Freedom for General Flynn!

[Narland]

So what makes it guaranteed that it will be dismissed with prejudice beyond you wanting that to happen?

I agree with the poster that the charges against Flynn will be dropped as a matter of course. It is how the system works. The judge is bound by oath to conform his actions to the Constitution.

Accordingly, the judiciary only has jurisdiction when the executive branch and a claimant/defendant are in adversarial dispute. The executive branch dropping the charges means no dispute. No dispute means the judge has no jurisdiction. In other words, there is no case. The brief for petition of writ of mandamus gives fitting and proper evidence for this. Thus the case will be dismissed with prejudice.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6935127/DOJ-Flynn-Brief.pdf

Some may not know that in American courts prejudice has a technical meaning. "With prejudice" means the case is dropped permanently. "Without prejudice" means the case (or charges) can be taken up again at a later time.

[MGTOWia]

So what makes it guaranteed that it will be dismissed with prejudice beyond you wanting that to happen?

Every cited Supreme Court case, Court of Appeals decision, statute, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, and the Constitution. As set forth in the brief. As I pointed out. Read it yourself.

[Vassenor]

So what makes it guaranteed that it will be dismissed with prejudice beyond you wanting that to happen?

Every cited Supreme Court case, Court of Appeals decision, statute, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, and the Constitution. As set forth in the brief. As I pointed out. Read it yourself.

So just because you want it to happen. Got it.

Especially given that you wrote off the other briefing for not fitting your narrative and thus being tainted with bias somehow.

[Shofercia]

Every cited Supreme Court case, Court of Appeals decision, statute, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, and the Constitution. As set forth in the brief. As I pointed out. Read it yourself.

So just because you want it to happen. Got it.

Especially given that you wrote off the other briefing for not fitting your narrative and thus being tainted with bias somehow.

I'm not entirely sure how many times this has to be explained to you, but here we go again: General Flynn was betrayed by his previous attorneys and tricked into pleading guilty, when the FBI agents interviewing him thought he was innocent, which happened as a result of a fishing expedition, which further happened as a result of two thugs, abusing their power, and using their own agency's incompetence to their gain, much like Senator Richard Burr did. Should he also be declared innocent of abusing his own committee's incompetence for personal gain? Of course not!

If the above mentioned criminal conduct is allowed to stand, than it will destroy Americans' Faith in the Justice System. This is why the best case scenario for Democrats is for Sullivan to extend it to November, and suddenly have a change of heart in December or in the first three months of 2021. That's what Sullivan is trying to accomplish. This is exactly what Sullivan did in the case of Senator Ted Stevens. What Sullivan doesn't realize is just how vain President Trump is, and that President Trump will pardon General Flynn in November, before Sullivan can correct his deliberate mistake, thus effectively taking a giant dump on Sullivan's career, forcing him to retire in disgrace.

The best case scenario for Republicans is to have the case dismissed outright. The question isn't whether or not the charges against General Flynn will be dismissed, but rather when they'll be dismissed. As a result, in this case, the interests of the American People align with those of the Republican Party. Doesn't happen often, hence the Republicans supporting it like mad.

But let's take a step back, and look at the worst case scenario for the American People - the justification of the actions of General Flynn's former attorneys. If that happens, then the Faith in the Judicial System will be lost, and considering that Faith in the Executive is determined by "my side yay, your side boo" ideology, and there's very little Faith in Congress, it'll be the beginning of the end of America. Take a look at what's happening. Now, imagine lower and middle class whites joining the protests, en masse, and heading to rich Liberal neighborhoods. Is General Flynn's wrongful conviction worth that much to you?

[MGTOWia]

So just because you want it to happen. Got it.

Especially given that you wrote off the other briefing for not fitting your narrative and thus being tainted with bias somehow.

I'm not entirely sure how many times this has to be explained to you, but here we go again: General Flynn was betrayed by his previous attorneys and tricked into pleading guilty, when the FBI agents interviewing him thought he was innocent, which happened as a result of a fishing expedition, which further happened as a result of two thugs, abusing their power, and using their own agency's incompetence to their gain, much like Senator Richard Burr did. Should he also be declared innocent of abusing his own committee's incompetence for personal gain? Of course not!

If the above mentioned criminal conduct is allowed to stand, than it will destroy Americans' Faith in the Justice System. This is why the best case scenario for Democrats is for Sullivan to extend it to November, and suddenly have a change of heart in December or in the first three months of 2021. That's what Sullivan is trying to accomplish. This is exactly what Sullivan did in the case of Senator Ted Stevens. What Sullivan doesn't realize is just how vain President Trump is, and that President Trump will pardon General Flynn in November, before Sullivan can correct his deliberate mistake, thus effectively taking a giant dump on Sullivan's career, forcing him to retire in disgrace.

The best case scenario for Republicans is to have the case dismissed outright. The question isn't whether or not the charges against General Flynn will be dismissed, but rather when they'll be dismissed. As a result, in this case, the interests of the American People align with those of the Republican Party. Doesn't happen often, hence the Republicans supporting it like mad.

But let's take a step back, and look at the worst case scenario for the American People - the justification of the actions of General Flynn's former attorneys. If that happens, then the Faith in the Judicial System will be lost, and considering that Faith in the Executive is determined by "my side yay, your side boo" ideology, and there's very little Faith in Congress, it'll be the beginning of the end of America. Take a look at what's happening. Now, imagine lower and middle class whites joining the protests, en masse, and heading to rich Liberal neighborhoods. Is General Flynn's wrongful conviction worth that much to you?

One more negative effect if Sullivan's position is accepted: prosecutors will have even more motivation to coerce false guilty pleas from innocent defendants by threatening their families and friends and driving them into bankruptcy, secure in the knowledge that they can use the Sullivan Rule to oppose later withdrawal of those coerced, false guilty pleas and suffer no consequences for their abuse of power.

No doubt the Trump haters would be just fine with that. Until it's turned on them, that is.

As for said Trump haters, this is probably one of those circumstances in which the very gods themselves contend in vain.

[Tombradyonia]

I'm not entirely sure how many times this has to be explained to you, but here we go again: General Flynn was betrayed by his previous attorneys and tricked into pleading guilty, when the FBI agents interviewing him thought he was innocent, which happened as a result of a fishing expedition, which further happened as a result of two thugs, abusing their power, and using their own agency's incompetence to their gain, much like Senator Richard Burr did. Should he also be declared innocent of abusing his own committee's incompetence for personal gain? Of course not!

If the above mentioned criminal conduct is allowed to stand, than it will destroy Americans' Faith in the Justice System. This is why the best case scenario for Democrats is for Sullivan to extend it to November, and suddenly have a change of heart in December or in the first three months of 2021. That's what Sullivan is trying to accomplish. This is exactly what Sullivan did in the case of Senator Ted Stevens. What Sullivan doesn't realize is just how vain President Trump is, and that President Trump will pardon General Flynn in November, before Sullivan can correct his deliberate mistake, thus effectively taking a giant dump on Sullivan's career, forcing him to retire in disgrace.

The best case scenario for Republicans is to have the case dismissed outright. The question isn't whether or not the charges against General Flynn will be dismissed, but rather when they'll be dismissed. As a result, in this case, the interests of the American People align with those of the Republican Party. Doesn't happen often, hence the Republicans supporting it like mad.

But let's take a step back, and look at the worst case scenario for the American People - the justification of the actions of General Flynn's former attorneys. If that happens, then the Faith in the Judicial System will be lost, and considering that Faith in the Executive is determined by "my side yay, your side boo" ideology, and there's very little Faith in Congress, it'll be the beginning of the end of America. Take a look at what's happening. Now, imagine lower and middle class whites joining the protests, en masse, and heading to rich Liberal neighborhoods. Is General Flynn's wrongful conviction worth that much to you?

One more negative effect if Sullivan's position is accepted: prosecutors will have even more motivation to coerce false guilty pleas from innocent defendants by threatening their families and friends and driving them into bankruptcy, secure in the knowledge that they can use the Sullivan Rule to oppose later withdrawal of those coerced, false guilty pleas and suffer no consequences for their abuse of power.

No doubt the Trump haters would be just fine with that. Until it's turned on them, that is.

As for said Trump haters, this is probably one of those circumstances in which the very gods themselves contend in vain.

If you love America, you have to be a Trump hater. Those two positions are now firmly merged.

[Shofercia]

One more negative effect if Sullivan's position is accepted: prosecutors will have even more motivation to coerce false guilty pleas from innocent defendants by threatening their families and friends and driving them into bankruptcy, secure in the knowledge that they can use the Sullivan Rule to oppose later withdrawal of those coerced, false guilty pleas and suffer no consequences for their abuse of power.

No doubt the Trump haters would be just fine with that. Until it's turned on them, that is.

As for said Trump haters, this is probably one of those circumstances in which the very gods themselves contend in vain.

If you love America, you have to be a Trump hater. Those two positions are now firmly merged.

"If you don't vote for our presidential candidate, you don't love our country, you traitorous scumbag! Wait, why is our country so divided? I don't understand!"

[US-SSR]

So just because you want it to happen. Got it.

Especially given that you wrote off the other briefing for not fitting your narrative and thus being tainted with bias somehow.

I'm not entirely sure how many times this has to be explained to you, but here we go again: General Flynn was betrayed by his previous attorneys and tricked into pleading guilty, when the FBI agents interviewing him thought he was innocent, which happened as a result of a fishing expedition, which further happened as a result of two thugs, abusing their power, and using their own agency's incompetence to their gain, much like Senator Richard Burr did. Should he also be declared innocent of abusing his own committee's incompetence for personal gain? Of course not!

If the above mentioned criminal conduct is allowed to stand, than it will destroy Americans' Faith in the Justice System. This is why the best case scenario for Democrats is for Sullivan to extend it to November, and suddenly have a change of heart in December or in the first three months of 2021. That's what Sullivan is trying to accomplish. This is exactly what Sullivan did in the case of Senator Ted Stevens. What Sullivan doesn't realize is just how vain President Trump is, and that President Trump will pardon General Flynn in November, before Sullivan can correct his deliberate mistake, thus effectively taking a giant dump on Sullivan's career, forcing him to retire in disgrace.

The best case scenario for Republicans is to have the case dismissed outright. The question isn't whether or not the charges against General Flynn will be dismissed, but rather when they'll be dismissed. As a result, in this case, the interests of the American People align with those of the Republican Party. Doesn't happen often, hence the Republicans supporting it like mad.

But let's take a step back, and look at the worst case scenario for the American People - the justification of the actions of General Flynn's former attorneys. If that happens, then the Faith in the Judicial System will be lost, and considering that Faith in the Executive is determined by "my side yay, your side boo" ideology, and there's very little Faith in Congress, it'll be the beginning of the end of America. Take a look at what's happening. Now, imagine lower and middle class whites joining the protests, en masse, and heading to rich Liberal neighborhoods. Is General Flynn's wrongful conviction worth that much to you?

Repeating baseless arguments does not make them stronger, a fact both you and the "Justice" Dept. seem not to have grasped.

[MGTOWia]

Repeating baseless arguments does not make them stronger, a fact both you and the "Justice" Dept. seem not to have grasped.

The only "baseless arguments" are the ones advanced by Sullivan's mouthpieces. Which boil down to, "Orange Man Bad. Defendant Bad. I want to make him pay. Don't you stop me."

But we'll see whose arguments are "baseless" soon enough.

[Cyng]

Haha. Liberals can get fucked. They want to criminalize dissent SO bad. Unfortunately, should Biden win they'll probably be able to though.

[Giovenith]

Haha. Liberals can get fucked. They want to criminalize dissent SO bad. Unfortunately, should Biden win they'll probably be able to though.

*** 3 Day Ban for Trolling ***

Only two days after your last ban for trolling, and you hop right into it again.

[Shofercia]

Repeating baseless arguments does not make them stronger, a fact both you and the "Justice" Dept. seem not to have grasped.

The only "baseless arguments" are the ones advanced by Sullivan's mouthpieces. Which boil down to, "Orange Man Bad. Defendant Bad. I want to make him pay. Don't you stop me."

But we'll see whose arguments are "baseless" soon enough.

Apparently demanding that people do their job, while working, is a baseless argument. Instead, they should invite random commentators to satiate their egos. I got an idea: if Biden's elected, we should try that - don't work, don't go to work, and invite random commentators to satiate our egos. I wonder what the DNC's response would be, especially when the economic data comes in as a result of that "baseless" argument.

[US-SSR]

Repeating baseless arguments does not make them stronger, a fact both you and the "Justice" Dept. seem not to have grasped.

The only "baseless arguments" are the ones advanced by Sullivan's mouthpieces. Which boil down to, "Orange Man Bad. Defendant Bad. I want to make him pay. Don't you stop me."

But we'll see whose arguments are "baseless" soon enough.

Yes, I imagine we will.

The brief represents a remarkable new position by the Trump Justice Department: The doors of federal courthouses should be closed to hearing arguments other than those advanced by the department itself, and federal judges may not even inquire into whether the administration has acted improperly...

It may be inconvenient, at least in Trump’s view, for the administration to have protesters at the White House. And it may be inconvenient, at least in the Trump Justice Department’s view, to have its extraordinary action on behalf of one of the president’s allies scrutinized by a federal court. But that is what our system of free speech and an independent judiciary entails — whether Trump and his enablers like it or not.

[Vassenor]

'Everything about this is irregular': Ex-judge tapped to review Flynn case blasts Trump DOJ

A former judge selected to advise on a path forward in the criminal case against Michael Flynn is accusing the Justice Department of exercising a “gross abuse of prosecutorial power” to protect an ally of President Donald Trump, distorting known facts and legal principles to shield Flynn from a jail sentence.

The former federal judge, John Gleeson, skewered Attorney General Bill Barr’s handling of the case, describing it as an “irregular” effort that courts would “scoff” at were the subject anyone other than an ally of Trump. The 82-page excoriation featured a painstaking reconstruction of the Flynn case and accused DOJ of contradicting its own arguments and precedents to justify dropping the case against Flynn.

“Even recognizing that the Government is entitled to deference in assessing the strength of its case, these claims are not credible,” Gleeson wrote. “Indeed, they are preposterous.”

Gleeson is recommending that the judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, instead proceed to sentence the former Trump national security adviser on the false-statement charge he admitted to two-and-a-half years ago — and later rescinded.

So if it's such a clear-cut case for dropping the proceedings, why does everyone with knowledge of the law keep saying it isn't?

[US-SSR]

Link to the brief: https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/john-gleeson-amicus-curiae-arguments-against-u-s-motion-to-dismiss-flynn-case/7e88b359-8065-42e3-914d-1dff9495052c/?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_13. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to apply its crystal-clear legal reasoning to the specious, tendentious arguments advanced by the "Justice" Dept. I'd merely point out that Bill Barr's brand of pettifogging is not intended to convince any court or legitimate legal scholar of the rightness of Flynn's cause but merely to salve the fragile ego and lubricate the ample bottom of the pathological narcissist in the Oval Office.

...The reasons offered by the Government are so irregular, and so obviously pretextual, that they are deficient. Moreover, the facts surrounding the filing of the Government’s motion constitute clear evidence of gross prosecutorial abuse. They reveal an unconvincing effort to disguise as legitimate a decision to dismiss that is based solely on the fact that Flynn is a political ally of President Trump...The Executive Branch had the unreviewable discretion to never charge Flynn with a crime because he is a friend and political ally of President Trump. President Trump today has the unreviewable authority to issue a pardon, thus ensuring that Flynn is no longer prosecuted and never punished for his crimes because he is a friend and political ally. But the instant the Executive Branch filed a criminal charge against Flynn, it forfeited the right to implicate this Court in the dismissal of that charge simply because Flynn is a friend and political ally of the President.

[emphasis added]

[Shofercia]

The only "baseless arguments" are the ones advanced by Sullivan's mouthpieces. Which boil down to, "Orange Man Bad. Defendant Bad. I want to make him pay. Don't you stop me."

But we'll see whose arguments are "baseless" soon enough.

Yes, I imagine we will.

The brief represents a remarkable new position by the Trump Justice Department: The doors of federal courthouses should be closed to hearing arguments other than those advanced by the department itself, and federal judges may not even inquire into whether the administration has acted improperly...

It may be inconvenient, at least in Trump’s view, for the administration to have protesters at the White House. And it may be inconvenient, at least in the Trump Justice Department’s view, to have its extraordinary action on behalf of one of the president’s allies scrutinized by a federal court. But that is what our system of free speech and an independent judiciary entails — whether Trump and his enablers like it or not.

Wow, article starts with such pompous bullshit, that it couldn't lick Biden's balls hard enough, no wonder you left this part out:

The Trump administration’s authoritarian behavior on the streets is being matched by its authoritarian positions in the federal courts. On Monday, as the administration used military force to push peaceful protesters out of Lafayette Square, administration lawyers filed an astonishing brief in the federal appeals court down the street, urging the court to order the trial judge to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn.

Was President Trump saying that the army should disperse the protesters unconstitutional? Yep. Did it have any relationship to the Flynn case? Nope. Did it start after the Flynn case? Yes, yes it did. If the following individuals, namely:

Joshua A. Geltzer and Neal K. Katyal are law professors at Georgetown University Law Center. Jennifer Taub is a professor at Vermont Law School. Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard.

want to be remembers as cheap Democratic propagandists, then:

The initial brief, that led to General Flynn changing his plea, filed by General Flynn's attorney, was filed way before the protests even started. Instead, the quartet of formerly respected legal jurists decided to mislead the public as to the order of events:

On Monday, as the administration used military force to push peaceful protesters out of Lafayette Square, administration lawyers filed an astonishing brief in the federal appeals court down the street

Let's look at the actual dates, the actual reality, not the one imagined by Geltzer, Katyal, Taub, and Tribe, with one thing in mind: George Floyd was murdered on May 25th, 2020. The protests started as a result of Floyd's unnecessary and tragic death, meaning that they started on or after May 25th, 2020. Let's take a look at the Flynn timetable: https://justthenews.com/accountability/ ... hael-flynn

May 29, 2019: Mueller declares the investigation complete.

June 6, 2019: Michael Flynn fired his legal team while awaiting sentencing.

June 12, 2019: Flynn hires a Mueller critic to represent him – attorney Sidney Powell.

August 2019: Powell files a motion stating Flynn’s case is not ready for sentencing. She also claimed that she was being prevented from reviewing classified material needed for the case, such as phone call recordings and transcripts.

October 2019: Justice Department attorneys respond, saying Powell’s information requests from the government were “either irrelevant or seek information that has already been provided.”

Oct 25, 2019: Powell filed a motion to “dismiss the entire prosecution for outrageous government misconduct.”

November 2019: Sullivan postpones Flynn’s sentencing until report by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz on the Russia probe is released.

December 2019: Judge Sullivan sets a Jan. 28 sentencing date. He also rejects Flynn’s legal team’s request for important information that may have been withheld by the FBI. Sullivan claimed that Flynn still needed to prove the information he was requesting was actually in his favor.

Jan 7, 2020: Justice Dept. recommends up to six months in prison for Flynn.

Jan 14, 2020: Flynn files motion to withdraw his original guilty plea for lying to the FBI.

Jan 16, 2020: Sullivan pushes Flynn’s sentencing back to Feb. 27.

Feb 9, 2020: Federal prosecutors suggest delaying more deadlines, saying Flynn’s former lawyers should testify as well.

Feb 10, 2020: Sullivan indefinitely postpones Flynn’s sentencing.

March 15, 2020: Trump said he’s “strongly considering” pardoning Flynn after the Justice Department misplaced records from Flynn’s interview with the FBI agents back in 2017

April 29, 2020: New internal FBI documents were unsealed, showing that top FBI officials were discussing whether they were interviewing Flynn with the “goal” or intent to catch him in a lie, so he could be fired.
They discussed making him admit to breaking an obscure statute called the Logan Act, which had never been used in criminal prosecution before. The Logan Act prevents people from falsely claiming to represent the US government abroad.

May 7, 2020: The Justice Department dropped Flynn’s case, saying “The Government has determined, pursuant to the Principles of Federal Prosecution and based on an extensive review and careful consideration of the circumstances, that continued prosecution of this case would not serve the interests of justice.”

I'm not sure if the above mentioned quartet of Geltzer, Katyal, Taub, and Tribe are aware of this, but May 7th actually comes before May 25th. Way before. As a result writing that, and I quote: On Monday, as the administration used military force to push peaceful protesters out of Lafayette Square, administration lawyers filed an astonishing brief in the federal appeals court down the street and thus conflating the two is bullshit that divides the nation, conflates two completely different events, and disgraces the legal profession. I don't claim to know the law, outside of the basics; I'm not a lawyer. But I know facts. And I know when someone's lying to me. When someone's claiming that May 7th = May 25th, they're lying. Pure and simple. No wonder you kept that paragraph out of your quote. What's the point of reading the rest of it, if the first paragraph is intentionally deceptive?

[Shofercia]

'Everything about this is irregular': Ex-judge tapped to review Flynn case blasts Trump DOJ

A former judge selected to advise on a path forward in the criminal case against Michael Flynn is accusing the Justice Department of exercising a “gross abuse of prosecutorial power” to protect an ally of President Donald Trump, distorting known facts and legal principles to shield Flynn from a jail sentence.

The former federal judge, John Gleeson, skewered Attorney General Bill Barr’s handling of the case, describing it as an “irregular” effort that courts would “scoff” at were the subject anyone other than an ally of Trump. The 82-page excoriation featured a painstaking reconstruction of the Flynn case and accused DOJ of contradicting its own arguments and precedents to justify dropping the case against Flynn.

“Even recognizing that the Government is entitled to deference in assessing the strength of its case, these claims are not credible,” Gleeson wrote. “Indeed, they are preposterous.”

Gleeson is recommending that the judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, instead proceed to sentence the former Trump national security adviser on the false-statement charge he admitted to two-and-a-half years ago — and later rescinded.

So if it's such a clear-cut case for dropping the proceedings, why does everyone with knowledge of the law keep saying it isn't?

I had no idea that Gleeson was everyone, are you going to use the Royal pronoun of "We" when addressing Gleeson, Vass? Seriously, I don't understand how those who hate President Trump's guts so much, that they want to ignore massive misconduct on the part of former defense attorneys of General Flynn quality as "everyone with knowledge of the law" - because clearly more people know the law than aspiring politicians. That seems to be quite a stretch Vass.

Also, I'm a bit confused as to what facts Attorney General Barr distorted, would you be so kind as to mention the facts, Vass? Probably not. Yeah, facts aren't really on Gleeson's side here, because saying "dude gave a guilty plea as a result of being betrayed by his former attorneys and must be convicted and sentenced, even though we have no actual case" is not exactly a convincing factual argument. I'm sure we'll get plenty of legalese from Gleeson, but since the claim was "distorting known facts" - I'd like to know what facts are distorted.

Here's an idea: now that Attorney General Flynn has an actual attorney, rather than attorneys that were playing for the other side, why not restart the trial? If the facts are so heavily on Gleeson's/Sullivan's side, why not let them out into the open?

[South Odreria 2]

'Everything about this is irregular': Ex-judge tapped to review Flynn case blasts Trump DOJ

A former judge selected to advise on a path forward in the criminal case against Michael Flynn is accusing the Justice Department of exercising a “gross abuse of prosecutorial power” to protect an ally of President Donald Trump, distorting known facts and legal principles to shield Flynn from a jail sentence.

The former federal judge, John Gleeson, skewered Attorney General Bill Barr’s handling of the case, describing it as an “irregular” effort that courts would “scoff” at were the subject anyone other than an ally of Trump. The 82-page excoriation featured a painstaking reconstruction of the Flynn case and accused DOJ of contradicting its own arguments and precedents to justify dropping the case against Flynn.

“Even recognizing that the Government is entitled to deference in assessing the strength of its case, these claims are not credible,” Gleeson wrote. “Indeed, they are preposterous.”

Gleeson is recommending that the judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, instead proceed to sentence the former Trump national security adviser on the false-statement charge he admitted to two-and-a-half years ago — and later rescinded.

So if it's such a clear-cut case for dropping the proceedings, why does everyone with knowledge of the law keep saying it isn't?

You know what was a “gross abuse of prosecutorial power?” This whole crooked attack on a democratically elected government.

[-Astoria]

You know what was a “gross abuse of prosecutorial power?” This whole crooked attack on a democratically elected government.

And then there's another buzzword.

[State of Turelisa]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52584193

Andrew McCabe, who took over as acting FBI chief in 2017 before he too was ousted in 2018, said the department's decision was "pure politics designed to please the president". He said the FBI "received incontrovertible evidence" Flynn spoke to the ambassador multiple times and tried to influence the actions of Russian officials. "The Department's position that the FBI had no reason to interview Mr Flynn pursuant to its counterintelligence investigation is patently false, and ignores the considerable national security risk his contacts raised.

The FBI have dropped the charges, though they're based on ''incontrovertible evidence'', because they understand the futility of pressing them against a former adviser to Trump, who is so convinced of his innocence he said he was considering giving him a Presidential pardon.
The abuse of power which that man is prepared to go to, to cover up illegal conduct among his circles, whose tracks lead directly to him is obscene.

[Shofercia]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52584193

Andrew McCabe, who took over as acting FBI chief in 2017 before he too was ousted in 2018, said the department's decision was "pure politics designed to please the president". He said the FBI "received incontrovertible evidence" Flynn spoke to the ambassador multiple times and tried to influence the actions of Russian officials. "The Department's position that the FBI had no reason to interview Mr Flynn pursuant to its counterintelligence investigation is patently false, and ignores the considerable national security risk his contacts raised.

The FBI have dropped the charges, though they're based on ''incontrovertible evidence'', because they understand the futility of pressing them against a former adviser to Trump, who is so convinced of his innocence he said he was considering giving him a Presidential pardon.
The abuse of power which that man is prepared to go to, to cover up illegal conduct among his circles, whose tracks lead directly to him is obscene.

"tried to influence the actions of Russian officials" - General Flynn asked the Russians not to massively retaliate against Obama's sanctions because a new administration was coming in. This was known for quite some time. And yes, he spoke to the ambassador multiple times, again, not news. If telling the Russian Ambassador to the United States, "hey, we have a new administration coming in, can you please not massively retaliate against the old one" multiple times was illegal, General Flynn would have been convicted a long time ago, because those actions were very well known, to just about anyone who was following the news. Just because BBC has the memory of a goldfish, doesn't mean that the rest of us do.

[South Odreria 2]

You know what was a “gross abuse of prosecutorial power?” This whole crooked attack on a democratically elected government.

And then there's another buzzword.

English please.

[US-SSR]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52584193



The FBI have dropped the charges, though they're based on ''incontrovertible evidence'', because they understand the futility of pressing them against a former adviser to Trump, who is so convinced of his innocence he said he was considering giving him a Presidential pardon.
The abuse of power which that man is prepared to go to, to cover up illegal conduct among his circles, whose tracks lead directly to him is obscene.

"tried to influence the actions of Russian officials" - General Flynn asked the Russians not to massively retaliate against Obama's sanctions because a new administration was coming in. This was known for quite some time. And yes, he spoke to the ambassador multiple times, again, not news. If telling the Russian Ambassador to the United States, "hey, we have a new administration coming in, can you please not massively retaliate against the old one" multiple times was illegal, General Flynn would have been convicted a long time ago, because those actions were very well known, to just about anyone who was following the news. Just because BBC has the memory of a goldfish, doesn't mean that the rest of us do.

Flynn's guilty plea, repeated under oath three times in front of two different judges, was for lying to the FBI.

The released transcripts prove that Flynn lied to the FBI.

Flynn is guilty of lying to the FBI, QED.

Adding any charges related to his promising Kislyak a quid pro quo for Russia's support for his boss, who then fired the then-FBI Director because he declined to "go easy" on Flynn, would be icing on the cake. Or did you conveniently forget about that part?

[-Astoria]

English please.

You know what was a “gross abuse of prosecutorial power?” This whole crooked attack on a democratically elected government.

EnGlIsH PlEaSe.

[South Odreria 2]

English please.

You know what was a “gross abuse of prosecutorial power?” This whole crooked attack on a democratically elected government.

EnGlIsH PlEaSe.

Are you attempting to communicate?