DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus General Flynn

Jc

This entire thread is funny. The sheer hypocrisy and lack of awareness on the obvious is mind boggling.

- Trump literally tweeted out THEN that he had no choice but to fire Flynn because he lied to Pence.

- Flynn not only ADMITTED to lying and pleading guilty, but then he rattled out a whole bunch of other people doing wrong to save his own ass, AND his sons. Let’s not forget that bit of information.

- There is absolutely no way anybody can claim shady FBI tactics on this, seeing as how this is a G-DAMN US GENERAL. Plenty of money and influence to have the BEST lawyers representing him. Some of y’all acting like this is local law enforcement who got a low level drug dealer with a public defender. STOP BEING FAKE. He had the BEST representation, and based on the evidence his OWN lawyers had, they advised him to plead guilty and work with the feds.

- EVEN IF all your wacko conspiracies are remotely true, which it clearly isn’t, it begs the BIG FREAKING QUESTION that you conservatives/MAGA hatters refuse to ask and answer:

If Flynn plead guilty and is now walking it back, was he lying to the government THEN, or is he lying NOW?

Because no matter how you spin it, the one fact is obvious: at some point, Flynn lied to The FBI and government to save his own ass.

That is a very cute answer, one I have seen very often from you. It completely avoids answering any of the factual statements provided. That's called deflection. But there you go.

#factsdontmatter

Thanks for your brief but accurate description of how Trump got elected.

It's worth the price of admission to watch partisan political hacks make this assertion about the other side...

I'm quite certain both sides might do the same thing to some extent. It has been that way for time in memorial. But Trump and his supporters aren't like any 'other side' - whether you want to look at real Republicans/conservatives or democrats or libertarians. Facts absolutely do not matter - and it's on an entirely different level.

If you want to and claim that Trump is the same as everyone else - or that his supporters are like everyone else. I disagree. It's something when the POTUS lies every day, states absurdities, re-tweets Alt Right propaganda etc ... and to call him out means that you are branded a hater. I'll repeat what I have said many times - if Obama did 10% of the schtick Trump did - the "right" would have lost their ever living mind. If Obama had overseen an AG who was as much a puppet as Barr their might have been a revolt. Maybe I forgot an incident - but did 2,000 former Justice Dept. officials ever object to something Obama's administration did? Did over a 1000 prosecutors ever sign statement Obama should be indicted? Or those just haters and partisan political hacks?

With Trump and his supporters as well as McConnell and his GOP Senate breaking traditions, scraping rules, abandoning morality, disregarding norms, not believing facts, not accepting evidence, or generally not doing the right thing including ignoring laws being broken is 100% acceptable for the republican side. I hope when history is finally written about this upside down time, most of them (GOPer government officials) end up penniless, shamed into exile, imprisoned, or executed.

Furthermore, I 100% think Flynn colluded with the Russians and was a key figure in the coverup that followed. Unlike dumbass Jr., Flynn absolutely knew better AND being an ex military general should face a charge like treason for his actions.

All the lies, twisting and spinning in the world will never change the fact that he lied to the FBI and is a felon. A clean investigation and unfiltered non-partisan report would have landed the whole lot in jail.

I always thought that police/FBI had the authority to use deception to catch the bad guys. Did that change?

Only for the it's cool if you are a crook, as long as you are our crook party.

Right after they do the clowns that let a guilty POTUS off at impeachment Ted. TED, smfh, TED. He called your wife ugly.

Notice how he said "brought in front of us to testify" vs anything solid.

Just like you're getting at, nothing should terrify any of these folks, on either side of the aisle, more than the concept of accountability.

The problem I have seen at least 100 times is these officials saying one thing to the Media and to the American People only to take it all back when under oath.

They lie like rugs and mislead the population.

Trump is not the same, Trump has set a new low on the downward spiral unlike anything any of us have seen before.. the contrast is made that much more striking because he followed the President who was kept more insulated, more protected, more defended from public scrutiny by the MSM than any public figure I've ever seen.

Trump and his ardent supporters have brought most of it on themselves since he took office but from the election of 2016 it's as though a switch was flipped in the MSM that went from the most heavily protected President any of us have ever seen to the most viciously attacked.. and it happened almost over night. Unfortunately, rather than try to mend any fences, Trump has spent 3+ years heaping new lumps of coal on the fire every chance he gets.

It will be interesting to see where we go from here... neither 4 more years of Trump, who will likely continue his very contentious relationship with the MSM and anybody who disagrees with him... nor 4 years of Biden, who the media will again try to insulate.. is going to fix anything.

Well I agree with what you say about Trump.

I am not sure how Obama fits into that discussion - and it is not accurate at all to lump "MSM" together as protecting Obama. We often hear people boast about how Fox is the most watched 'news' source - so they are the front runner for MSM and they spent 8 years doing nothing but attack Obama day in day out for anything and everything - 90% of it not close to anything Trump might be under the microscope for. And while he wasn't perfect by any regard - and there were real issues he needed to be held accountable for - he was a [censored] cat by comparison to Trump. Whether it was Fast n Furious, Keep your Dr, "I'll have more flexibility after the election", Benghazi, The IRS thing, the beige suit or the bowing .... none of them or all of them don't come close to Trump and his list of (ongoing) scandals.

The rest? They are all politicians, they all lie, deflect, hide inconvenient truths ... doesn't mean that we can't comment and highlight what we think are the most egregious issues one side does or doesn't say.

and here we go again.

yet another person who somehow thinks Fox news isnt the MSM. they are the #1 rated news network. they are the MSM OF MSM.

and obama was RUTHLESSLY attacked by said MSM, again, THE #1 FREAKING RATED NEWS NETWORK OUT THERE.

And by the way, DC, since we're all trying to defend trump from the MSM now, can you remind the board who was the main guy pushing crap birther conspiracies about obama on said #1 FREAKING RATED NEWS SITE and twitter?

here's a hint, he's president now.

Yes they did.. but as far as them being the front runner for MSM, I don't look at it that way.. maybe they still have the most viewers, I don't know... but Fox is the one news outlet that the right turns to, that particular ideological audience has one place to go. On the other side you have CNN, MSNBC, PBS, BBC, NYT, WaPo, all delivering the same message and fighting for the other ideological audience.

So when you have 15 news outlets all saying that what Obama (or anybody on the left) did was "no big deal".. and Fox claiming it was a big deal.. it becomes very easy to make the "that's just some right wing conspiracy stuff" argument.. That is how our media has (mal)functioned for well over 20 years since Fox started growing in popularity..

I saw this tweet the other day and found it amusing... Evidently a network that brands itself as "news outlet" had people on who had different opinions and didn't all agree with each other.. and this concept seemed to completely confuse at least one reporter from CNN...

All you have to do is listen to Obama speak and Trump speak. Trump has done nothing but sow hate, division and mistrust across this nation. I've never seen anything like it. Reasonable people shouldn't blame the media because Trump does nothing but divide and show hate.

Often times the media does show a slant. It comes from both sides. But Trump's own words are what have done him in. Not anyone or anything else.

You are correct. But while 100% focusing on what each one said, the media has largely ignored what each one did.


If your implication is that the liberal and conservative media are two sides of the same coin with the same ability to impact.. well that's as naive as saying that Trump's rhetoric and Obama's rhetoric are two sides of the same coin..

FOX viewers are smart enough to listen to all the reports and then THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

Yet Trump managed to win an election with the same media that represents him today. With two new additions. Sinclair and OAN.

The difference I don't think you are understanding is that a far greater percentage of those on the right hang onto anything and everything that supports them. Many Americas don't actually care what any of the media has to say nor do they pay any attention to them. It's about the actual number of people who listen to the media and which side of the media they actually listen to.

That makes it much closer than you may wish to admit.

What was done to Flynn is criminal.

We agree. He should have hanged immediately.

Fixed it for you.

j/c...

'Everything about this is irregular': Ex-judge tapped to review Flynn case blasts Trump DOJ
The retired judge, John Gleeson, said the Justice Department had improperly bowed to the president's will.



By JOSH GERSTEIN and KYLE CHENEY

06/10/2020 12:36 PM EDT

Updated: 06/10/2020 01:13 PM EDT

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.

A


“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.

The Flynn saga is one of the highest-profile remaining legal matters facing Trump allies. It could drive up pressure on the president to pardon Flynn or commute his sentence in the heat of his reelection campaign.

"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," Gleeson wrote in a filing Wednesday with Sullivan, who formally tapped Gleeson to weigh in as a friend of the court.

However, Gleeson urged Sullivan not to pursue contempt proceedings against Flynn for seemingly contradictory statements made about his actions. Though there is “ample” evidence to support such a move, Gleeson recommended factoring it into Flynn’s sentencing for his initial guilty plea rather than initiating new action related to the about-face.

The brief is a significant new flashpoint in the long-running legal saga surrounding Flynn, Trump’s national security adviser in the first few weeks of his presidency. Trump fired Flynn in February 2017, citing his dishonesty with the FBI and with Vice President Mike Pence over his contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the United States in the weeks before Trump took office.

Flynn, at the time, urged Russia’s envoy to limit its response to outgoing Obama administration measures to punish Russia for interfering in the 2016 election. The FBI interviewed Flynn about those calls days after Trump took office, part of a counterintelligence investigation into Trump campaign contacts with Russia.



Gleeson spent much of brief recounting the events that precipitated Flynn’s December 2017 guilty plea, abrupt reversal and DOJ’s decision to drop the case. He noted that Trump tweeted about the case more than 100 times in the interim.

“Everything about this is irregular,” Gleeson wrote.

“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,” Gleeson continued. “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.”

Gleeson, who served on the Manhattan federal court before stepping down in 2016, was appointed last month by Sullivan to help him tackle the highly unusual Justice Department request to drop the criminal case against Flynn despite the guilty plea he entered back in 2017 as part of a cooperation deal with special counsel Robert Mueller. Both Gleeson and Sullivan are appointees of President Bill Clinton.

Barr ordered the reversal by the government following a review conducted at his request by a U.S. Attorney in Missouri, Jeffrey Jensen. Jensen’s review concluded that the FBI had no legitimate basis to interview Flynn at the January 24, 2017 session where he allegedly lied about his dealings with the Russian ambassador.

A Justice Department spokeswoman offered no specific reaction to Gleeson’s skewering of the department, instead referring to the government’s legal briefs already on file.

In a mid-May interview with CBS News, Barr denied carrying water for Trump and said he viewed the FBI's treatment of Flynn as improper, justifying his decision to seek dismissal of the charges. "There's only one standard of justice. And I believe that this case, that justice in this case requires dismissing the charges against General Flynn."

The recommendation from Gleeson came just two days before a potentially pivotal hearing before a federal appeals court panel weighing a request from Flynn’s attorneys to order Sullivan to drop the pending false-statement case. Flynn’s lawyers have accused the FBI and federal prosecutors of coercing Flynn’s guilty plea through “egregious misconduct” and have also accused Sullivan of bias, asking the D.C. Circuit to reassign the case to another judge for any further proceedings.



If the D.C. Circuit sides with Flynn, the brutal brief Gleeson tendered Wednesday could be moot. One of the issues the appeals judges are considering is whether it was proper for Sullivan to invite the retired judge to weigh in.

If Flynn is sentenced on the false-statement charge, he faces a maximum possible term of five years in prison. However, under the plea deal prosecutors agreed that in accordance with non-binding federal sentencing guidelines any term up to six months was reasonable. In a revised sentencing pleading that drew attention, prosecutors arguably softened their line further by saying they would not object to probation despite concerns that Flynn’s cooperation was not as extensive as promised.

Sullivan had previously indicated he was inclined to sentence Flynn to a jail term, suggesting at a 2018 sentencing hearing that the former national security adviser had arguably “sold your country out.” The judge later retreated from that remark.

If he follows Gleeson’s recommendation, Sullivan could mete out a jail sentence that exceeds the initial recommendation of prosecutors. However, Trump could nullify any sentence with a pardon or commutation.

Gleeson’s submission left largely unaddressed two issues that could still impact the case: whether prosecutors improperly withheld evidence in violation of an order from Sullivan to turn over all material that could be helpful to Flynn’s defense, and whether Flynn’s previous lawyers gave him bad legal advice in connection with his 2017 plea or the 2018 sentencing hearing.

Barr’s move to abandon the criminal case against Flynn ignited a furor on Capitol Hill, where Democrats have accused him of rigging the process in favor of Trump’s allies. It also led to an outcry from many in the legal community, including more than 2,000 former prosecutors and Justice Department employees who signed a letter accusing the attorney general of politicizing the process.

Various individuals and groups have filed a flurry of amicus briefs with Sullivan or the appeals court, offering a range of perspectives on the case.

In one notable brief filed Tuesday night, a traditionally liberal group urged Sullivan not to undertake perjury-related contempt proceedings against Flynn. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers said innocent defendants face intense pressure to plead guilty in the federal system and they should not be exposed to contempt or perjury if they try to withdraw their pleas.

Advertisement


“Because defendants now must choose between admitting the government’s allegations or risking a much higher sentence if a jury returns a guilty verdict, there is no justification for presuming that guilty pleas are truthful,” the NACDL brief argued.

“If, as the Department of Justice now concedes, [Flynn] succumbed to the pressure to plead guilty even though he was legally innocent, he is hardly unique. His decision to do that in no way obstructed justice or interfered with the judicial function. It is not, by any stretch, a contemptuous act,” the group added.

The brief, which seemed to remain neutral on the question of whether Flynn was getting special treatment from DOJ, did not address specific answers Flynn gave under oath to questions asked in court by Sullivan and another judge previously assigned to the case. In a written declaration submitted under penalty of perjury in January, Flynn retreated from or reversed many of those admissions.

Parts of the brief from the defense lawyers’ group seemed intended to serve as a reminder to Gleeson that he has publicly criticized the federal justice system’s reliance on negotiated plea deals, which render trials a rarity in many courts.

Flynn’s allies have argued that Gleeson was a poor choice to advise the court because just days before receiving the friend-of-the-court appointment he co-authored an op-ed in the Washington Post decrying Barr decision to seek to jettison the case.

Flynn's lead lawyer, Sidney Powell, downplayed the new filing on Wednesday. In an email to POLITICO, she dismissed Gleeson's submission as "completely predictable."

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/10/gleeson-flynn-sullivan-barr-justice-department-311018

so we have a real deep-state State operating.... his name is William Barr. And from the Trump supporters? Nada

U.S. appeals court orders judge to dismiss case against former Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/24/us-appea...hael-flynn.html

Justice Served.

Indeed

j/c...

It'll be interesting how this plays out from here.

Benjamin Wittes
@benjaminwittes
After a quick scan of the DC Circuit opinion on the Flynn case, three quick thoughts:
(1) I am confident the majority view on this panel does not represent the majority view on the DC Circuit, which greatly disfavors granting mandamus relief.

Benjamin Wittes
@benjaminwittes
(2) I am not confident, however, that the full Court will hear the matter (though it certainly may), as the DC Circuit also greatly disfavors en banc review.

Benjamin Wittes
@benjaminwittes
(3) I do expect Judge Sullivan to put the matter quickly before the full court, as he has little reason not to and his ability to manage his case is being challenged here by the defendant, the Justice Department, and the panel majority.

Benjamin Wittes
@benjaminwittes
(4) Look for a quick move for a stay and an appeal en banc.

Benjamin Wittes
@benjaminwittes
And here’s a fifth: yes, the full court can review the matter on its own motion, that is, without a move from Judge Sullivan. But I don’t think that will likely be necessary, as I can think of no reason why Judge Sullivan wouldn’t seek en banc review of this ruling.

https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/1275806206536364035

That is NOT justice served... that's pressure put on judges by the DOJ to follow what the Alt-Right scum wants.

FLYNN LIED... I don't care about anything else.. He's a liar and he got caught..

Judge Napolitano: 'General Flynn wins,' he can sue DOJ for legal fees".

Sweet Justice.

Explosive New FBI Notes Confirm Obama Directed Anti-Flynn Operation

Corruption

Explosive New FBI Notes Confirm Obama Directed Anti-Flynn Operation
Handwritten notes from fired former FBI agent Peter Strzok show that Obama himself directed key aspects of the campaign to target Flynn during a Jan. 5, 2017 meeting in the Oval Office.
Sean Davis and Mollie Hemingway
By Sean Davis and Mollie Hemingway
June 24, 2020

Newly released notes confirm President Barack Obama’s key role in surveillance and leak operation against Michael Flynn, the incoming Trump administration national security adviser. The handwritten notes, which were first disclosed in a federal court filing made by the Department of Justice on Tuesday, show President Obama himself personally directed former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates to investigate Flynn for having routine phone calls with a Russian counterpart. He also suggests they withhold information from President Trump and his key national security figures.

The handwritten notes from fired former FBI agent Peter Strzok appear to describe a Jan. 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting between Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Comey, Yates, and then-national security adviser Susan Rice. The meeting and its substance were confirmed in a bizarre Inauguration Day email Rice wrote to herself.

It was at this meeting, which was confirmed by testimony from Comey and Yates, that Obama gave guidance to key officials who would be tasked with protecting his administration’s utilization of secretly funded Clinton campaign research, which alleged Trump was involved in a treasonous plot to collude with Russia, from being discovered or stopped by the incoming administration.

Yates told the special counsel that Obama broke the news of Flynn’s phone calls with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to her during the Jan. 5 meeting. Rice detailed further involvement from Obama. “President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia,” she wrote in her email.

The new notes, which record Comey’s accounting to Strzok of the meeting’s substance, constitute definitive evidence that Obama himself was personally directing significant aspects of a criminal investigation into his political enemy’s top foreign policy adviser. An image of the notes is reproduced below. This is a rough transcript of the unredacted portion of the notes:

NSA-D-DAG = [Flynn cuts?]. Other countries

D-DAG: lean forward on [unclass?]

VP: “Logan Act”

P: These are unusual times

VP: I’ve been on the intel cmte for ten years and I never

P: Make sure you look at things + have the right people on it

P: Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling transition team?

D: Flynn –> Kislyak calls but appear legit

[illegible] Happy New Year. Yeah right

Peter Strzok’s Notes Confirm Obama Personally Ordered Hit On Michael Flynn by The Federalist on Scribd

“Make sure you look at things and have the right people on it,” Obama is quoted as saying.

Comey’s description that the Flynn-Kislyak phone calls appear “legit,” shorthand for “legitimate,” is also in the notes. Until this week, this exculpatory information was withheld from Flynn and his defense team, multiple congressional committees, and the American public. A lengthy campaign to illegally leak selectively edited defamatory information through media accessories damaged the Trump administration and spurred the appointment of a special counsel to investigate anyone associated with the Trump campaign.

According to Strzok’s notes, Biden explicitly referenced the Logan Act, an 18th-century law that forbids certain political speech from private citizens. The law, even if it were constitutional, would not apply to a national security adviser for the newly elected president of the United States. Biden had previously denied that he knew anything about the investigation into Flynn.

“I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn,” Biden said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” when George Stephanopoulos asked what he knew of the FBI’s operations in early 2017. He later admitted that statement was false.

The meeting to strategize against the Trump administration included just a few key law enforcement principals. Their testimony about what transpired is sometimes in conflict. Yates claimed Comey brought up the Logan Act while Comey claims Biden cited it. Rice claimed Obama directed that the anti-Trump operation be run “by the book,” but Comey claimed Obama even directed which personnel to use.

All parties agree, however, on the main substance of the meeting, which was a discussion of how to target Flynn for his “legit” phone calls and withhold vital national security information from the newly elected presidential administration.

Attorney General William Barr has directed an investigation into the spying and leaking operation, led by U.S. Attorney John Durham. Durham, whose investigation is ongoing, has not yet issued any indictments or any reports of his findings thus far. Barr has repeatedly stated that if Durham finds evidence of criminal wrongdoing that can be proved in a court beyond a reasonable doubt, then those responsible for the criminal acts will be held to account.

The handwritten notes from Strzok, which were included in a court filing from the Justice Department, were filed under seal by order of Emmett Sullivan, the judge overseeing Flynn’s criminal trial. The judge has ordered the documents to be hidden and has given no indication that he will ever allow all of the evidence filed by the DOJ to be publicly disclosed. When the DOJ moved to dismiss charges against Flynn, Sullivan refused to grant their request and instead appointed a shadow prosecutor to target Flynn on Sullivan’s behalf.

Following an appeal by Flynn, the top federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday ordered the judge to dismiss all charges against Flynn. That court also vacated his appointment of a shadow prosecutor to target Flynn.



https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/24/exp...lynn-operation/

Flynn lied.. Doesn't matter how you dress it up, he lied

He obviously cares not about liars. He’s a trump sycophant after all.

let me throw some tin foil out there from the federalist... smh

I find it hard to believe we live in the same world but not the same reality. That steady diet of alt-right content has been so toxic for people like you. When do you think you crossed the threshold of not being able to smell a lie just by how ridiculous it sounds?

Flynn and Stone both have their jail time tied to who is in the oval. If this drags on until January and Biden gets in, this will suddenly shift back to a real process and others will be charged as well for all the corruption under Barr.

Hell, FOX News gave old Ollie North his own show and Barr was all up in that one too getting an illegal arms dealer selling weapons to Iran off the hook.

They love supporting a criminal.