charges dropped against Flynn

[Pete F.]

Glad to hear you hold Alan Underpants in such high regard. I suppose you also agree with his position on statutory rape.

Now Barr is saying Sullivan’s orders and the whole process leading up to Flynn’s conviction and sentencing was illegitimate. At least if Trump were to pardon Flynn, the basic premise that he had, in fact, lied to the FBI and pleaded guilty to it would not be up for dispute. If Barr prevails, though, the most fundamental building blocks of counterintelligence investigations — such as ensuring that the FBI can question people about contacts with hostile foreign agents and hold them accountable if they conceal them — are no longer things we can count on. Barr wants to create a twilight zone where such things can occur with legal impunity.

Apparently it is now a good thing, that the servants of the people dare not question courtiers of the King.

[scottw]

sorry about your frustration pete...try to relax over the weekend

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Glad to hear you hold Alan Underpants in such high regard. I suppose you also agree with his position on statutory rape.

Now Barr is saying Sullivan’s orders and the whole process leading up to Flynn’s conviction and sentencing was illegitimate. At least if Trump were to pardon Flynn, the basic premise that he had, in fact, lied to the FBI and pleaded guilty to it would not be up for dispute. If Barr prevails, though, the most fundamental building blocks of counterintelligence investigations — such as ensuring that the FBI can question people about contacts with hostile foreign agents and hold them accountable if they conceal them — are no longer things we can count on. Barr wants to create a twilight zone where such things can occur with legal impunity.

Apparently it is now a good thing, that the servants of the people dare not question courtiers of the King.

"Glad to hear you hold Alan Underpants in such high regard. I suppose you also agree with his position on statutory rape. "

I'm confused. Didn't you very recently post a 50,000 word article written by a former Jeb Bush staffer, to support your position that Trump is bad? Yes, you did. Does that mean you agree with every position that man has ever taken?

So why is it OK for you to support your position with words of someone who you don't agree with on other topics, but it's not valid when I do it? I'd just love to hear you attempt to explain that.

Pete, you are again and again, backing yourself into a corner from which there is no escape.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

the basic premise that he had, in fact, lied to the FBI and pleaded guilty to it would not be up for dispute. Barr wants to create a twilight zone where such things can occur with legal impunity.

Apparently it is now a good thing, that the servants of the people dare not question courtiers of the King.

"the basic premise that he had, in fact, lied to the FBI and pleaded guilty to it would not be up for dispute."

I don't dispute he lied to the FBI. But there seems to be some question about whether or not the FBI acted appropriately during the investigation. All the libs here are having trouble distinguishing between whether or not Flynn committed a crime, and whether or not the FBI broke the rules in trying to establish that he committed a crime.

"Barr wants to create a twilight zone where such things can occur with legal impunity"

Nooo...he wants to create a world where the government cannot break the rules in trying to bring criminals to justice. I have no issue with creating a world where the FBI doesn't set out "to get" someone for political reasons. They can't do that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don't dispute he lied to the FBI. But there seems to be some question about whether or not the FBI acted appropriately during the investigation. All the libs here are having trouble distinguishing between whether or not Flynn committed a crime, and whether or not the FBI broke the rules in trying to establish that he committed a crime

You're getting distracted by the conspiracy theories Jim.

The DOJ didn’t drop the case because they thought he was manipulated into lying, they argued the FBI didn’t have the right to interview Flynn in the first place which is mind bafflingly absurd given the facts. Then they slip in a scab to do the deed because none of the career prosecutors would sign off on it.

Barr has taken us into serious thug territory with his actions, first manipulating the Mueller report, then Stone’s sentencing and now Flynn all to do Trump’s bidding and gaslight people like you into thinking it’s all a big hoax.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You're getting distracted by the conspiracy theories Jim.

The DOJ didn’t drop the case because they thought he was manipulated into lying, they argued the FBI didn’t have the right to interview Flynn in the first place which is mind bafflingly absurd given the facts. Then they slip in a scab to do the deed because none of the career prosecutors would sign off on it.

Barr has taken us into serious thug territory with his actions, first manipulating the Mueller report, then Stone’s sentencing and now Flynn all to do Trump’s bidding and gaslight people like you into thinking it’s all a big hoax.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So if the assistant director says in writing, before the very fist interview "is the goal here to get him to lie nd get him fired",
you're OK with that?

Have you seen the released transcripts from the House Intelligence committee regarding Russia? Lots of senior democrats saying very clearly under oath, that there was zero direct evidence tying anyone in the administration to Russian election interference. Yet they said very different things when on cable news.

Anything at all to see there?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So if the assistant director says in writing, before the very fist interview "is the goal here to get him to lie nd get him fired",
you're OK with that?

You’re reading fragments of someone’s thoughts as they were deliberating about their objectives and recognizing quite rationally it could have political ramifications. In the end they did the right thing.

I have no problem with doing the right thing.

Have you seen the released transcripts from the House Intelligence committee regarding Russia? Lots of senior democrats saying very clearly under oath, that there was zero direct evidence tying anyone in the administration to Russian election interference. Yet they said very different things when on cable news.

Anything at all to see there?

You’re getting off topic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You're getting distracted by the conspiracy theories Jim.

The DOJ didn’t drop the case because they thought he was manipulated into lying, they argued the FBI didn’t have the right to interview Flynn in the first place which is mind bafflingly absurd given the facts. Then they slip in a scab to do the deed because none of the career prosecutors would sign off on it.

Barr has taken us into serious thug territory with his actions, first manipulating the Mueller report, then Stone’s sentencing and now Flynn all to do Trump’s bidding and gaslight people like you into thinking it’s all a big hoax.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the court said there was no legitimate investigate reason for the interview. That's what the "I" is supposed to stand for in FBI. It's not supposed to be a weapon to use against political adversaries.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the court said there was no legitimate investigate reason for the interview. That's what the "I" is supposed to stand for in FBI. It's not supposed to be a weapon to use against political adversaries.

You’re starting to sound like wdmso.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You’re starting to sound like wdmso.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The court said there was no legitimate investigatory reason to interview Flynn. That's what they said. Sorry if that doesn't serve your Narrative, but it's what they said.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The court said there was no legitimate investigatory reason to interview Flynn. That's what they said. Sorry if that doesn't serve your Narrative, but it's what they said.

What court?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by spence

You’re starting to sound like wdmso.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hea what did I do?...

[scottw]

Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley

"President Obama is being quoted on Flynn, saying, "There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free." It is a curious statement. First and foremost, Flynn was not charged with perjury...

Second, we now know Obama discussed charging Flynn under the Logan Act which has never been used successfully to convict anyone and is flagrantly unconstitutional. Third, this reaffirms reports that Obama was personally invested in this effort. Finally, there is precedent.

There is a specific rule allowing for this motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). There are specific Supreme Court cases like Rinaldi v. United States addressing the standard for such dismissals....

The Justice Department has dismissed cases in the past including the Stevens case. That was requested by President Obama's own Attorney General Eric Holder for the same reason: misconduct by prosecutors. It was done before the same judge, Judge Sullivan.

How is that for precedent?" Turley asked



I think Obama has some esplainin' to do....