Freedom for General Flynn!

[Vassenor]

So what's all this shit about corruption and defending the constitution? Just emotive language?

Those appear to be MGTOWia's opinion mixed in with cherry picked quotes from the decision. There is a little bit about division of powers in the decision but none of the this prosecution was the greatest crime known to man MGTOWia implies.

Figured as much. Given that the root of the alleged corruption just seems to be "someone Obama appointed said a thing".

[MGTOWia]

So what's all this shit about corruption and defending the constitution? Just emotive language?

Those appear to be MGTOWia's opinion mixed in with cherry picked quotes from the decision. There is a little bit about division of powers in the decision but none of the this prosecution was the greatest crime known to man MGTOWia implies.

"Cherry picked"? Exactly how many "cherries" are left on the tree that DON'T support my discussion of the decision? Pray tell. I could have just left the link, or quoted the entire text of the decision. Instead, I provided sufficient detail to answer the question. Which do you want?

And "a little bit about division of powers"?! The decision is BASED on separation of powers!

You are right about one thing: that WAS my opinion of the corrupt Obama DOJ holdovers at the heart of this assault on the Constitution. And the more the truth about said corruption comes out (paging John Durham), the more that opinion will be vindicated.

[Purpelia]

Can anyone tell me what this guy was even accused off beyond talking to a foreign diplomat? Because that's all I could get from the article.

Perjury, given that he intentionally misled an investigation regarding said contacts.

So this thread is about the insane heinous travesty of injustice that is a guy being let off for lying. Ok... from the OP I expected something... well more.

[Vassenor]

I mean if we're going to talk corruption at the DOJ...

Career Justice Department attorneys tell Congress leadership abused its power in Roger Stone case, other investigations

WASHINGTON – Still reeling from a highly public clash that led to the firing of one of its most prominent prosecutors, the Justice Department again finds itself under a glaring spotlight as two of its employees told Congress Wednesday that the agency's leadership abused its power at the behest of President Donald Trump.

Aaron Zelinsky, one of the attorneys who prosecuted Roger Stone, said that the Justice Department gave the GOP operative "unprecedentedly favorable treatment" and pressured prosecutors to "cut Stone a break" by recommending a lenient sentence because he is an ally of the president, according to his prepared statement. He and the other prosecutors were told to go along, Zelinsky said, or they could be fired.

John Elias, an attorney in the department's Antitrust Division, said that the agency's political appointees pursued unwarranted investigations over the objections of career employees. One investigation, Elias said, was launched after a Trump tweet.

The pair offered the blistering criticisms of Justice Department leadership before the House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating allegations of political interference within the agency.

[Shofercia]

I mean if we're going to talk corruption at the DOJ...

Career Justice Department attorneys tell Congress leadership abused its power in Roger Stone case, other investigations

WASHINGTON – Still reeling from a highly public clash that led to the firing of one of its most prominent prosecutors, the Justice Department again finds itself under a glaring spotlight as two of its employees told Congress Wednesday that the agency's leadership abused its power at the behest of President Donald Trump.

Aaron Zelinsky, one of the attorneys who prosecuted Roger Stone, said that the Justice Department gave the GOP operative "unprecedentedly favorable treatment" and pressured prosecutors to "cut Stone a break" by recommending a lenient sentence because he is an ally of the president, according to his prepared statement. He and the other prosecutors were told to go along, Zelinsky said, or they could be fired.

John Elias, an attorney in the department's Antitrust Division, said that the agency's political appointees pursued unwarranted investigations over the objections of career employees. One investigation, Elias said, was launched after a Trump tweet.

The pair offered the blistering criticisms of Justice Department leadership before the House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating allegations of political interference within the agency.

I had no idea that Roger Stone and Michael Flynn were the exact same person. Oh wait, they're not. They're actually two different people. Also, what was the tweet launched investigation? After the Page-Strzok revelations came to light, I became a tad more distrustful of career politicians, excuse me, career officials, although I'm really not seeing much of a difference, especially with how career politicians initially rallied around Derek Chauvin. Does your source actually name that "one investigation" Vass?

[Shofercia]

As an update the appeals court has ordered the charges be dropped for Flynn.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/24/politics ... index.html

For all practical purposes this ends the case and he is a free man.

Justice has prevailed! Now it's time for General Flynn to go on the offensive, and I think that he should start by suing his former attorneys. They're the weakest link.

Repeat after me:

"NOT. PERJURY."

Mandamus granted. As predicted. THE END.

On what grounds? Given that every time it's been examined by independents the case for dropping hasn't held water.

Democrats aren't independents.

Bottom line: General Flynn WINS. Corrupt Obama DOJ holdovers LOSE. The Constitution is DEFENDED. Case CLOSED. Whether certain factions like it or not.

Because a Trump appointee said so. If we're going to talk about corruption. Sorry if it upsets you that doing what Trump says shouldn't give you a pass on breaking the law.

Last time I checked, although I'm not a lawyer so this ain't legal advice, if you break the law due to a governmental Fruit of the Poisonous Tree violation and/or endorsement, you get to go free.

Those appear to be MGTOWia's opinion mixed in with cherry picked quotes from the decision. There is a little bit about division of powers in the decision but none of the this prosecution was the greatest crime known to man MGTOWia implies.

Figured as much. Given that the root of the alleged corruption just seems to be "someone Obama appointed said a thing".

The root of the alleged corruption, as you've been told, repeatedly, is that his own attorneys backstabbed him. Political activists, some of whom are political hacks, brought Obama into this. The real independents, rather than the ones you imagine, are pro-Flynn because of the FOPT Doctrine.

[US-SSR]

Judge Sullivan has asked the full appeals court to review the panel decision. Assuming they accept, that would vacate the panel's mandamus order.

Obviously the panel dissent gives the full court more than enough of a roadmap to reverse. On to the Supremes I suppose.

But my real question is this: what do you all get out of this Administration that you're willing to stand on the sidelines and cheer while the rule of law is being systematically eroded? It's certainly not protection, or even a viable nationwide plan to protect you from the worst pandemic in a century. Your Supreme Court justices, the ideologue and the drunkard, just sided with Cy Vance and the House on the tax returns, laying the groundwork for exposing your man's central corruption and probably explaining how he came to be Putin's poodle. Even if you were in a position to benefit from massive tax cuts for The One Percent, now that the economy is shut down that can't be much consolation. The influence of the US in the world has been eroded to the point Egypt is kidnapping Americans with impunity, while Maduro defies the Yankee enemies of humanity with the same. Everything from the weather reports to wearing masks in public to opening schools is politicized. And your man is cratering in the polls, threatening to bring down an entire political party with his own sorry, needy, pathological self.

Tell us please: what's your payoff from any or all of that? Do you get off on his Tweets that much? What is it? I pant for light, but there is no light.

Oh and icymi today's was not a good day for Presidential wise guys either: Roger Stone's headed to durance vile next week after even the "Justice" Dept. abandoned his defence; he has a tattoo of Nixon on his back so every time he gets donkey punched in jail Tricky Dick'll get a sock in the jaw. Michael Cohen just couldn't stay home and refused to give up Twitter or Instagram so he's back in the slammer tonight. And the SDNY prosecutor Bill Barr dumped is spilling the beans, all while the investigations of Rudy and his Ukranian bagmen grind on, perhaps slowly but passing fine.

[Shofercia]

Judge Sullivan has asked the full appeals court to review the panel decision. Assuming they accept, that would vacate the panel's mandamus order.

Obviously the panel dissent gives the full court more than enough of a roadmap to reverse. On to the Supremes I suppose.

But my real question is this: what do you all get out of this Administration that you're willing to stand on the sidelines and cheer while the rule of law is being systematically eroded? It's certainly not protection, or even a viable nationwide plan to protect you from the worst pandemic in a century. Your Supreme Court justices, the ideologue and the drunkard, just sided with Cy Vance and the House on the tax returns, laying the groundwork for exposing your man's central corruption and probably explaining how he came to be Putin's poodle. Even if you were in a position to benefit from massive tax cuts for The One Percent, now that the economy is shut down that can't be much consolation. The influence of the US in the world has been eroded to the point Egypt is kidnapping Americans with impunity, while Maduro defies the Yankee enemies of humanity with the same. Everything from the weather reports to wearing masks in public to opening schools is politicized. And your man is cratering in the polls, threatening to bring down an entire political party with his own sorry, needy, pathological self.

Tell us please: what's your payoff from any or all of that? Do you get off on his Tweets that much? What is it? I pant for light, but there is no light.

Oh and icymi today's was not a good day for Presidential wise guys either: Roger Stone's headed to durance vile next week after even the "Justice" Dept. abandoned his defence; he has a tattoo of Nixon on his back so every time he gets donkey punched in jail Tricky Dick'll get a sock in the jaw. Michael Cohen just couldn't stay home and refused to give up Twitter or Instagram so he's back in the slammer tonight. And the SDNY prosecutor Bill Barr dumped is spilling the beans, all while the investigations of Rudy and his Ukranian bagmen grind on, perhaps slowly but passing fine.

Have you read the thread title? It's Freedom for General Flynn. It's not about Giuliani, or Stone, or anyone else, but it's interesting that you're now supporting guilt by association. That's a tad scary. Regarding General Flynn, I see a man who initially committed no crime, was repeatedly hassled by an alphabet soup of agencies, where the rank and file agents believed he was innocent but were forced to find him guilty at the behest of their leadership, which was corrupt and rotten, namely Strzok and Page.

I see a man whose son was threatened, a man betrayed by his own attorneys, a man thoroughly searched, examined, and counter-examined by just about everyone who wanted him in jail. I see a partisan hack in the chair who refused, and still refuses to grant this man freedom. General Flynn had every inch of his life examined, and the fact that the only thing that they could find was him lying during a plea deal that would never have happened had their been a shred of Justice, and that was it. How many in Washington DC can live up to those standards?

So no, I don't see any grave injustice in letting an innocent man utilize his Right to use the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. And the fact that you're no longer speaking against General Flynn, except for the occasional "plz trust mah political robed man, but someone whom I think is a political robed man for the other side iz drunkz!" speaks volumes. Ya got nothing on General Flynn that can pass the FOPT test. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. When General Flynn is finally vindicated, and sues those who betrayed him, starting with his previous attorneys, then I'll say that Justice Prevailed, and I hope that he'll do it, if not for himself, than for his kid who was needlessly threatened.

[US-SSR]

Judge Sullivan has asked the full appeals court to review the panel decision. Assuming they accept, that would vacate the panel's mandamus order.

Obviously the panel dissent gives the full court more than enough of a roadmap to reverse. On to the Supremes I suppose.

But my real question is this: what do you all get out of this Administration that you're willing to stand on the sidelines and cheer while the rule of law is being systematically eroded? It's certainly not protection, or even a viable nationwide plan to protect you from the worst pandemic in a century. Your Supreme Court justices, the ideologue and the drunkard, just sided with Cy Vance and the House on the tax returns, laying the groundwork for exposing your man's central corruption and probably explaining how he came to be Putin's poodle. Even if you were in a position to benefit from massive tax cuts for The One Percent, now that the economy is shut down that can't be much consolation. The influence of the US in the world has been eroded to the point Egypt is kidnapping Americans with impunity, while Maduro defies the Yankee enemies of humanity with the same. Everything from the weather reports to wearing masks in public to opening schools is politicized. And your man is cratering in the polls, threatening to bring down an entire political party with his own sorry, needy, pathological self.

Tell us please: what's your payoff from any or all of that? Do you get off on his Tweets that much? What is it? I pant for light, but there is no light.

Oh and icymi today's was not a good day for Presidential wise guys either: Roger Stone's headed to durance vile next week after even the "Justice" Dept. abandoned his defence; he has a tattoo of Nixon on his back so every time he gets donkey punched in jail Tricky Dick'll get a sock in the jaw. Michael Cohen just couldn't stay home and refused to give up Twitter or Instagram so he's back in the slammer tonight. And the SDNY prosecutor Bill Barr dumped is spilling the beans, all while the investigations of Rudy and his Ukranian bagmen grind on, perhaps slowly but passing fine.

Have you read the thread title? It's Freedom for General Flynn. It's not about Giuliani, or Stone, or anyone else, but it's interesting that you're now supporting guilt by association. That's a tad scary. Regarding General Flynn, I see a man who initially committed no crime, was repeatedly hassled by an alphabet soup of agencies, where the rank and file agents believed he was innocent but were forced to find him guilty at the behest of their leadership, which was corrupt and rotten, namely Strzok and Page.

I see a man whose son was threatened, a man betrayed by his own attorneys, a man thoroughly searched, examined, and counter-examined by just about everyone who wanted him in jail. I see a partisan hack in the chair who refused, and still refuses to grant this man freedom. General Flynn had every inch of his life examined, and the fact that the only thing that they could find was him lying during a plea deal that would never have happened had their been a shred of Justice, and that was it. How many in Washington DC can live up to those standards?

So no, I don't see any grave injustice in letting an innocent man utilize his Right to use the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. And the fact that you're no longer speaking against General Flynn, except for the occasional "plz trust mah political robed man, but someone whom I think is a political robed man for the other side iz drunkz!" speaks volumes. Ya got nothing on General Flynn that can pass the FOPT test. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. When General Flynn is finally vindicated, and sues those who betrayed him, starting with his previous attorneys, then I'll say that Justice Prevailed, and I hope that he'll do it, if not for himself, than for his kid who was needlessly threatened.

Not really, all the associates of Trump and Flynn are guilty enough on their own. But I'd have to say the associates of a criminal organization are every bit as guilty as the dons, consiglieres, capos and lieutenants. And I have a sneaking suspicion the law would agree.

[Shofercia]

Have you read the thread title? It's Freedom for General Flynn. It's not about Giuliani, or Stone, or anyone else, but it's interesting that you're now supporting guilt by association. That's a tad scary. Regarding General Flynn, I see a man who initially committed no crime, was repeatedly hassled by an alphabet soup of agencies, where the rank and file agents believed he was innocent but were forced to find him guilty at the behest of their leadership, which was corrupt and rotten, namely Strzok and Page.

I see a man whose son was threatened, a man betrayed by his own attorneys, a man thoroughly searched, examined, and counter-examined by just about everyone who wanted him in jail. I see a partisan hack in the chair who refused, and still refuses to grant this man freedom. General Flynn had every inch of his life examined, and the fact that the only thing that they could find was him lying during a plea deal that would never have happened had their been a shred of Justice, and that was it. How many in Washington DC can live up to those standards?

So no, I don't see any grave injustice in letting an innocent man utilize his Right to use the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. And the fact that you're no longer speaking against General Flynn, except for the occasional "plz trust mah political robed man, but someone whom I think is a political robed man for the other side iz drunkz!" speaks volumes. Ya got nothing on General Flynn that can pass the FOPT test. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. When General Flynn is finally vindicated, and sues those who betrayed him, starting with his previous attorneys, then I'll say that Justice Prevailed, and I hope that he'll do it, if not for himself, than for his kid who was needlessly threatened.

Not really, all the associates of Trump and Flynn are guilty enough on their own. But I'd have to say the associates of a criminal organization are every bit as guilty as the dons, consiglieres, capos and lieutenants. And I have a sneaking suspicion the law would agree.

All? So Kayleigh McEnany's also guilty? The law's pretty clear in the case of General Flynn, Sullivan's partisan protests notwithstanding.

[Zapato]

Judge Sullivan has asked the full appeals court to review the panel decision. Assuming they accept, that would vacate the panel's mandamus order.

They accepted.

“The full DC Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to rehear the Michael Flynn case. Oral arguments for the en banc review are scheduled for Aug. 11.”

[US-SSR]

Judge Sullivan has asked the full appeals court to review the panel decision. Assuming they accept, that would vacate the panel's mandamus order.

They accepted.

“The full DC Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to rehear the Michael Flynn case. Oral arguments for the en banc review are scheduled for Aug. 11.”

I'm after thinking courts don't go en banc in order to confirm the prejudices of a panel. The only question is will this play out in a timeframe that will force Trump to pardon and/or commute in the middle of an election campaign he's bound to lose anyway.

And as for Kayleigh, the only thing she's guilty of so far is using the WH press briefing to score brownie points with her boss instead of what she's theoretically being paid to do which is informing the US public of the administration's positions and policies through the news media. But that's just the same thing Justice is doing with its ridiculous briefs in the Flynn case; they are both meant for an audience of one, and in this case it's not the court. Put her under oath and they can get her for perjury along with at least half the Cabinet and WH staff.

[Shofercia]

They accepted.

“The full DC Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to rehear the Michael Flynn case. Oral arguments for the en banc review are scheduled for Aug. 11.”

I'm after thinking courts don't go en banc in order to confirm the prejudices of a panel. The only question is will this play out in a timeframe that will force Trump to pardon and/or commute in the middle of an election campaign he's bound to lose anyway.

And as for Kayleigh, the only thing she's guilty of so far is using the WH press briefing to score brownie points with her boss instead of what she's theoretically being paid to do which is informing the US public of the administration's positions and policies through the news media. But that's just the same thing Justice is doing with its ridiculous briefs in the Flynn case; they are both meant for an audience of one, and in this case it's not the court. Put her under oath and they can get her for perjury along with at least half the Cabinet and WH staff.

So you want the White House Spokesperson to be under oath, but those who are asking questions on behalf of the corporate media to have free reign? That seems rather absurd. Also, I'm waiting for the Court's ruling in August, before making any assumptions.

[Vassenor]

Federal appeals court skeptical of Michael Flynn's effort to immediately dismiss criminal charge

So it seems that the dismissal may still be blocked.

[US-SSR]

I'm after thinking courts don't go en banc in order to confirm the prejudices of a panel. The only question is will this play out in a timeframe that will force Trump to pardon and/or commute in the middle of an election campaign he's bound to lose anyway.

And as for Kayleigh, the only thing she's guilty of so far is using the WH press briefing to score brownie points with her boss instead of what she's theoretically being paid to do which is informing the US public of the administration's positions and policies through the news media. But that's just the same thing Justice is doing with its ridiculous briefs in the Flynn case; they are both meant for an audience of one, and in this case it's not the court. Put her under oath and they can get her for perjury along with at least half the Cabinet and WH staff.

So you want the White House Spokesperson to be under oath, but those who are asking questions on behalf of the corporate media to have free reign? That seems rather absurd. Also, I'm waiting for the Court's ruling in August, before making any assumptions.

I want those who are theoreticaly paid to inform the public about its executive branch's positions and policies not to repeat transparent lies, then do a mic drop and walk off the stage if they are called out for lying. Back in the day that kind of conduct was more or less unthinkable. But back in the day the head of the executive branch wasn't a delusional pathological narcissist with an authoritarian streak a mile wide, the patience of a third grade boy and the moral sens of a toddler. Times have changed. 84 days.

[Purpelia]

So you want the White House Spokesperson to be under oath, but those who are asking questions on behalf of the corporate media to have free reign? That seems rather absurd. Also, I'm waiting for the Court's ruling in August, before making any assumptions.

I want those who are theoreticaly paid to inform the public about its executive branch's positions and policies not to repeat transparent lies, then do a mic drop and walk off the stage if they are called out for lying. Back in the day that kind of conduct was more or less unthinkable. But back in the day the head of the executive branch wasn't a delusional pathological narcissist with an authoritarian streak a mile wide, the patience of a third grade boy and the moral sens of a toddler. Times have changed. 84 days.

When was that? I seriously do not remember such a time ever existing since the creation of modern news media back when the printing press was still new.

[Vassenor]

Appeals court denies Michael Flynn and Justice Department's effort to end his case

Nice to see the courts standing up for the rule of law against the government's attempts to undermine it.

[US-SSR]

Appeals court denies Michael Flynn and Justice Department's effort to end his case

Nice to see the courts standing up for the rule of law against the government's attempts to undermine it.

As could have been, and in fact was, predicted. Now the question is whether the Just Us department will force the Supremes to deny cert before having to face the music for its naked contempt for the rule of law. 64 days.

[Shofercia]

Appeals court denies Michael Flynn and Justice Department's effort to end his case

Nice to see the courts standing up for the rule of law against the government's attempts to undermine it.

As could have been, and in fact was, predicted. Now the question is whether the Just Us department will force the Supremes to deny cert before having to face the music for its naked contempt for the rule of law. 64 days.

Just going to save those posts of two Democrats supporting a blatantly partisan decision next time you guys choose to complain about it.

DC Circuit Judge Thomas Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee in his last day before retiring from the bench, warned in a concurring opinion that the latest twist in Flynn's case shouldn't be read as a political statement.

And there are WMDs in Iraq, as well as Trump's pee-pee tapes. Any other fairy tales?

"In Flynn's case, the prosecution no longer has a prosecutor. Yet the case continues with district court proceedings aimed at uncovering the internal deliberations of the Department. The majority gestures at the potential harms of such a judicial intrusion into the Executive Branch, but takes a wait-and-see approach, hoping and hinting that the district judge will not take the actions he clearly states he will take," Rao wrote. If Flynn were to appeal to the Supreme Court to keep Sullivan at bay longer -- still a possibility -- Rao's dissent and her previous opinion in the case could become important legal arguments for his team to push to the justices.

So why, exactly, would SCOTUS deny cert, and why would that be a bad thing for Flynn? Virtually any Judge ruling on the Flynn Case, and most certainly any Supreme Court Judge, is going to be less biased than Sullivan, so I'm a bit confused as to why US-SSR thinks that denying cert will harm Flynn... Even if Flynn loses at SCOTUS, cert would still be preferable to Sullivan.

[US-SSR]

Amicus files reply brief

To describe the Government's Motion to Dismiss as irregular would be a study in understatement. In the United States, Presidents do not orchestrate pressure campaigns to get the Justice Department to drop charges against defendants who have pleaded guilty -- twice, before two different judges -- and whose guilt is obvious. And the Justice Department does not seek to dismiss criminal charges on grounds riddled with legal and factual error, then argue that the validity or those grounds cannot even be briefed to the Court that accepted the defendant's guilty plea. Nor does the Justice Department make a practice of attacking its own prior filings in a case, as well as judicial opinions ruling in its favor, all while asserting that the normal rules should be set aside for a defendant who is openly favored by the President.

Yet that is exactly what has happened here.

Comment would be superfluous.

[Shofercia]

Amicus files reply brief

To describe the Government's Motion to Dismiss as irregular would be a study in understatement. In the United States, Presidents do not orchestrate pressure campaigns to get the Justice Department to drop charges against defendants who have pleaded guilty -- twice, before two different judges -- and whose guilt is obvious. And the Justice Department does not seek to dismiss criminal charges on grounds riddled with legal and factual error, then argue that the validity or those grounds cannot even be briefed to the Court that accepted the defendant's guilty plea. Nor does the Justice Department make a practice of attacking its own prior filings in a case, as well as judicial opinions ruling in its favor, all while asserting that the normal rules should be set aside for a defendant who is openly favored by the President.

Yet that is exactly what has happened here.

Comment would be superfluous.

"Waaa, we can't get Trump, so we're going to convict someone who was tricked into lying by his attorneys, and feel really good about ourselves, waaa!"

I'm sure when faith in the Justice System drops as a result of the Flynn Trial Shitshow, just as it did after the rather embarrassing Kavanaugh accusations of rape, those who are truly responsible for it are going to rush to blame the Bad Orange Man. Trump is a symptom and symptoms can go away. If you're the doctor who's pretending that his patient is cured after merely treating the patient's symptoms, you're a hack. If you're a lawyer...

[US-SSR]

Amicus files reply brief



Comment would be superfluous.

"Waaa, we can't get Trump, so we're going to convict someone who was tricked into lying by his attorneys, and feel really good about ourselves, waaa!"

I'm sure when faith in the Justice System drops as a result of the Flynn Trial Shitshow, just as it did after the rather embarrassing Kavanaugh accusations of rape, those who are truly responsible for it are going to rush to blame the Bad Orange Man. Trump is a symptom and symptoms can go away. If you're the doctor who's pretending that his patient is cured after merely treating the patient's symptoms, you're a hack. If you're a lawyer...

Sorry but in case you hadn't noticed that story line is wearing increasingly thin.

[Vassenor]

"Waaa, we can't get Trump, so we're going to convict someone who was tricked into lying by his attorneys, and feel really good about ourselves, waaa!"

I'm sure when faith in the Justice System drops as a result of the Flynn Trial Shitshow, just as it did after the rather embarrassing Kavanaugh accusations of rape, those who are truly responsible for it are going to rush to blame the Bad Orange Man. Trump is a symptom and symptoms can go away. If you're the doctor who's pretending that his patient is cured after merely treating the patient's symptoms, you're a hack. If you're a lawyer...

Sorry but in case you hadn't noticed that story line is wearing increasingly thin.

Some people just really hate the idea that Trump and his associates can do wrong.

[Shofercia]

Sorry but in case you hadn't noticed that story line is wearing increasingly thin.

Don't really care since that's the truth. I get that a truth can be rather inconvenient, didn't Al Gore have a movie about something like that? An Inconvenient Truth? He was also told about how thin that story line was, and yet, we're having record heat waves. Perhaps that's a tad more convenient, eh?

Sorry but in case you hadn't noticed that story line is wearing increasingly thin.

Some people just really hate the idea that Trump and his associates can do wrong.

Project much Vass? You're the one pitching that line about Clinton and her associates, whereas I'm just focusing on Flynn, rather than President Trump's other associates. Here's a post where I chose to not defend Roger Stone and it was a response to you Vass:

I had no idea that Roger Stone and Michael Flynn were the exact same person. Oh wait, they're not. They're actually two different people. Also, what was the tweet launched investigation? After the Page-Strzok revelations came to light, I became a tad more distrustful of career politicians, excuse me, career officials, although I'm really not seeing much of a difference, especially with how career politicians initially rallied around Derek Chauvin. Does your source actually name that "one investigation" Vass?

So please, don't bullshit the rest of NSG, Vass, by claiming that my defense of Flynn magically means that I am defending all other friends of President Trump, since it clearly doesn't.

[US-SSR]

Stop press! New proof of evidence tampering in Flynn case!

By Bill Barr's Just Us Department...on Flynn's behalf...tick...tock...tick...tock...