is concerned with is if that coercion violated the rights of the accused.

Lastly, every judge is an author of the law. That's literally in his job description. He's supposed to interpret the case before him and then judge it's merit. That interpretation can and is regularly challenged as it proceeds through the court.

" Guess what pleading guilty to lying is reliable proof that he did."


Bogus.



Sydney Powell, Flynn's new lawyer:


Lead attorney for Gen. Flynn Sidney Powell argues the government intentionally hid documents in order to protect their prosecution of him.






“…a guilty plea is supposed to be knowing and voluntary….we have evidence that it was coerced….”
Flynn’s previous lawyers “had a secret side deal with the prosecutor….”

“…they hid all the evidence we’ve uncovered that shows he is completely innocent….”

The original law firm, with Eric Holder as a partner, had a deal with the government to make sure he pled guilty.

The FBI needed the prosecution of Flynn in order to keep the obstruction hoax against Trump, going. “Comey knew that they had no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign.”

“…we have messages that the 7th floor was in on this…and that’s Comey and McCabe.”

Wait, the attorney for Flynn argues the prosecution withheld documents and that his guilty plea was coerced? He can, of course, provide evidence to back up that accusation to Sullivan? And you can, of course, find a single recent statement from Flynn, or anybody for that matter that he in fact did not lie to federal investigators?

Which attorney?

The Eric Holder group?


As the old adage goes, and no truer words were ever spoken....



"99% of Lawyers give the rest a bad name."





1. The entire scenario turned when General Flynn hired a new and honest lawyer....Sydney Powell.....bless her.

His original lawyers.....HIS LAWYERS!.....were the prestigious firm of Covington & Burling.



The crook who claimed to be Hussein's 'wing-man,' Eric Holder, is a partner in that corrupt organization.



Flynn's lawyers.....HIS LAWYERS.....at that firm made a deal with the federal Deep State prosecutors to convince Flynn to plead guilty.

They hid exculpatory documents from THEIR CLIENT, Flynn.....while they were bleeding him dry.....he had to sell his house.







2. "Surprise discovery in Flynn case: former lawyers find evidence they failed to produce

Law firm claims inaccurate searches led to oversight of 6,800 documents in legal battle to overturn former Trump national security adviser's conviction."

Surprise discovery in Flynn case: former lawyers find evidence they failed to produce

Law firm claims inaccurate searches led to oversight of 6,800 documents in legal battle to overturn former Trump national security adviser's conviction.

justthenews.com

3. Lead attorney for Gen. Flynn Sidney Powell argues the government intentionally hid documents in order to protect their prosecution of him.













“…a guilty plea is supposed to be knowing and voluntary….we have evidence that it was coerced….”

Flynn’s previous lawyers “had a secret side deal with the prosecutor….”



“…they hid all the evidence we’ve uncovered that shows he is completely innocent….”



The original law firm, with Eric Holder as a partner, had a deal with the government to make sure he pled guilty.



The FBI needed the prosecution of Flynn in order to keep the obstruction hoax against Trump, going. “Comey knew that they had no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign.”



“…we have messages that the 7th floor was in on this…and that’s Comey and McCabe.”

 

[forkup]

This judge has made some bizar rulings.

1) He said that there is no lacking Brady evidence in this case that has not been produced by the government to the defense. But the initial 302 which had the original transcript of what was said is missing, and no one seems to know where it is. It is the prosecutions responsibility to produce this document but only edited docs have been given for it instead. This is crucial in a case where the accused is charged with perjury relating to his testimony vrs what he actually said. There is no reliable proof that Flynn lied about anything without that 302.
2) Sullivans appointment of a known biased/prejudiced judge to play an advisory role is just bullshit, and the SCOTUS ruled against such things in criminal cases. The court is to decide on evidence brought to it, not go on a fishing expedition.
3) Sullivan himself early on in the case smeared Flynn as a traitor and a liar. He is not an objective judge at all.
4) Sullivan continues to deny the obvious reality that the DOJ extorted the confession from Flynn by threatening to prosecute/investigate Flynns son. This is hideous Beria type evil shit, and Democrats are defending it like we lived in their Chicom Paradise.

I have been wondering what can be done and Mark Levin brought up this idea of submitting a 'Writ of Prohibition' to the 5th Circuit Court, IIRC.

When you have a judge that ignores the law and thinks he is a legal author of law, I guess that is what you have to do. Boot this jack ass yesterday, DOJ.

Former DOJ spokesman Ian Prior suggests original FBI report on Flynn interview was 'intentionally lost'

Former Department of Justice Deputy Director of Public Affairs Ian Prior told Fox News Friday that the missing FBI report on a crucial interview of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is “a big issue.”

www.foxnews.com

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo last week on "Sunday Morning Futures" that the original 302 document — which typically summarizes witness interviews with agents — was “missing.”​

​

“It’s gone. Poof. It’s out of — we can’t find it," he said....​

​

Nunes claimed the original interview report was written and transcribed and recalled FBI sources telling him, “Look, there’s nothing to see here, Flynn wasn’t lying.”​

​

“So we knew this at the beginning of 2017, so you can imagine my astonishment when it began to leak out in the press that General Flynn was being busted for lying to the FBI,” he said. “And that, that’s what the Mueller team — the dirty Mueller team — that’s what they were going to bust him on.​

​

​

“And I told people at the highest levels of the FBI and the DOJ, I said, 'What are you doing here?' Like, we have, on the record, from the highest-level people that he didn't lie to the FBI,” he said.​

​

Prior said Friday that he can’t imagine the original 302 document was mislaid as a “mistake.”​

1) Guess what pleading guilty to lying is reliable proof that he did. Brady evidence is required for proving a case NOT for the sentencing phase. And even then nobody is alleging Flynn didn't lie nor is it allegged that the original 302 showed otherwise. Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show
2) It is the suspicion of bias on the side of the DOJ concerning the withdrawal of the charges that compels Sullivan to allow Amicus Briefs, something that SCOTUS as far as I'm aware of has no objection too. A suspicion that stems directly from the virtually unheard-of nature of charges being dropped AFTER a guilty plea and the equally unusual circumstances of the leadership of the DOJ interfering into criminal cases against the people tasked with prosecuting those cases. The motion to dismiss was not signed by the prosecutors in the case and one withdrew.
3) Guess what, if you stand before a judge and plead guilty before him that judge will have some choice words for you. Please link your assertion of "traitor and liar" That is not proof of bias.
4) He doesn't deny anything. What he denies is that the fact that pressure of coercion is applied a guilty plea is invalidated. In fact, most guilty pleas are in fact obtained by coercion. The only thing the court is concerned with is if that coercion violated the rights of the accused.

Lastly, every judge is an author of the law. That's literally in his job description. He's supposed to interpret the case before him and then judge it's merit. That interpretation can and is regularly challenged as it proceeds through the court.

" Guess what pleading guilty to lying is reliable proof that he did."


Bogus.



Sydney Powell, Flynn's new lawyer:


Lead attorney for Gen. Flynn Sidney Powell argues the government intentionally hid documents in order to protect their prosecution of him.






“…a guilty plea is supposed to be knowing and voluntary….we have evidence that it was coerced….”
Flynn’s previous lawyers “had a secret side deal with the prosecutor….”

“…they hid all the evidence we’ve uncovered that shows he is completely innocent….”

The original law firm, with Eric Holder as a partner, had a deal with the government to make sure he pled guilty.

The FBI needed the prosecution of Flynn in order to keep the obstruction hoax against Trump, going. “Comey knew that they had no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign.”

“…we have messages that the 7th floor was in on this…and that’s Comey and McCabe.”

Wait, the attorney for Flynn argues the prosecution withheld documents and that his guilty plea was coerced? He can, of course, provide evidence to back up that accusation to Sullivan? And you can, of course, find a single recent statement from Flynn, or anybody for that matter that he in fact did not lie to federal investigators?

Which attorney?

The Eric Holder group?


As the old adage goes, and no truer words were ever spoken....



"99% of Lawyers give the rest a bad name."





1. The entire scenario turned when General Flynn hired a new and honest lawyer....Sydney Powell.....bless her.

His original lawyers.....HIS LAWYERS!.....were the prestigious firm of Covington & Burling.



The crook who claimed to be Hussein's 'wing-man,' Eric Holder, is a partner in that corrupt organization.



Flynn's lawyers.....HIS LAWYERS.....at that firm made a deal with the federal Deep State prosecutors to convince Flynn to plead guilty.

They hid exculpatory documents from THEIR CLIENT, Flynn.....while they were bleeding him dry.....he had to sell his house.







2. "Surprise discovery in Flynn case: former lawyers find evidence they failed to produce

Law firm claims inaccurate searches led to oversight of 6,800 documents in legal battle to overturn former Trump national security adviser's conviction."

Surprise discovery in Flynn case: former lawyers find evidence they failed to produce

Law firm claims inaccurate searches led to oversight of 6,800 documents in legal battle to overturn former Trump national security adviser's conviction.

justthenews.com

3. Lead attorney for Gen. Flynn Sidney Powell argues the government intentionally hid documents in order to protect their prosecution of him.













“…a guilty plea is supposed to be knowing and voluntary….we have evidence that it was coerced….”

Flynn’s previous lawyers “had a secret side deal with the prosecutor….”



“…they hid all the evidence we’ve uncovered that shows he is completely innocent….”



The original law firm, with Eric Holder as a partner, had a deal with the government to make sure he pled guilty.



The FBI needed the prosecution of Flynn in order to keep the obstruction hoax against Trump, going. “Comey knew that they had no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign.”



“…we have messages that the 7th floor was in on this…and that’s Comey and McCabe.”

Stating something more than one time in no way makes that statement more valid. How do you get from a case of transferring case files from one lawyer to the next doesn't running smoothly to that proves a conspiracy between the defense and the prosecution?

This is the thing you have to be able to provide proof to make that accusation stick. None has been forthcoming. Neither, by the way, are you capable of pointing to anybody denying the accusations Flynn plead guilty too. Not even Flynn himself

 

[PoliticalChic]

This judge has made some bizar rulings.

1) He said that there is no lacking Brady evidence in this case that has not been produced by the government to the defense. But the initial 302 which had the original transcript of what was said is missing, and no one seems to know where it is. It is the prosecutions responsibility to produce this document but only edited docs have been given for it instead. This is crucial in a case where the accused is charged with perjury relating to his testimony vrs what he actually said. There is no reliable proof that Flynn lied about anything without that 302.
2) Sullivans appointment of a known biased/prejudiced judge to play an advisory role is just bullshit, and the SCOTUS ruled against such things in criminal cases. The court is to decide on evidence brought to it, not go on a fishing expedition.
3) Sullivan himself early on in the case smeared Flynn as a traitor and a liar. He is not an objective judge at all.
4) Sullivan continues to deny the obvious reality that the DOJ extorted the confession from Flynn by threatening to prosecute/investigate Flynns son. This is hideous Beria type evil shit, and Democrats are defending it like we lived in their Chicom Paradise.

I have been wondering what can be done and Mark Levin brought up this idea of submitting a 'Writ of Prohibition' to the 5th Circuit Court, IIRC.

When you have a judge that ignores the law and thinks he is a legal author of law, I guess that is what you have to do. Boot this jack ass yesterday, DOJ.

Former DOJ spokesman Ian Prior suggests original FBI report on Flynn interview was 'intentionally lost'

Former Department of Justice Deputy Director of Public Affairs Ian Prior told Fox News Friday that the missing FBI report on a crucial interview of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is “a big issue.”

www.foxnews.com

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo last week on "Sunday Morning Futures" that the original 302 document — which typically summarizes witness interviews with agents — was “missing.”​

​

“It’s gone. Poof. It’s out of — we can’t find it," he said....​

​

Nunes claimed the original interview report was written and transcribed and recalled FBI sources telling him, “Look, there’s nothing to see here, Flynn wasn’t lying.”​

​

“So we knew this at the beginning of 2017, so you can imagine my astonishment when it began to leak out in the press that General Flynn was being busted for lying to the FBI,” he said. “And that, that’s what the Mueller team — the dirty Mueller team — that’s what they were going to bust him on.​

​

​

“And I told people at the highest levels of the FBI and the DOJ, I said, 'What are you doing here?' Like, we have, on the record, from the highest-level people that he didn't lie to the FBI,” he said.​

​

Prior said Friday that he can’t imagine the original 302 document was mislaid as a “mistake.”​

1) Guess what pleading guilty to lying is reliable proof that he did. Brady evidence is required for proving a case NOT for the sentencing phase. And even then nobody is alleging Flynn didn't lie nor is it allegged that the original 302 showed otherwise. Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show
2) It is the suspicion of bias on the side of the DOJ concerning the withdrawal of the charges that compels Sullivan to allow Amicus Briefs, something that SCOTUS as far as I'm aware of has no objection too. A suspicion that stems directly from the virtually unheard-of nature of charges being dropped AFTER a guilty plea and the equally unusual circumstances of the leadership of the DOJ interfering into criminal cases against the people tasked with prosecuting those cases. The motion to dismiss was not signed by the prosecutors in the case and one withdrew.
3) Guess what, if you stand before a judge and plead guilty before him that judge will have some choice words for you. Please link your assertion of "traitor and liar" That is not proof of bias.
4) He doesn't deny anything. What he denies is that the fact that pressure of coercion is applied a guilty plea is invalidated. In fact, most guilty pleas are in fact obtained by coercion. The only thing the court is concerned with is if that coercion violated the rights of the accused.

Lastly, every judge is an author of the law. That's literally in his job description. He's supposed to interpret the case before him and then judge it's merit. That interpretation can and is regularly challenged as it proceeds through the court.

" Guess what pleading guilty to lying is reliable proof that he did."


Bogus.



Sydney Powell, Flynn's new lawyer:


Lead attorney for Gen. Flynn Sidney Powell argues the government intentionally hid documents in order to protect their prosecution of him.






“…a guilty plea is supposed to be knowing and voluntary….we have evidence that it was coerced….”
Flynn’s previous lawyers “had a secret side deal with the prosecutor….”

“…they hid all the evidence we’ve uncovered that shows he is completely innocent….”

The original law firm, with Eric Holder as a partner, had a deal with the government to make sure he pled guilty.

The FBI needed the prosecution of Flynn in order to keep the obstruction hoax against Trump, going. “Comey knew that they had no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign.”

“…we have messages that the 7th floor was in on this…and that’s Comey and McCabe.”

Wait, the attorney for Flynn argues the prosecution withheld documents and that his guilty plea was coerced? He can, of course, provide evidence to back up that accusation to Sullivan? And you can, of course, find a single recent statement from Flynn, or anybody for that matter that he in fact did not lie to federal investigators?

Which attorney?

The Eric Holder group?


As the old adage goes, and no truer words were ever spoken....



"99% of Lawyers give the rest a bad name."





1. The entire scenario turned when General Flynn hired a new and honest lawyer....Sydney Powell.....bless her.

His original lawyers.....HIS LAWYERS!.....were the prestigious firm of Covington & Burling.



The crook who claimed to be Hussein's 'wing-man,' Eric Holder, is a partner in that corrupt organization.



Flynn's lawyers.....HIS LAWYERS.....at that firm made a deal with the federal Deep State prosecutors to convince Flynn to plead guilty.

They hid exculpatory documents from THEIR CLIENT, Flynn.....while they were bleeding him dry.....he had to sell his house.







2. "Surprise discovery in Flynn case: former lawyers find evidence they failed to produce

Law firm claims inaccurate searches led to oversight of 6,800 documents in legal battle to overturn former Trump national security adviser's conviction."

Surprise discovery in Flynn case: former lawyers find evidence they failed to produce

Law firm claims inaccurate searches led to oversight of 6,800 documents in legal battle to overturn former Trump national security adviser's conviction.

justthenews.com

3. Lead attorney for Gen. Flynn Sidney Powell argues the government intentionally hid documents in order to protect their prosecution of him.













“…a guilty plea is supposed to be knowing and voluntary….we have evidence that it was coerced….”

Flynn’s previous lawyers “had a secret side deal with the prosecutor….”



“…they hid all the evidence we’ve uncovered that shows he is completely innocent….”



The original law firm, with Eric Holder as a partner, had a deal with the government to make sure he pled guilty.



The FBI needed the prosecution of Flynn in order to keep the obstruction hoax against Trump, going. “Comey knew that they had no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign.”



“…we have messages that the 7th floor was in on this…and that’s Comey and McCabe.”

Stating something more than one time in no way makes that statement more valid. How do you get a case of transferring case files from one lawyer to the next doesn't running smoothly to that proves a conspiracy between the defense and the prosecution?

This is the thing you have to be able to provide proof to make that accusation stick. None has been forthcoming. Neither, by the way, are you capable of pointing to anybody denying the accusations Flynn plead guilty too. Not even Flynn himself

What's the law about withdrawing a bogus guilty plea?

What law did Flynn break?

Which branch of our government has the power to prosecute, the executive (DoJ) or judicial (Sullivan)?

 

[forkup]

This judge has made some bizar rulings.

1) He said that there is no lacking Brady evidence in this case that has not been produced by the government to the defense. But the initial 302 which had the original transcript of what was said is missing, and no one seems to know where it is. It is the prosecutions responsibility to produce this document but only edited docs have been given for it instead. This is crucial in a case where the accused is charged with perjury relating to his testimony vrs what he actually said. There is no reliable proof that Flynn lied about anything without that 302.
2) Sullivans appointment of a known biased/prejudiced judge to play an advisory role is just bullshit, and the SCOTUS ruled against such things in criminal cases. The court is to decide on evidence brought to it, not go on a fishing expedition.
3) Sullivan himself early on in the case smeared Flynn as a traitor and a liar. He is not an objective judge at all.
4) Sullivan continues to deny the obvious reality that the DOJ extorted the confession from Flynn by threatening to prosecute/investigate Flynns son. This is hideous Beria type evil shit, and Democrats are defending it like we lived in their Chicom Paradise.

I have been wondering what can be done and Mark Levin brought up this idea of submitting a 'Writ of Prohibition' to the 5th Circuit Court, IIRC.

When you have a judge that ignores the law and thinks he is a legal author of law, I guess that is what you have to do. Boot this jack ass yesterday, DOJ.

Former DOJ spokesman Ian Prior suggests original FBI report on Flynn interview was 'intentionally lost'

Former Department of Justice Deputy Director of Public Affairs Ian Prior told Fox News Friday that the missing FBI report on a crucial interview of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is “a big issue.”

www.foxnews.com

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo last week on "Sunday Morning Futures" that the original 302 document — which typically summarizes witness interviews with agents — was “missing.”​

​

“It’s gone. Poof. It’s out of — we can’t find it," he said....​

​

Nunes claimed the original interview report was written and transcribed and recalled FBI sources telling him, “Look, there’s nothing to see here, Flynn wasn’t lying.”​

​

“So we knew this at the beginning of 2017, so you can imagine my astonishment when it began to leak out in the press that General Flynn was being busted for lying to the FBI,” he said. “And that, that’s what the Mueller team — the dirty Mueller team — that’s what they were going to bust him on.​

​

​

“And I told people at the highest levels of the FBI and the DOJ, I said, 'What are you doing here?' Like, we have, on the record, from the highest-level people that he didn't lie to the FBI,” he said.​

​

Prior said Friday that he can’t imagine the original 302 document was mislaid as a “mistake.”​

1) Guess what pleading guilty to lying is reliable proof that he did. Brady evidence is required for proving a case NOT for the sentencing phase. And even then nobody is alleging Flynn didn't lie nor is it allegged that the original 302 showed otherwise. Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show
2) It is the suspicion of bias on the side of the DOJ concerning the withdrawal of the charges that compels Sullivan to allow Amicus Briefs, something that SCOTUS as far as I'm aware of has no objection too. A suspicion that stems directly from the virtually unheard-of nature of charges being dropped AFTER a guilty plea and the equally unusual circumstances of the leadership of the DOJ interfering into criminal cases against the people tasked with prosecuting those cases. The motion to dismiss was not signed by the prosecutors in the case and one withdrew.
3) Guess what, if you stand before a judge and plead guilty before him that judge will have some choice words for you. Please link your assertion of "traitor and liar" That is not proof of bias.
4) He doesn't deny anything. What he denies is that the fact that pressure of coercion is applied a guilty plea is invalidated. In fact, most guilty pleas are in fact obtained by coercion. The only thing the court is concerned with is if that coercion violated the rights of the accused.

Lastly, every judge is an author of the law. That's literally in his job description. He's supposed to interpret the case before him and then judge it's merit. That interpretation can and is regularly challenged as it proceeds through the court.

" Guess what pleading guilty to lying is reliable proof that he did."


Bogus.



Sydney Powell, Flynn's new lawyer:


Lead attorney for Gen. Flynn Sidney Powell argues the government intentionally hid documents in order to protect their prosecution of him.






“…a guilty plea is supposed to be knowing and voluntary….we have evidence that it was coerced….”
Flynn’s previous lawyers “had a secret side deal with the prosecutor….”

“…they hid all the evidence we’ve uncovered that shows he is completely innocent….”

The original law firm, with Eric Holder as a partner, had a deal with the government to make sure he pled guilty.

The FBI needed the prosecution of Flynn in order to keep the obstruction hoax against Trump, going. “Comey knew that they had no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign.”

“…we have messages that the 7th floor was in on this…and that’s Comey and McCabe.”

Wait, the attorney for Flynn argues the prosecution withheld documents and that his guilty plea was coerced? He can, of course, provide evidence to back up that accusation to Sullivan? And you can, of course, find a single recent statement from Flynn, or anybody for that matter that he in fact did not lie to federal investigators?

Which attorney?

The Eric Holder group?


As the old adage goes, and no truer words were ever spoken....



"99% of Lawyers give the rest a bad name."





1. The entire scenario turned when General Flynn hired a new and honest lawyer....Sydney Powell.....bless her.

His original lawyers.....HIS LAWYERS!.....were the prestigious firm of Covington & Burling.



The crook who claimed to be Hussein's 'wing-man,' Eric Holder, is a partner in that corrupt organization.



Flynn's lawyers.....HIS LAWYERS.....at that firm made a deal with the federal Deep State prosecutors to convince Flynn to plead guilty.

They hid exculpatory documents from THEIR CLIENT, Flynn.....while they were bleeding him dry.....he had to sell his house.







2. "Surprise discovery in Flynn case: former lawyers find evidence they failed to produce

Law firm claims inaccurate searches led to oversight of 6,800 documents in legal battle to overturn former Trump national security adviser's conviction."

Surprise discovery in Flynn case: former lawyers find evidence they failed to produce

Law firm claims inaccurate searches led to oversight of 6,800 documents in legal battle to overturn former Trump national security adviser's conviction.

justthenews.com

3. Lead attorney for Gen. Flynn Sidney Powell argues the government intentionally hid documents in order to protect their prosecution of him.













“…a guilty plea is supposed to be knowing and voluntary….we have evidence that it was coerced….”

Flynn’s previous lawyers “had a secret side deal with the prosecutor….”



“…they hid all the evidence we’ve uncovered that shows he is completely innocent….”



The original law firm, with Eric Holder as a partner, had a deal with the government to make sure he pled guilty.



The FBI needed the prosecution of Flynn in order to keep the obstruction hoax against Trump, going. “Comey knew that they had no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign.”



“…we have messages that the 7th floor was in on this…and that’s Comey and McCabe.”

Stating something more than one time in no way makes that statement more valid. How do you get a case of transferring case files from one lawyer to the next doesn't running smoothly to that proves a conspiracy between the defense and the prosecution?

This is the thing you have to be able to provide proof to make that accusation stick. None has been forthcoming. Neither, by the way, are you capable of pointing to anybody denying the accusations Flynn plead guilty too. Not even Flynn himself

What's the law about withdrawing a bogus guilty plea?

What law did Flynn break?

Which branch of our government has the power to prosecute, the executive (DoJ) or judicial (Sullivan)?

The government did prosecute. Sentencing is up to the judge. Now the DOJ wants a backsy. The judicial has to rule if they'll allow it. As to what law Flynn broke. False Statements in Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1001

And again making statements like "bogus" guilty plea without being able to back it up doesn't give you credibility.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This judge has made some bizar rulings.

1) He said that there is no lacking Brady evidence in this case that has not been produced by the government to the defense. But the initial 302 which had the original transcript of what was said is missing, and no one seems to know where it is. It is the prosecutions responsibility to produce this document but only edited docs have been given for it instead. This is crucial in a case where the accused is charged with perjury relating to his testimony vrs what he actually said. There is no reliable proof that Flynn lied about anything without that 302.
2) Sullivans appointment of a known biased/prejudiced judge to play an advisory role is just bullshit, and the SCOTUS ruled against such things in criminal cases. The court is to decide on evidence brought to it, not go on a fishing expedition.
3) Sullivan himself early on in the case smeared Flynn as a traitor and a liar. He is not an objective judge at all.
4) Sullivan continues to deny the obvious reality that the DOJ extorted the confession from Flynn by threatening to prosecute/investigate Flynns son. This is hideous Beria type evil shit, and Democrats are defending it like we lived in their Chicom Paradise.

I have been wondering what can be done and Mark Levin brought up this idea of submitting a 'Writ of Prohibition' to the 5th Circuit Court, IIRC.

When you have a judge that ignores the law and thinks he is a legal author of law, I guess that is what you have to do. Boot this jack ass yesterday, DOJ.

Former DOJ spokesman Ian Prior suggests original FBI report on Flynn interview was 'intentionally lost'

Former Department of Justice Deputy Director of Public Affairs Ian Prior told Fox News Friday that the missing FBI report on a crucial interview of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is “a big issue.”

www.foxnews.com

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo last week on "Sunday Morning Futures" that the original 302 document — which typically summarizes witness interviews with agents — was “missing.”​

​

“It’s gone. Poof. It’s out of — we can’t find it," he said....​

​

Nunes claimed the original interview report was written and transcribed and recalled FBI sources telling him, “Look, there’s nothing to see here, Flynn wasn’t lying.”​

​

“So we knew this at the beginning of 2017, so you can imagine my astonishment when it began to leak out in the press that General Flynn was being busted for lying to the FBI,” he said. “And that, that’s what the Mueller team — the dirty Mueller team — that’s what they were going to bust him on.​

​

​

“And I told people at the highest levels of the FBI and the DOJ, I said, 'What are you doing here?' Like, we have, on the record, from the highest-level people that he didn't lie to the FBI,” he said.​

​

Prior said Friday that he can’t imagine the original 302 document was mislaid as a “mistake.”​

1) Guess what pleading guilty to lying is reliable proof that he did. Brady evidence is required for proving a case NOT for the sentencing phase. And even then nobody is alleging Flynn didn't lie nor is it allegged that the original 302 showed otherwise. Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show
2) It is the suspicion of bias on the side of the DOJ concerning the withdrawal of the charges that compels Sullivan to allow Amicus Briefs, something that SCOTUS as far as I'm aware of has no objection too. A suspicion that stems directly from the virtually unheard-of nature of charges being dropped AFTER a guilty plea and the equally unusual circumstances of the leadership of the DOJ interfering into criminal cases against the people tasked with prosecuting those cases. The motion to dismiss was not signed by the prosecutors in the case and one withdrew.
3) Guess what, if you stand before a judge and plead guilty before him that judge will have some choice words for you. Please link your assertion of "traitor and liar" That is not proof of bias.
4) He doesn't deny anything. What he denies is that the fact that pressure of coercion is applied a guilty plea is invalidated. In fact, most guilty pleas are in fact obtained by coercion. The only thing the court is concerned with is if that coercion violated the rights of the accused.

Lastly, every judge is an author of the law. That's literally in his job description. He's supposed to interpret the case before him and then judge it's merit. That interpretation can and is regularly challenged as it proceeds through the court.

" Guess what pleading guilty to lying is reliable proof that he did."


Bogus.



Sydney Powell, Flynn's new lawyer:


Lead attorney for Gen. Flynn Sidney Powell argues the government intentionally hid documents in order to protect their prosecution of him.






“…a guilty plea is supposed to be knowing and voluntary….we have evidence that it was coerced….”
Flynn’s previous lawyers “had a secret side deal with the prosecutor….”

“…they hid all the evidence we’ve uncovered that shows he is completely innocent….”

The original law firm, with Eric Holder as a partner, had a deal with the government to make sure he pled guilty.

The FBI needed the prosecution of Flynn in order to keep the obstruction hoax against Trump, going. “Comey knew that they had no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign.”

“…we have messages that the 7th floor was in on this…and that’s Comey and McCabe.”

Wait, the attorney for Flynn argues the prosecution withheld documents and that his guilty plea was coerced? He can, of course, provide evidence to back up that accusation to Sullivan? And you can, of course, find a single recent statement from Flynn, or anybody for that matter that he in fact did not lie to federal investigators?

Which attorney?

The Eric Holder group?


As the old adage goes, and no truer words were ever spoken....



"99% of Lawyers give the rest a bad name."





1. The entire scenario turned when General Flynn hired a new and honest lawyer....Sydney Powell.....bless her.

His original lawyers.....HIS LAWYERS!.....were the prestigious firm of Covington & Burling.



The crook who claimed to be Hussein's 'wing-man,' Eric Holder, is a partner in that corrupt organization.



Flynn's lawyers.....HIS LAWYERS.....at that firm made a deal with the federal Deep State prosecutors to convince Flynn to plead guilty.

They hid exculpatory documents from THEIR CLIENT, Flynn.....while they were bleeding him dry.....he had to sell his house.







2. "Surprise discovery in Flynn case: former lawyers find evidence they failed to produce

Law firm claims inaccurate searches led to oversight of 6,800 documents in legal battle to overturn former Trump national security adviser's conviction."

Surprise discovery in Flynn case: former lawyers find evidence they failed to produce

Law firm claims inaccurate searches led to oversight of 6,800 documents in legal battle to overturn former Trump national security adviser's conviction.

justthenews.com

3. Lead attorney for Gen. Flynn Sidney Powell argues the government intentionally hid documents in order to protect their prosecution of him.













“…a guilty plea is supposed to be knowing and voluntary….we have evidence that it was coerced….”

Flynn’s previous lawyers “had a secret side deal with the prosecutor….”



“…they hid all the evidence we’ve uncovered that shows he is completely innocent….”



The original law firm, with Eric Holder as a partner, had a deal with the government to make sure he pled guilty.



The FBI needed the prosecution of Flynn in order to keep the obstruction hoax against Trump, going. “Comey knew that they had no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign.”



“…we have messages that the 7th floor was in on this…and that’s Comey and McCabe.”

Stating something more than one time in no way makes that statement more valid. How do you get a case of transferring case files from one lawyer to the next doesn't running smoothly to that proves a conspiracy between the defense and the prosecution?

This is the thing you have to be able to provide proof to make that accusation stick. None has been forthcoming. Neither, by the way, are you capable of pointing to anybody denying the accusations Flynn plead guilty too. Not even Flynn himself

What's the law about withdrawing a bogus guilty plea?

What law did Flynn break?

Which branch of our government has the power to prosecute, the executive (DoJ) or judicial (Sullivan)?

The government did prosecute. Sentencing is up to the judge. Now the DOJ wants a backsy. The judicial has to rule if they'll allow it. As to what law Flynn broke. False Statements in Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1001

And again making statements like "bogus" guilty plea without being able to back it up doesn't give you credibility.

Wrong.
Sullivan is now charging Flynn with a crime never leveled against him by the political subversion of the Obamunists.


"And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places," he added, misstating that Flynn was charged with perjury. Flynn was charged with false statements to the FBI about his conversations with a Russian envoy.”
Obama warns 'rule of law is at risk' in leaked audio


So you agree that Sullivan has no right to bring the new charge of perjury.

Case closed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yup...right from the Trump playbook.

Thou shalt not in any way shape or form abridge Trump's almightiness - the means don't diss him or his friends, and corruption isn't corruption when applied to the Mighty T & Co.

Not that you Stalinists follow any laws, but...

{
In United States v. HSBC Bank USA back in 2013, then-Judge Gleeson said that the government has near-universal power to withdraw a case it has brought before the court.

Strassel added, “He then goes to quote U.S. v Pimentel: "A court is generally required to grant a prosecutor's Rule 48(a) motion unless dismissal is 'clearly contrary to manifest public interest.'"

}

With That Revelation, There's No Reason Why the Flynn Case Shouldn't Be Tossed

townhall.com

Now, you have an IQ of purple, which is why you're a communist, but Gleeson is the the one that Sullivan illegally appointed as special prosecutor since there is no actual prosecutor. But Gleeson already stipulated that what DOJ did ends the issue.

What a tangled web the deep state weaves.

Corrupt motherfuckers

 

[forkup]

This judge has made some bizar rulings.

1) He said that there is no lacking Brady evidence in this case that has not been produced by the government to the defense. But the initial 302 which had the original transcript of what was said is missing, and no one seems to know where it is. It is the prosecutions responsibility to produce this document but only edited docs have been given for it instead. This is crucial in a case where the accused is charged with perjury relating to his testimony vrs what he actually said. There is no reliable proof that Flynn lied about anything without that 302.
2) Sullivans appointment of a known biased/prejudiced judge to play an advisory role is just bullshit, and the SCOTUS ruled against such things in criminal cases. The court is to decide on evidence brought to it, not go on a fishing expedition.
3) Sullivan himself early on in the case smeared Flynn as a traitor and a liar. He is not an objective judge at all.
4) Sullivan continues to deny the obvious reality that the DOJ extorted the confession from Flynn by threatening to prosecute/investigate Flynns son. This is hideous Beria type evil shit, and Democrats are defending it like we lived in their Chicom Paradise.

I have been wondering what can be done and Mark Levin brought up this idea of submitting a 'Writ of Prohibition' to the 5th Circuit Court, IIRC.

When you have a judge that ignores the law and thinks he is a legal author of law, I guess that is what you have to do. Boot this jack ass yesterday, DOJ.

Former DOJ spokesman Ian Prior suggests original FBI report on Flynn interview was 'intentionally lost'

Former Department of Justice Deputy Director of Public Affairs Ian Prior told Fox News Friday that the missing FBI report on a crucial interview of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is “a big issue.”

www.foxnews.com

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo last week on "Sunday Morning Futures" that the original 302 document — which typically summarizes witness interviews with agents — was “missing.”​

​

“It’s gone. Poof. It’s out of — we can’t find it," he said....​

​

Nunes claimed the original interview report was written and transcribed and recalled FBI sources telling him, “Look, there’s nothing to see here, Flynn wasn’t lying.”​

​

“So we knew this at the beginning of 2017, so you can imagine my astonishment when it began to leak out in the press that General Flynn was being busted for lying to the FBI,” he said. “And that, that’s what the Mueller team — the dirty Mueller team — that’s what they were going to bust him on.​

​

​

“And I told people at the highest levels of the FBI and the DOJ, I said, 'What are you doing here?' Like, we have, on the record, from the highest-level people that he didn't lie to the FBI,” he said.​

​

Prior said Friday that he can’t imagine the original 302 document was mislaid as a “mistake.”​

1) Guess what pleading guilty to lying is reliable proof that he did. Brady evidence is required for proving a case NOT for the sentencing phase. And even then nobody is alleging Flynn didn't lie nor is it allegged that the original 302 showed otherwise. Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show
2) It is the suspicion of bias on the side of the DOJ concerning the withdrawal of the charges that compels Sullivan to allow Amicus Briefs, something that SCOTUS as far as I'm aware of has no objection too. A suspicion that stems directly from the virtually unheard-of nature of charges being dropped AFTER a guilty plea and the equally unusual circumstances of the leadership of the DOJ interfering into criminal cases against the people tasked with prosecuting those cases. The motion to dismiss was not signed by the prosecutors in the case and one withdrew.
3) Guess what, if you stand before a judge and plead guilty before him that judge will have some choice words for you. Please link your assertion of "traitor and liar" That is not proof of bias.
4) He doesn't deny anything. What he denies is that the fact that pressure of coercion is applied a guilty plea is invalidated. In fact, most guilty pleas are in fact obtained by coercion. The only thing the court is concerned with is if that coercion violated the rights of the accused.

Lastly, every judge is an author of the law. That's literally in his job description. He's supposed to interpret the case before him and then judge it's merit. That interpretation can and is regularly challenged as it proceeds through the court.

" Guess what pleading guilty to lying is reliable proof that he did."


Bogus.



Sydney Powell, Flynn's new lawyer:


Lead attorney for Gen. Flynn Sidney Powell argues the government intentionally hid documents in order to protect their prosecution of him.






“…a guilty plea is supposed to be knowing and voluntary….we have evidence that it was coerced….”
Flynn’s previous lawyers “had a secret side deal with the prosecutor….”

“…they hid all the evidence we’ve uncovered that shows he is completely innocent….”

The original law firm, with Eric Holder as a partner, had a deal with the government to make sure he pled guilty.

The FBI needed the prosecution of Flynn in order to keep the obstruction hoax against Trump, going. “Comey knew that they had no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign.”

“…we have messages that the 7th floor was in on this…and that’s Comey and McCabe.”

Wait, the attorney for Flynn argues the prosecution withheld documents and that his guilty plea was coerced? He can, of course, provide evidence to back up that accusation to Sullivan? And you can, of course, find a single recent statement from Flynn, or anybody for that matter that he in fact did not lie to federal investigators?

Which attorney?

The Eric Holder group?


As the old adage goes, and no truer words were ever spoken....



"99% of Lawyers give the rest a bad name."





1. The entire scenario turned when General Flynn hired a new and honest lawyer....Sydney Powell.....bless her.

His original lawyers.....HIS LAWYERS!.....were the prestigious firm of Covington & Burling.



The crook who claimed to be Hussein's 'wing-man,' Eric Holder, is a partner in that corrupt organization.



Flynn's lawyers.....HIS LAWYERS.....at that firm made a deal with the federal Deep State prosecutors to convince Flynn to plead guilty.

They hid exculpatory documents from THEIR CLIENT, Flynn.....while they were bleeding him dry.....he had to sell his house.







2. "Surprise discovery in Flynn case: former lawyers find evidence they failed to produce

Law firm claims inaccurate searches led to oversight of 6,800 documents in legal battle to overturn former Trump national security adviser's conviction."

Surprise discovery in Flynn case: former lawyers find evidence they failed to produce

Law firm claims inaccurate searches led to oversight of 6,800 documents in legal battle to overturn former Trump national security adviser's conviction.

justthenews.com

3. Lead attorney for Gen. Flynn Sidney Powell argues the government intentionally hid documents in order to protect their prosecution of him.













“…a guilty plea is supposed to be knowing and voluntary….we have evidence that it was coerced….”

Flynn’s previous lawyers “had a secret side deal with the prosecutor….”



“…they hid all the evidence we’ve uncovered that shows he is completely innocent….”



The original law firm, with Eric Holder as a partner, had a deal with the government to make sure he pled guilty.



The FBI needed the prosecution of Flynn in order to keep the obstruction hoax against Trump, going. “Comey knew that they had no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign.”



“…we have messages that the 7th floor was in on this…and that’s Comey and McCabe.”

Stating something more than one time in no way makes that statement more valid. How do you get a case of transferring case files from one lawyer to the next doesn't running smoothly to that proves a conspiracy between the defense and the prosecution?

This is the thing you have to be able to provide proof to make that accusation stick. None has been forthcoming. Neither, by the way, are you capable of pointing to anybody denying the accusations Flynn plead guilty too. Not even Flynn himself

What's the law about withdrawing a bogus guilty plea?

What law did Flynn break?

Which branch of our government has the power to prosecute, the executive (DoJ) or judicial (Sullivan)?

The government did prosecute. Sentencing is up to the judge. Now the DOJ wants a backsy. The judicial has to rule if they'll allow it. As to what law Flynn broke. False Statements in Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1001

And again making statements like "bogus" guilty plea without being able to back it up doesn't give you credibility.

Wrong.
Sullivan is now charging Flynn with a crime never leveled against him by the political subversion of the Obamunists.


"And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places," he added, misstating that Flynn was charged with perjury. Flynn was charged with false statements to the FBI about his conversations with a Russian envoy.”
Obama warns 'rule of law is at risk' in leaked audio


So you agree that Sullivan has no right to bring the new charge of perjury.

Case closed.

If someone stands in a courtroom, gets sworn in, pleads guilty to something and then claims he didn't do what he claimed he did later. Does he not, in fact, commit perjury? Either the first or the second time? So do you assert that lying in a courtroom while under oath doesn't compel you to be truthful? Or is your assertion that one can only commit one criminal act?

As for the rest, you keep on making statements and try to represent them as facts. I've yet to see you being able to support any of them tough. What specifically have I said that is wrong?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The government did prosecute. Sentencing is up to the judge. Now the DOJ wants a backsy. The judicial has to rule if they'll allow it. As to what law Flynn broke. False Statements in Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1001

And again making statements like "bogus" guilty plea without being able to back it up doesn't give you credibility.

The case is withdrawn, The DOJ has acknowledged prosecutorial misconduct.

Sullivan is obstructing justice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This judge has made some bizar rulings.

1) He said that there is no lacking Brady evidence in this case that has not been produced by the government to the defense. But the initial 302 which had the original transcript of what was said is missing, and no one seems to know where it is. It is the prosecutions responsibility to produce this document but only edited docs have been given for it instead. This is crucial in a case where the accused is charged with perjury relating to his testimony vrs what he actually said. There is no reliable proof that Flynn lied about anything without that 302.
2) Sullivans appointment of a known biased/prejudiced judge to play an advisory role is just bullshit, and the SCOTUS ruled against such things in criminal cases. The court is to decide on evidence brought to it, not go on a fishing expedition.
3) Sullivan himself early on in the case smeared Flynn as a traitor and a liar. He is not an objective judge at all.
4) Sullivan continues to deny the obvious reality that the DOJ extorted the confession from Flynn by threatening to prosecute/investigate Flynns son. This is hideous Beria type evil shit, and Democrats are defending it like we lived in their Chicom Paradise.

I have been wondering what can be done and Mark Levin brought up this idea of submitting a 'Writ of Prohibition' to the 5th Circuit Court, IIRC.

When you have a judge that ignores the law and thinks he is a legal author of law, I guess that is what you have to do. Boot this jack ass yesterday, DOJ.

Former DOJ spokesman Ian Prior suggests original FBI report on Flynn interview was 'intentionally lost'

Former Department of Justice Deputy Director of Public Affairs Ian Prior told Fox News Friday that the missing FBI report on a crucial interview of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is “a big issue.”

www.foxnews.com

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo last week on "Sunday Morning Futures" that the original 302 document — which typically summarizes witness interviews with agents — was “missing.”​

​

“It’s gone. Poof. It’s out of — we can’t find it," he said....​

​

Nunes claimed the original interview report was written and transcribed and recalled FBI sources telling him, “Look, there’s nothing to see here, Flynn wasn’t lying.”​

​

“So we knew this at the beginning of 2017, so you can imagine my astonishment when it began to leak out in the press that General Flynn was being busted for lying to the FBI,” he said. “And that, that’s what the Mueller team — the dirty Mueller team — that’s what they were going to bust him on.​

​

​

“And I told people at the highest levels of the FBI and the DOJ, I said, 'What are you doing here?' Like, we have, on the record, from the highest-level people that he didn't lie to the FBI,” he said.​

​

Prior said Friday that he can’t imagine the original 302 document was mislaid as a “mistake.”​

1) Guess what pleading guilty to lying is reliable proof that he did. Brady evidence is required for proving a case NOT for the sentencing phase. And even then nobody is alleging Flynn didn't lie nor is it allegged that the original 302 showed otherwise. Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show
2) It is the suspicion of bias on the side of the DOJ concerning the withdrawal of the charges that compels Sullivan to allow Amicus Briefs, something that SCOTUS as far as I'm aware of has no objection too. A suspicion that stems directly from the virtually unheard-of nature of charges being dropped AFTER a guilty plea and the equally unusual circumstances of the leadership of the DOJ interfering into criminal cases against the people tasked with prosecuting those cases. The motion to dismiss was not signed by the prosecutors in the case and one withdrew.
3) Guess what, if you stand before a judge and plead guilty before him that judge will have some choice words for you. Please link your assertion of "traitor and liar" That is not proof of bias.
4) He doesn't deny anything. What he denies is that the fact that pressure of coercion is applied a guilty plea is invalidated. In fact, most guilty pleas are in fact obtained by coercion. The only thing the court is concerned with is if that coercion violated the rights of the accused.

Lastly, every judge is an author of the law. That's literally in his job description. He's supposed to interpret the case before him and then judge it's merit. That interpretation can and is regularly challenged as it proceeds through the court.

" Guess what pleading guilty to lying is reliable proof that he did."


Bogus.



Sydney Powell, Flynn's new lawyer:


Lead attorney for Gen. Flynn Sidney Powell argues the government intentionally hid documents in order to protect their prosecution of him.






“…a guilty plea is supposed to be knowing and voluntary….we have evidence that it was coerced….”
Flynn’s previous lawyers “had a secret side deal with the prosecutor….”

“…they hid all the evidence we’ve uncovered that shows he is completely innocent….”

The original law firm, with Eric Holder as a partner, had a deal with the government to make sure he pled guilty.

The FBI needed the prosecution of Flynn in order to keep the obstruction hoax against Trump, going. “Comey knew that they had no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign.”

“…we have messages that the 7th floor was in on this…and that’s Comey and McCabe.”

Wait, the attorney for Flynn argues the prosecution withheld documents and that his guilty plea was coerced? He can, of course, provide evidence to back up that accusation to Sullivan? And you can, of course, find a single recent statement from Flynn, or anybody for that matter that he in fact did not lie to federal investigators?

Which attorney?

The Eric Holder group?


As the old adage goes, and no truer words were ever spoken....



"99% of Lawyers give the rest a bad name."





1. The entire scenario turned when General Flynn hired a new and honest lawyer....Sydney Powell.....bless her.

His original lawyers.....HIS LAWYERS!.....were the prestigious firm of Covington & Burling.



The crook who claimed to be Hussein's 'wing-man,' Eric Holder, is a partner in that corrupt organization.



Flynn's lawyers.....HIS LAWYERS.....at that firm made a deal with the federal Deep State prosecutors to convince Flynn to plead guilty.

They hid exculpatory documents from THEIR CLIENT, Flynn.....while they were bleeding him dry.....he had to sell his house.







2. "Surprise discovery in Flynn case: former lawyers find evidence they failed to produce

Law firm claims inaccurate searches led to oversight of 6,800 documents in legal battle to overturn former Trump national security adviser's conviction."

Surprise discovery in Flynn case: former lawyers find evidence they failed to produce

Law firm claims inaccurate searches led to oversight of 6,800 documents in legal battle to overturn former Trump national security adviser's conviction.

justthenews.com

3. Lead attorney for Gen. Flynn Sidney Powell argues the government intentionally hid documents in order to protect their prosecution of him.













“…a guilty plea is supposed to be knowing and voluntary….we have evidence that it was coerced….”

Flynn’s previous lawyers “had a secret side deal with the prosecutor….”



“…they hid all the evidence we’ve uncovered that shows he is completely innocent….”



The original law firm, with Eric Holder as a partner, had a deal with the government to make sure he pled guilty.



The FBI needed the prosecution of Flynn in order to keep the obstruction hoax against Trump, going. “Comey knew that they had no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign.”



“…we have messages that the 7th floor was in on this…and that’s Comey and McCabe.”

Stating something more than one time in no way makes that statement more valid. How do you get a case of transferring case files from one lawyer to the next doesn't running smoothly to that proves a conspiracy between the defense and the prosecution?

This is the thing you have to be able to provide proof to make that accusation stick. None has been forthcoming. Neither, by the way, are you capable of pointing to anybody denying the accusations Flynn plead guilty too. Not even Flynn himself

What's the law about withdrawing a bogus guilty plea?

What law did Flynn break?

Which branch of our government has the power to prosecute, the executive (DoJ) or judicial (Sullivan)?

The government did prosecute. Sentencing is up to the judge. Now the DOJ wants a backsy. The judicial has to rule if they'll allow it. As to what law Flynn broke. False Statements in Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1001

And again making statements like "bogus" guilty plea without being able to back it up doesn't give you credibility.

Wrong.
Sullivan is now charging Flynn with a crime never leveled against him by the political subversion of the Obamunists.


"And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places," he added, misstating that Flynn was charged with perjury. Flynn was charged with false statements to the FBI about his conversations with a Russian envoy.”
Obama warns 'rule of law is at risk' in leaked audio


So you agree that Sullivan has no right to bring the new charge of perjury.

Case closed.

If someone stands in a courtroom, gets sworn in, pleads guilty to something and then claims he didn't do what he claimed he did later. Does he not, in fact, commit perjury? Either the first or the second time? So do you assert that lying in a courtroom while under oath doesn't compel you to be truthful? Or is your assertion that one can only commit one criminal act?

As for the rest, you keep on making statements and try to represent them as facts. I've yet to see you being able to support any of them tough. What specifically have I said that is wrong?

I just proved that Sullivan issued a new charge, and you agreed it was not his prerogative.

Why are you back?

 

[forkup]

Yup...right from the Trump playbook.

Thou shalt not in any way shape or form abridge Trump's almightiness - the means don't diss him or his friends, and corruption isn't corruption when applied to the Mighty T & Co.

Not that you Stalinists follow any laws, but...

{
In United States v. HSBC Bank USA back in 2013, then-Judge Gleeson said that the government has near-universal power to withdraw a case it has brought before the court.

Strassel added, “He then goes to quote U.S. v Pimentel: "A court is generally required to grant a prosecutor's Rule 48(a) motion unless dismissal is 'clearly contrary to manifest public interest.'"

}

With That Revelation, There's No Reason Why the Flynn Case Shouldn't Be Tossed

townhall.com

Now, you have an IQ of purple, which is why you're a communist, but Gleeson is the the one that Sullivan illegally appointed as special prosecutor since there is no actual prosecutor. But Gleeson already stipulated that what DOJ did ends the issue.

What a tangled web the deep state weaves.

Corrupt motherfuckers

What does clearly contrary to manifest public interest mean?

I could, for instance, claim that withdrawal, in this case, would undermine fate in the impartiality of the justice system. Something that's contrary to the public interest. considering the unusual nature of this dismissal. No actual exculpatory evidence was presented and the actual prosecutors who handled the prosecution didn't endorse the motion.

I could argue for instance that the precedents set in the motion to dismiss are contrary to the public interest.