Explosive New Flynn Documents Show FBI Goal Was To ‘Get Him Fired’

Nah it is over.....he will not be convicted. certainly Sullivan can abuse his office, which he's been doing since the motion to dismiss was filed, but if he doesn't come down with the right decision, it will be overturned

https://www.wsj.com/articles/emmet-sullivan-vs-the-d-c-circuit-11589583144

 

Youre right and the sad part is when the dems take over the senate and potus this year they wont chase down Trump and his cronies and make them pay for destroying the country and world relations

 

If Sullivan doesn't let this go I can see Ms. Powell filing a Writ of Prohibition with the Appeals Court. There's enuff case law including one this term that had a 9-0 ruling on abuse of a judge's discretion to overturn Sullivan sentencing Flynn.

Some case law:
Greenlaw vs US
US vs Fokker Services
US vs Sineneng-Smith

 

hahhahah

no...given the Dems track record...I have no doubt if they come to power again, they will once again make up hoaxes and attempt to lock up political rivals....it's what radical leftist regimes do

 

Obviously.

There are no "charges". He was already found guilty.

 

Posts with no quotes are useless

 

He was no "found gulity" - he entered a plea, and was awaiting sentencing....when new evidence that the mueller team has been illegally withholding finally came to light....the DOJ (folks outside of the Mueller team) reviewed it...realized there was gross misconduct on part of hte Mueller team, and the Obama DOJ, and there now lacked probable cause to believe a crime was committed.

We should all be happy that; justice finally found the light of day

 

sorry....I just assumed with all your comments on case you knew the facts of the case:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/04/flynn-kislyak-transcript-1353483

But a full transcript of the Flynn-Kislyak calls remains under wraps, and Sullivan last month ordered Mueller’s prosecutors to place the material on the public docket. The judge, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, also asked for the public release of an unredacted version of the Mueller report with any other blacked-out information tied to the Flynn case.

Last Friday, federal prosecutors declined to release the Flynn-Kislyak transcripts, arguing that the government “is not relying on any other recordings, of any person, for purposes of establishing the defendant’s guilt or determining his sentencing, nor are there any other recordings that are part of the sentencing record.”

The Justice Department prosecutors also said in their filing to Sullivan that all of the material related to Flynn that he’d provided to Mueller as part of his cooperation agreement had been unredacted, as well as information in the final report that others provided about Flynn.

 

No. What bothers me is Flynn committing a felony, confessing, and then getting away with a crime that nobody else would get away with. Which creates a class of people who are above the law. I don't need any transcript for that. We have a signed confession.

 

Never assume...

You said "Judge Sullivan said everything we need to know about the call is in the mueller report and publicly known."

Show a quote of Judge Sullivan saying that?

 

The Court speaks though their orders. The Order filed by teh DOJ said it was all in the Mueller Report...as I quoted, and the Judge concerned in his Order.

I am not sure why you can't accept the facts out lined in the link I provided.

 

I don't see the words "charged" or "criminal activity" or "coverup" on the post you quoted, so I have no clue what the hell you are talking about.

If you have a question for me you need to be way more specific than that.

 

Quote where Judge Sullivan says that "...everything we need to know about the call is in the mueller report and publicly known."

Why are you dragging your feet to do something this simple?

 

Did you bother to read my post and click on the link?

The Justice Department prosecutors also said in their filing to Sullivan that all of the material related to Flynn that he’d provided to Mueller as part of his cooperation agreement had been unredacted, as well as information in the final report that others provided about Flynn.

 

Ohhh.... How I wish they would try to bring up that nutty Conspiracy Theory before the court. The way they would be kicked out would be spectacular!

The one thing right-wingers don't understand is that all those wild conspiracy theories work only on gullible people who get their "news" from Fox and the echo-chamber. They do not work in a serious environment like a courthouse.

Needless to say, that is nowhere near what the DOJ is arguing. But I hope some of it "slips" if they are called to declare.

 

This is a case where you might have wanted to actually interview the person who wrote the notes.

Also, you probably should hire an investigator with expertise in the area you’re investigating. It would help to reduce the silly mistakes and judgements made unless, of course, that was the point.

Billy must have a wingnut welfare gig waiting for him at the end of his term.

 

That is what the DOJ is arguing

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.198.0_6.pdf

"This crime, however, requires a statement to be not simply false, but “materially” false with respect to a matter under investigation. 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). Materiality is an essential element of the offense. Materiality, moreover, requires more than mere “relevance” or relatedness to the matter being investigated; it requires “probative weight,” whereby the statement is “reasonably likely to influence the tribunal in making a determination required to be made"

"After a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information appended to the defendant’s supplemental pleadings, ECF Nos. 181, 188-190,1 the Government has concluded that the interview of Mr. Flynn was untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn—a no longer justifiably predicated investigation that the FBI had, in the Bureau’s own words, prepared to close because it had yielded an “absence of any derogatory information.”

"The Government is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue"

"“government prosecutors have a duty to do justice,” United States v. Darui, 614 F. Supp. 2d 25, 37 (D.D.C. 2009)—continued prosecution of the charged crime does not serve a substantial federal interest. The Government respectfully moves to dismiss the criminal information with prejudice against Mr. Flynn"

"Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and other senior DOJ officials took the contrary view and believed that the incoming administration should be notified. Ex. 3 at 4-5; Ex. 4 at 4. Deputy Attorney General Yates and another senior DOJ official became “frustrated” when Director Comey’s justifications for withholding the information from the Trump administration repeatedly “morphed,” vacillating from the potential compromise of a “counterintelligence” investigation to the protection of a purported “criminal” investigation."

"Matters came to a head on January 24, 2017. That morning, Yates contacted Director Comey to demand that the FBI notify the White House of the communications. Ex. 3 at 5; Ex. 4 at 4. Director Comey did not initially return her call. Ex. 4 at 4. When Director Comey called her back later that day, he advised her that the FBI agents were already on their way to the White House to interview Mr. Flynn. Ex. 3 at 5; Ex. 4 at 4. Acting Attorney General Yates was “flabbergasted” and “dumbfounded,” and other senior DOJ officials “hit the roof” upon hearing of this development, given that “an interview of Flynn should have been coordinated with DOJ.”

"After the interview, the FBI agents expressed uncertainty as to whether Mr. Flynn had lied. See Ex. 4 at 5. FBI agents reported to their leadership that Mr. Flynn exhibited a “very sure demeanor” and “did not give any indicators of deception.” Ex. 13 at 3. Both of the agents “had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying.” Id. When Director Comey was asked, based on his evaluation of the case: “Do you believe that Mr. Flynn lied?” Director Comey responded: “I don’t know. I think there is an argument to be made he lied. It is a close one.” Ex. 5 at 9.

"Because the Government does not have a substantial federal interest in penalizing a defendant for a crime that it is not satisfied occurred and that it does not believe it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the Government now moves to dismiss the criminal information under Rule 48(a)."

 

You have quoted nothing in which the judge says anything even remotely close to "...everything we need to know about the call is in the mueller report and publicly known."

And with the fact that you keep refusing to quote it, you have demonstrated that you made it up.

 

Sure I did....that was the DOJ's argument and the Court ruled in their favor....geez...the Court speaks throguh it's orders and he agreed with them

 

Democrats Have Abandoned Civil Liberties:

Emmet G. Sullivan, the judge in the case of former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, is refusing to let William Barr’s Justice Department drop the charge. He’s even thinking of adding more, appointing a retired judge to ask “whether the Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury.”​

Pundits are cheering. A trio of former law enforcement and judicial officials saluted Sullivan in the Washington Post, chirping, “The Flynn case isn’t over until a judge says it’s over.” Yuppie icon Jeffrey Toobin of CNN and the New Yorker, one of the #Resistance crowd’s favored legal authorities, described Sullivan’s appointment of Judge John Gleeson as “brilliant.” MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner said Americans owe Sullivan a “debt of gratitude.”​

One had to search far and wide to find a non-conservative legal analyst willing to say the obvious, i.e. that Sullivan’s decision was the kind of thing one would expect from a judge in Belarus.​

Dems never minded the U.S. being like Belarus, so long a they were in charge, or felt like they were.

I can understand not caring about the plight of Michael Flynn, but cases like this have turned erstwhile liberals – people who just a decade ago were marching in the streets over the civil liberties implications of Cheney’s War on Terror apparatus – into defenders of the spy state. Politicians and pundits across the last four years have rolled their eyes at attorney-client privilege, the presumption of innocence, the right to face one’s accuser, the right to counsel and a host of other issues, regularly denouncing civil rights worries as red-herring excuses for Trumpism.​

 

What "nutty Conspiracy Theory" and what is it that you think the DoJ is arguing?

 

Democrats strongly supported the PATRIOT Act in 2001, and Barack Obama continued or expanded Bush-Cheney programs like drone assassination, rendition, and warrantless surveillance, while also using the Espionage Act to bully reporters and whistleblowers.

Now it looks like Obama systematically spied on political opponents and still failed to drag drunken Hillary over the finish line.

Democrats clearly believe constituents will forgive them for abandoning constitutional principles, so long as the targets of official inquiry are figures like Flynn or Paul Manafort or Trump himself. In the process, they’ve raised a generation of followers whose contempt for civil liberties is now genuine-to-permanent. Blue-staters have gone from dismissing constitutional concerns as Trumpian ruse to sneering at them, in the manner of French aristocrats, as evidence of proletarian mental defect.

Millions have lost their jobs and businesses by government fiat, there’s a clamor for censorship and contact tracing programs that could have serious long-term consequences, yet voters only hear Trump making remarks about freedom; Democrats treat it like it’s a word that should be banned by Facebook (a recent Washington Post headline put the term in quotation marks, as if one should be gloved to touch it). Has their thinking really been damaged to this degree?

 

Wait a minute. Are you retracting your original statement?

I'll copy it one more time "Judge Sullivan said everything we need to know about the call is in the mueller report and publicly known."

If you are, just say you retract it and be done with it. No need for all this dancing around...

 

Exactly! No Obama-Mueller conspiracy theory. But I admit it does come very close

 

Not at all....the Judge made the ruling agreeing with the DOJ. The Court speaks through its' orders...The DOJ said it was all in the Mueller Report....and the Judge's reply.....

""Upon consideration of the government's submissions in response to those orders, the government is not required to file any additional materials or information on the public docket pursuant to the Court's Orders."