Jump to content
horn4life

Flynn Walks.. DOJ drops case

Recommended Posts

Good to be a friend of a corrupt President with some knowledge of his corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Flynn would have been executed in a country with a credible justice system. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is, honestly, a hell of a defense job by that crazy-ass Dallas lawyeress.

She pushed a borderline frivolous motion so hard she finally got some poo to fling.

And the feces on the wall gave the Trump DOJ just enough cover to dismiss.

I'm not real excited that Flynn is getting off, but I do like the implied smackdown of the FBI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, we still haven't gotten the actual court filing yet, but early reporting is that DOJ is saying it had concluded that Flynn's interview by the FBI was "untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn" and that the interview on January 24, 2017 was "conducted without any legitimate investigative basis."

Cheers to anastasia, he gets his """justice""" and a person described by a sitting judge as a traitor gets to walk scot-free. 

Just try not to forget the context while celebrating the miscarriage of justice:

Quote

 

When Flynn was forced out of the White House in February, officials said he had misled the administration, including Vice President Pence, about his contacts with Kislyak. But court records and people familiar with the contacts indicated he was acting in consultation with senior Trump transition officials, including President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, in his dealings with the diplomat.

Flynn's plea revealed that he was in touch with senior Trump transition officials before and after his communications with the ambassador.

The pre-inauguration communications with Kislyak involved efforts to blunt Obama administration policy decisions — on sanctions on Russia and a U.N. resolution on Israel — potential violations of a rarely enforced law.

...

Flynn admitted in his plea that he lied to the FBI about several December conversations with Kislyak. In one, on Dec. 22, he contacted the Russian ambassador about the incoming administration's opposition to a U.N. resolution condemning Israeli settlements as illegal and requested that Russia vote against or delay it, court records say. The ambassador later called back and indicated Russia would not vote against it, the records say.

In another conversation, on Dec. 29, Flynn called the ambassador to ask Russia not to escalate an ongoing feud over sanctions imposed by the Obama administration, court records say. The ambassador later called back and said Russia had chosen not to retaliate, the records say.

Flynn admitted as a part of his plea that when the FBI asked him on Jan. 24 — four days after Trump was inaugurated — about his dealings with the Russians, he did not truthfully describe the interactions. But perhaps more interestingly, he said others in the transition knew he was in contact with Kislyak.

His goal was subversion of US policy of a sitting US president, literally acting against the national interest abroad. And the trump admin knew about it and did nothing about it.

Now in the eyes of the law, it doesn't look like anything at all to them. Fuck everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

That is, honestly, a hell of a defense job by that crazy-ass Dallas lawyeress.

She pushed a borderline frivolous motion so hard she finally got some poo to fling.

And the feces on the wall gave the Trump DOJ just enough cover to dismiss.

I'm not real excited that Flynn is getting off, but I do like the implied smackdown of the FBI.

But remember this -- under the Trump admin, there will ALWAYS be some basis to criticize/attack any enforcement of the law against allies of the admin.

Rule of law for thee, but not for me.  We're a banana republic, but you knew that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't, because the context matters. It's a smackdown of the FBI actually investigating and prosecuting extremely and obviously corrupt and illegal acts by the President's friends. This, and the SCOTUS ruling overturning the Bridgegate convictions today, are a pretty clear message that the law doesn't apply to the politically-connected. I'll applaud an FBI smackdown when the FBI gets slapped for fucking with regular people. I'm not holding my breath for that.

My retort, which is not in support of the Trump administration or Flynn, is if there were good evidence of more serious criminal activity than perjury, why didn't they indict for that?  I suppose such charges could still be filed.

And Bridgegate, seriously?  A unanimous opinion authored by Kagan?  About the government stretching criminal laws to apply to quasi-criminal acts?  Civil libertarians should be dancing in the streets.

For a liberal, and a lawyer, you seem unwilling to see abuses by the government's criminal apparatus when you don't like the defendants.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Flynn must be extremely valuable for Trump’s re-election campaign.  No way Trump goes to all this effort for a foot soldier. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Is he the first one to "get off" in this whole shit show?

Edited by Biff Tannen
it's up there on a tee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

My retort, which is not in support of the Trump administration or Flynn, is if there were good evidence of more serious criminal activity than perjury, why didn't they indict for that?  I suppose such charges could still be filed.

It's possible that they can't - the working theory since we don't have visibility into the deal(s) he may have made, he has immunity from other prosecution because of his plea deal on this case.

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Rent free. 

Suck my hairy ass and read and respond to the rest of my post while you celebrate the clearing of a person who actively conspired to subvert US foreign policy to the favor of russia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

My retort, which is not in support of the Trump administration or Flynn, is if there were good evidence of more serious criminal activity than perjury, why didn't they indict for that?  I suppose such charges could still be filed.

And Bridgegate, seriously?  A unanimous opinion authored by Kagan?  About the government stretching criminal laws to apply to quasi-criminal acts?  Civil libertarians should be dancing in the streets.

For a liberal, and a lawyer, you seem unwilling to see abuses by the government's criminal apparatus when you don't like the defendants.

The various levels of government in America abuse the criminal apparatus against ordinary Americans hundreds of thousands of times a day. I'm not going to lose sleep the one time they do it against a politically-connected general who is very arguably a traitor to his country. If the law is going to be cruel and unjust, I'd prefer for it to be wholly arbitrary than for it to be cruel and unjust for most of us while a certain class that is politically-preferred is simply above it. Give me the jungle over modern Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Is he the first one to "get off" in this whole shit show?

The russian hackers case was dismissed.  That one kind of reflected poorly on Mueller as the individual defendants were never going to appear and the corporate ones to whom a conviction meant nothing were ragging the government around pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

The various levels of government in America abuse the criminal apparatus against ordinary Americans hundreds of thousands of times a day. I'm not going to lose sleep the one time they do it against a politically-connected general who is very arguably a traitor to his country. If the law is going to be cruel and unjust, I'd prefer for it to be wholly arbitrary than for it to be cruel and unjust for most of us while a certain class that is politically-preferred is simply above it. Give me the jungle over modern Russia.

Fair points.  My ire was aroused more by the Bridgegate comment than Flynn.  While Bridgegate results in the acquittal of some nasty political operatives, it is a precedent that narrows the federal criminal law against all potential defendants.

I think Flynn is a dirty fucker doing the bidding of other dirty fuckers.  But the FBI seemed unconcerned with his dirty fuckerness and seeking "justice" for it, rather seeking seemingly inappropriate tactical objectives of getting him fired or hanging him up on some relatively chickenshit stuff.  I don't like that one bit, even if it might have served the objective of getting him out of a position of power.

Hell, by the FBI's stated objectives, the mission of this prosecution has been accomplished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Previously (and I just posted this reminder in the Mueller thread):

 

Here's a reading of the transcript in a sentencing hearing.  

 

 

 

Except now, Bill Barr says, "Gosh, we're just going to have to walk away from this case, because Trump's DOJ can't possibly prove what this traitor has unequivocally admitted to doing."

Edited by Paul Wesley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Can someone give me a one paragraph run down of what happened here?

The government has recordings of Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador.The FBI has the recordings of their interview with Flynn in which he lies about his conversation with the Russian ambassador. Flynn pled guilty to lying to FBI, and was convicted pursuant to his guilty plea. 

His conviction has not been overturned. This shouldn't be possible. Then again, Barr intervened on behalf of Roger Stone, forcing prosecutors to resign in protest, yet pursued prosecution of Andrew McCabe even after the humiliation of failing to secure a Grand Jury indictment.

Flynn never ratted on Trump, claimed not to remember whether Trump knew about or directed his call to the Russian ambassador Kislyak. That earned him immunity for all of his crimes, because under Trump and Barr the United States operates as a banana republic. Once again, the respected non-partisan prosecutor has resigned, and the order to withdraw comes from Barr's personal politcal lackey Timothy Shea.

Sorry it's more than one paragraph, but that's the short of it.

One interesting wrinkle is that this is only but a motion, and Judge Sullivan - who asked Flynn why he betrayed his country - does have the power to deny the motion. But hey, we live in a failed state, so fuggit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Suck my hairy ass and read and respond to the rest of my post while you celebrate the clearing of a person who actively conspired to subvert US foreign policy to the favor of russia. 

Show me where I cheered anything you delusional dumbfuck. As I said on the other thread, he plead the crime, he should do the time, and generate less whine.  I realize that the last part of that is a concept that you particularly struggle with. 

Edited by Anastasis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

Previously (and I just posted this reminder in the Mueller thread):

 

Here's a reading of the transcript in a sentencing hearing.  

 

 

 

Except now, Bill Barr says, "Gosh, we're just going to have to walk away from this case, because Trump's DOJ can't possibly prove what this traitor has unequivocally admitted to doing."

The beauty of the news cycle and one outrageous act following another.  We've grown numb, and our new normal accepts treason and the flaunting of laws by those in power or connected to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Please scootch over and make some more room on the ledge. Pour me a Rohypenol cocktail while you're at it.

Edited by Degenerate Gardner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This, and the SCOTUS ruling overturning the Bridgegate convictions today, are a pretty clear message that the law doesn't apply to the politically-connected.

You think today's events send the clear message that the politcally-connected can do as they please?  Bless your heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Fair points.  My ire was aroused more by the Bridgegate comment than Flynn.  While Bridgegate results in the acquittal of some nasty political operatives, it is a precedent that narrows the federal criminal law against all potential defendants.

I think Flynn is a dirty fucker doing the bidding of other dirty fuckers.  But the FBI seemed unconcerned with his dirty fuckerness and seeking "justice" for it, rather seeking seemingly inappropriate tactical objectives of getting him fired or hanging him up on some relatively chickenshit stuff.  I don't like that one bit, even if it might have served the objective of getting him out of a position of power.

Hell, by the FBI's stated objectives, the mission of this prosecution has been accomplished.

I just quoted this in the re-opening thread in a different context, but it applies here as well:

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

I know you don't think this decision will lead to the FBI more equitably investigating and prosecuting violations of the law. In fact, it's a pretty explicit signal that politicians are not who they should be investigating, regardless of their conduct, and to focus on the criminals who matter: the little people. That's why, to the extent a rebuke of their behavior is warranted, I don't applaud it in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

Please scootch over and make some more room on the ledge. 

The ledge just fell off the goddamn building

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Can someone give me a one paragraph run down of what happened here?

Flynn pled guilty to one count of lying to the FBI about contacts with Kislyak.

The FBI knew that he was lying when he answered the question.  So that makes the false statement potentially immaterial, raising a possible defense.

The FBI and the US Attorneys didn't disclose all the notes preparatory to interviewing him.  The notes reveal that the FBI knew he lied when he lied.  Thus, this was exculpatory material that the government was obliged to turn over under Brady v. Maryland.  Supposedly, there was more.  And there's a bit more nuance to the materiality question concerning the scope of the investigation that amounts to "they drummed up a crime that wasn't part of a legitimate investigation goal."

The defense raised by this material was not a particularly good one because courts broadly define materiality in these prosecutions.

The Brady violation is fairly serious anytime it happens, but doesn't necessarily result in dismissal of a case.

It did this time for fairly obvious reasons (Trump, Barr), but it might have in other circumstances, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fudge Nuggets said:

You think today's events send the clear message that the politcally-connected can do as they please?  Bless your heart.

Well I didn't say that message hasn't been sent a thousand times before, today's events are just shitty reminders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I just quoted this in the re-opening thread in a different context, but it applies here as well:

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

I know you don't think this decision will lead to the FBI more equitably investigating and prosecuting violations of the law. In fact, it's a pretty explicit signal that politicians are not who they should be investigating, regardless of their conduct, and to focus on the criminals who matter: the little people. That's why, to the extent a rebuke of their behavior is warranted, I don't applaud it in this case.

A good point, I concede.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder - Flynn was literally taking a paycheck from Russia to lobby on behalf of Turkey while he was Trump's national security advisor. And he lied to the FBI about communications with a russian ambassador in which he sought to undermine US foreign policy. 

Who all's looking forward to the announcement from DOJ in mid-October about fresh new investigations into Biden???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Flynn pled guilty to one count of lying to the FBI about contacts with Kislyak.

The FBI knew that he was lying when he answered the question.  So that makes the false statement potentially immaterial, raising a possible defense.

The FBI and the US Attorneys didn't disclose all the notes preparatory to interviewing him.  The notes reveal that the FBI knew he lied when he lied.  Thus, this was exculpatory material that the government was obliged to turn over under Brady v. Maryland.  Supposedly, there was more.  And there's a bit more nuance to the materiality question concerning the scope of the investigation that amounts to "they drummed up a crime that wasn't part of a legitimate investigation goal."

The defense raised by this material was not a particularly good one because courts broadly define materiality in these prosecutions.

The Brady violation is fairly serious anytime it happens, but doesn't necessarily result in dismissal of a case.

It did this time for fairly obvious reasons (Trump, Barr), but it might have in other circumstances, as well.

I cannot follow this logic.  Explain to me *why* the FBI notes would have been exculpatory?  

I mean, every time a criminal is lying during an interview, and one law enforcement agent scribbles a note that says, "'This guy is a fucking lying liar," but the prosecutors don't later turn over a copy of that scribbled note to the defense attorney, they've committed a Brady violation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The notes reveal that the FBI knew he lied when he lied.  Thus, this was exculpatory material that the government was obliged to turn over under Brady v. Maryland.

How the hell does the FBI knowing he lied become evidence that clears him of (checks notes) lying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Can someone give me a one paragraph run down of what happened here?

Phase 1 of Reopening America Again.

Honestly, I've lost track of all of the characters in this story and they're starting to run together for me. It's like reading a Gabriel Garcia Marquez book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

I cannot follow this logic.  Explain to me *why* the FBI notes would have been exculpatory?  

I mean, every time a criminal is lying during an interview, and one law enforcement agent scribbles a note that says, "'This guy is a fucking lying liar," but the prosecutors don't later turn over a copy of that scribbled note to the defense attorney, they've committed a Brady violation?

The argument would be that it makes the lie immaterial. I'm not a federal criminal law guy, but it's not unreasonable if you view the purpose of the law a certain way. By way of example, if I remember correctly, Papadopoulos lied to the FBI and his lie allowed a guy who was a potential co-conspirator to flee the country. That makes his lie material because it clearly impeded the investigation. On the other hand, if they had known his lie was a lie when he told it, it wouldn't have affected the investigation and the argument goes that in that case, it's not material. Thus, proof that they knew Flynn was lying when he lied to them could be exculpatory Brady material.  However, my understanding is that courts construe the materiality requirement quite broadly and that such an argument never works for anyone who isn't a politically-connected guy whose testimony could implicate the President in crimes.

Edited by wildcat09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mole said:

Phase 1 of Reopening America Again.

Honestly, I've lost track of all of the characters in this story and they're starting to run together for me. It's like reading a Gabriel Garcia Marquez book.

The Maldias are a confusing lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The president faulted former President Barack Obama's administration and said: "They're human scum ... It's treason.""

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does Agent Stork fit into this?  Why was the case about to be closed before he argued, internally but now info apparently released, to keep it open?  @TwiceHorn  I can't and haven't kept up with the details.  Why was it about to be closed then, apparently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Can someone give me a one paragraph run down of what happened here?

Bill Barr’s justice department decided it didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute crimes that Flynn plead guilty to in public and under oath to a judge, twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Bill Barr’s justice department decided it didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute crimes that Flynn plead guilty to in public and under oath to a judge, twice.

It's funny how none of these people care one bit about their place in history.

All of their reputations are forever tarnished and they don't seem to mind. It's weird.

Edited by David Dennison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

It's funny how none of these people care one bit about their place in history.

All of their reputations are forever tarnished and they don't seem to mind. It's weird.

They think they or their friends/heirs will get to write history. They're probably not wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

They think they or their friends/heirs will get to write history. They're probably not wrong.

They're wrong. Ask Nixon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...