charges dropped against Flynn

[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....

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by 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....

Obama also told trump do not Hire flynn during the transition

why should Obama esplain anything ... seeing you dont care about the Guy who lied about his contacts with the russians ,, admitted it, plead guilty twice . but now he's a conservative Hero ????

Like I said Trump supporters love the rule of law as long as it only applies to thoses with a D after their Names

is it perjury if you plead guilty under oath but you didn't do it? so now he lied 3 times 2 he did it and 1 he did not?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Obama also told trump do not Hire flynn during the transition

why should Obama esplain anything ... seeing you dont care about the Guy who lied about his contacts with the russians ,, admitted it, plead guilty twice . but now he's a conservative Hero ????

Like I said Trump supporters love the rule of law as long as it only applies to thoses with a D after their Names

is it perjury if you plead guilty under oath but you didn't do it? so now he lied 3 times 2 he did it and 1 he did not?

"Like I said Trump supporters love the rule of law as long as it only applies to thoses with a D after their Names"

If Flynn broke the law, he should be punished. Unless law enforcement trampled on his rights to get him to break the law. Are you saying they should be allowed to do that? Or, are you saying that somehow, you know that didn't happen in this case? If that's what you're saying, please tell us how you happen to know that? I'd be very interested to know how you could know that, when what we do know, if that the FBI had notes asking if the goal was to get him fired, and we know that DOJ lawyers improperly withheld information from the defense and the judge. Given that, I'd be very curious to know how you concluded that his rights were respected throughout the process. I'd really like to hear that.

[Pete F.]

The investigation was open when the FBI interviewed Flynn. And at the time of the interview, the FBI knew that Flynn had held secret discussions with Russia about national security matters, and then lied about it repeatedly. They had to interview him.

Moreover, the umbrella investigation under which Crossfire Razor was established, Crossfire Hurricane, was also still open. Secret conversations with Russia about sanctions imposed by the Obama administration were potentially highly relevant to the issue of possible coordination with Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. At the very least, such dealings would raise the question of possible payback for Russia’s help with the election.

There are at least two likely explanations for Barr’s taking such an bogus position.

The most obvious is that he was—yet again—acting primarily to please Trump, as his consigliere.

Less obvious, but perhaps equally likely, is that Barr doesn’t like the way the FBI conducted the interview. Barr clearly believes that rather than handing Flynn the rope with which he could hang himself, the FBI should have told him in advance that they knew there was a disconnect between the facts and what Flynn had told Spicer and Pence, and steered him onto safe ground. But that wouldn’t provide a legal rationale for dismissing the case, so Barr had to make one up.

At the end of the day, however, it really doesn’t matter what pretext Barr offers for his actions. What matters is that he is subverting justice.

Judge Sullivan should not let him get away with it.

And that doesn't even begin to deal with Flynn's FARA violations, taking over half a million from a foreign country, a plot to kidnap, etc.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Like I said Trump supporters love the rule of law as long as it only applies to thoses with a D after their Names"

If Flynn broke the law, he should be punished. Unless law enforcement trampled on his rights to get him to break the law. Are you saying they should be allowed to do that? Or, are you saying that somehow, you know that didn't happen in this case? If that's what you're saying, please tell us how you happen to know that? I'd be very interested to know how you could know that, when what we do know, if that the FBI had notes asking if the goal was to get him fired, and we know that DOJ lawyers improperly withheld information from the defense and the judge. Given that, I'd be very curious to know how you concluded that his rights were respected throughout the process. I'd really like to hear that.

Non of what you wrote happened his rights weren't Trampled that's just another made up conspiracy, notes are notes but the notes never said plant false evidence or pull out his nails or or water board him .. basically get this Russian loving former General ..who lied to us. PS Trump fired him not the FBI so there goes that argument.... and the FBI did and caught him in 2 lies.. ps once again law enforcement can not force you to lie..in front of a judge no less...unless torture is involved.

But it's ok for Trump to pardon a war criminal? Your crazy if you think this administration is pro rule of law for all
Their action clearly show they are only concerned of what laws or investigation actions benfit them


That's why they keep reinvestgating incidents that have all ready been investigated.. looking for anything they can use to discredit our legal system as a whole .... and they are doing the same with voting fraud again

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Non of what you wrote happened his rights weren't Trampled that's just another made up conspiracy, notes are notes but the notes never said plant false evidence or pull out his nails or or water board him .. hey basically get this Russian loving former General ..who lie to us. PS Trump fired him not the FBI so there goes that argument.... and they did and caught him in 2 lies

But it's ok for Trump to pardon a war criminal?

"Non of what you wrote happened his rights weren't Trampled that's just another made up conspiracy, "

How do you know this? What about the things that the DOJ lawyers withheld from the defense and from the judge? id that happen, or am I making that up?

"PS Trump fired him not the FBI so there goes that argument.... "

The FBI note didn't say "let's fire him". It said "is the goal to get him fired." They got him fired. So it exactly supports the argument. Exactly.

How do you know they didn't violate his rights? The judge hasn't ruled yet, but somehow you know. Please explain how you know? Or cite a source? Or are you just jumping to the most anti-Trump conclusion possible, which is what you always do?

As I said, I have zero knowledge of what happened (other than the note, and the fact that they withheld documents that should have been shared). Of course it's entirely possible that you happen to know a lot more of what happened than I do. But ware we just supposed to assume you do? Can you support your conclusion that his right weren't trampled?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

But it's ok for Trump to pardon a war criminal?

which war criminal are you referring to?