Are Barr/Trump slowly unraveling the Michael Flynn prosecution?

[Jhhnn]

How is it unsupportable? I just supported it.

Here is an article talking about Barr and Durham constantly helping each other in this case.

Flynn bombshell puts renewed attention on Durham probe, source says Barr talking to him ‘every day’

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. Attorney for Connecticut John Durham has reviewed the bombshell files released earlier this week showing FBI officials discussed whether they wanted to interview Michael Flynn in order to “get him to lie,” sources familiar with his investigation told Fox News, as the document...

www.foxnews.com

Anonymous Fox News source.... Oh, yeh.

 

[soundforbjt]

Anonymous Fox News source.... Oh, yeh.

beat me to it.

 

[HumblePie]

Anonymous Fox News source.... Oh, yeh.

So you believe Durham is working in a bubble and not sharing information with Barr and others at the DoJ? uhh okay... that shows you're not capable of rational thought.

 

[ivwshane]

So you believe Durham is working in a bubble and not sharing information with Barr and others at the DoJ? uhh okay... that shows you're not capable of rational thought.

No, we believe your sources are shit and have a habit of making things up.

 

[dank69]

So you believe Durham is working in a bubble and not sharing information with Barr and others at the DoJ? uhh okay... that shows you're not capable of rational thought.

Do you understand that Durham is working for Barr and Trump to find anything they can use to get Flynn off instead of serving the American people?

 

[soundforbjt]

Do you understand that Durham is working for Barr and Barr is working for Trump to find anything they can use to get Flynn off instead of serving the American people?

ftfy

 

[VRAMdemon]

So very Banana Republic...Too bad he pleaded to lying to the FBI. For...er, you know, lying to the FBI. He pleaded guilty because he was quite obviously and demonstrably guilty.

On the same day Brandon van Grack withdrew from the case. Funny that. Barr getting his hands dirty again. The only attorney signing the order is Bill Barr, apparently, Not a single line attorney. Van Grack likely quit for the same reasons all four of the prosecutors withdrew from the Roger Stone case. Just can't stomach this ongoing perversion of justice by the Barr DOJ.

DOJ - "The Government is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue,"

In other words, since Trump did nothing wrong, Flynn did nothing wrong, so there was no reason to investigate him, therefore it was ok for him to lie to the FBI, because the FBI are the real crooks in this story. Lol...

A reminder about Flynn's lies:

The Mueller report's account of Michael Flynn's lies

WASHINGTON (AP) — Somehow, The Washington Post had uncovered Michael Flynn's secret. Somehow, it had learned that he had spoken with Russia's ambassador the same day the Obama administration announced hefty sanctions on the country.

apnews.com

He didn't have to hide his actions with Kisliak, didn't have to lie about it to anyone, including Pence.

He could have just looked those FBI guys straight in the eye and said, "Yeah, I did it! I told those Russians not to retaliate on the sanctions thing, because a new Sheriff was gonna be in town! What are you guys going to do about it? Charge me with violating the unconstitutional Logan Act? haha!"

And that would have been the end of it! He didn't have to spend 8.5 million on his defense, lose his house or go broke, because he did nothing illegal!

But... Flynn was "trapped" into making those statements?!..Suuuure he was

 

[Jhhnn]

So you believe Durham is working in a bubble and not sharing information with Barr and others at the DoJ? uhh okay... that shows you're not capable of rational thought.

I said Barr has not attributed any of it to Durham, but you certainly have. There's no indication that the documents revealed were not part of the court record all along, either.

 

[fskimospy]

It will be important after this is all over to remove any and all officials that came on during the Trump administration because the DOJ has been massively corrupted during this time.

 

[hal2kilo]

It will be important after this is all over to remove any and all officials that came on during the Trump administration because the DOJ has been massively corrupted during this time.

The whole Trump touched government. And then pack the courts.

 

[compuwiz1]

It will be important after this is all over to remove any and all officials that came on during the Trump administration because the DOJ has been massively corrupted during this time.

It'll be awhile, probably to 2024 or 2028. Funny though, every administration tends to want to remove the holdovers. Where Trump ran into problems is he didn't boot enough of them soon enough. Those who work at the pleasure of the POTUS need to be flushed with every ADMIN, IMO.

 

[ivwshane]

It'll be awhile, probably to 2024 or 2028. Funny though, every administration tends to want to remove the holdovers. Where Trump ran into problems is he didn't boot enough of them soon enough. Those who work at the pleasure of the POTUS need to be flushed with every ADMIN, IMO.

You do realize that the trump administration has had the highest turnover in modern history, right? All most all them are his people.

 

[Fenixgoon]

It'll be awhile, probably to 2024 or 2028. Funny though, every administration tends to want to remove the holdovers. Where Trump ran into problems is he didn't boot enough of them soon enough. Those who work at the pleasure of the POTUS need to be flushed with every ADMIN, IMO.

Yeah, screw having institutional continuity.

 

[TheVrolok]

Funny though, every administration tends to want to remove the holdovers.

You know that's not true, right? (I mean of course you don't)

There are TONS of career civil servants in government that work for the good of the people and not for policial motives. We saw a number of them during the impeachment hearings that served admirably under both democratic and republican administrations.

 

[cytg111]

History is written by the winners? Posted yet?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1258541374527266816

 

[TheVrolok]

History is written by the winners? Posted yet?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1258541374527266816

Wow Barr is such a piece of shit.

 

[hal2kilo]

Yeah, screw having institutional continuity.

We're talking political government employee jobs, which for the most part is solely upper management. Continuity not observed.

 

[fskimospy]

It'll be awhile, probably to 2024 or 2028. Funny though, every administration tends to want to remove the holdovers. Where Trump ran into problems is he didn't boot enough of them soon enough. Those who work at the pleasure of the POTUS need to be flushed with every ADMIN, IMO.

That’s true, Trump ran into problems because he and his associates were committing a lot of crimes and the DOJ was trying to enforce the law.

Funny how no prior president ran into these problems, why do you think that is?

 

[sportage]

Fox News is obsessed with Flynn, naturally.
I mean, its better to talk about anything besides 70,000+ Covid 19 deaths.
You want to know how many people give a shet about Michale Flynn?
ZERO!
Z E R O give a damn about Michael Flynn.
ZERO, besides Faux News.

 

[HumblePie]

This is yet another fundamental misunderstanding of the law. The government has made a request of judge Sullivan, one he can approve or deny. If he denies the government’s motion to drop the case he can move forward and sentence Flynn anyway.

Skeptical judge could hold up Trump administration's bid to clear Flynn, legal experts say

The notoriously independent-minded federal judge who once said he was disgusted by the conduct of Michael Flynn could block the administration's bid to drop criminal charges against the former adviser to President Donald Trump, legal experts said.

www.reuters.com

Nothing I said was incorrect of the law. Judges don't bring cases to trial. The current case is over. The judge can complete sentencing or dismiss. Even if the judge completes sentencing, all it takes is an appeal and it's an automatic win for Flynn if no one brings the case up on appeal from the other side. No pardon by Trump required. So it really doesn't matter what the judge does at this moment because if the DoJ no longer wishes to bring the case to court, a judge can't do anything about it. Judges just arbitrate and give verdicts. They don't make arguments (well technically they don't but a lot of judges like to argue in the plebian manner anyhow) or try cases.

The only thing the judge can do is delay sentencing a little longer before she gets in trouble for doing that too long if she doesn't want to dismiss. Barr though is specifically asking to dismiss with prejudice so that Flynn can't be brought back up on these charges later. Since he wasn't found innocent in a court of law, he could technically be brought right back to trial later otherwise by a different administration in the future without a pardon by Trump.

The last scenario that could play out is that the judge doesn't dismiss, an appeal is made and motions for a new trial begin. The DoJ starts the trial, but basically feeds the defense all the info they need to win the appeal. This is a bit more of a risky gamble though. If the case is won at that point by Flynn, then he can't be brought back up on charges for this again. That whole Double Jeopardy thing. There is also a chance Flynn still loses despite the prosecution trying to make him win. That would be a strange outcome. At this point I am making potential speculative what if scenarios, but without the DoJ willing to commit to try the case anymore from Barr's decision, there isn't much the Judge can do about it. Again, its that whole appeal or pardon outcome that can happen. Even if the Judge really wanted to sentence Flynn to jail time, it wouldn't happen at this point.

Now as for opinions on if the DoJ and Barr are doing the right or wrong thing at this juncture, I don't care. The case against Flynn seemed dumb as shit to me, but if he went to jail or not is no sweat off my nose. Playing devils advocate I can see the arguments on both sides of this and see merits in both arguments. Hoping Durhams probe puts this whole thing to the past one way or another.

 

[Vic]

I love how these conservative chuckleheads are suddenly discovering this statute and how the FBI has used it for decades. They are outraged, not because of the thousands of other people who have been convicted by it but because someone who is on their team has been.

I have to say I am consistently surprised at how little shame these people have.

The thousands of other people deserved it, but that one guy, who is on our side when that became politically convenient, OMG thats a fuckin outrage.

 

[fskimospy]

Nothing I said was incorrect of the law. Judges don't bring cases to trial. The current case is over. The judge can complete sentencing or dismiss. Even if the judge completes sentencing, all it takes is an appeal and it's an automatic win for Flynn if no one brings the case up on appeal from the other side. No pardon by Trump required. So it really doesn't matter what the judge does at this moment because if the DoJ no longer wishes to bring the case to court, a judge can't do anything about it. Judges just arbitrate and give verdicts. They don't make arguments (well technically they don't but a lot of judges like to argue in the plebian manner anyhow) or try cases.

The only thing the judge can do is delay sentencing a little longer before she gets in trouble for doing that too long if she doesn't want to dismiss. Barr though is specifically asking to dismiss with prejudice so that Flynn can't be brought back up on these charges later. Since he wasn't found innocent in a court of law, he could technically be brought right back to trial later otherwise by a different administration in the future without a pardon by Trump.

The last scenario that could play out is that the judge doesn't dismiss, an appeal is made and motions for a new trial begin. The DoJ starts the trial, but basically feeds the defense all the info they need to win the appeal. This is a bit more of a risky gamble though. If the case is won at that point by Flynn, then he can't be brought back up on charges for this again. That whole Double Jeopardy thing. There is also a chance Flynn still loses despite the prosecution trying to make him win. That would be a strange outcome. At this point I am making potential speculative what if scenarios, but without the DoJ willing to commit to try the case anymore from Barr's decision, there isn't much the Judge can do about it. Again, its that whole appeal or pardon outcome that can happen. Even if the Judge really wanted to sentence Flynn to jail time, it wouldn't happen at this point.

Now as for opinions on if the DoJ and Barr are doing the right or wrong thing at this juncture, I don't care. The case against Flynn seemed dumb as shit to me, but if he went to jail or not is no sweat off my nose. Playing devils advocate I can see the arguments on both sides of this and see merits in both arguments. Hoping Durhams probe puts this whole thing to the past one way or another.

I find it funny that you wrote all that instead of just admitting you were wrong. You said the judge can’t do anything without the DOJ prosecuting. This is false.

It’s impressive how often you try to lecture people about the law and get it ludicrously wrong because you’re trying to wish what you want into existence. Even funnier is that when real lawyers tell you that you’re wrong you try and argue with them.

 

[fskimospy]

The thousands of other people deserved it, but that one guy, who is on our side when that became politically convenient, OMG thats a fuckin outrage.

Surely now that they have recognized the unjust nature of this law conservatives in Congress will be changing it, right?

 

[HumblePie]

I find it funny that you wrote all that instead of just admitting you were wrong. You said the judge can’t do anything without the DOJ prosecuting. This is false.

It’s impressive how often you try to lecture people about the law and get it ludicrously wrong because you’re trying to wish what you want into existence. Even funnier is that when real lawyers tell you that you’re wrong you try and argue with them.

You are being obtuse on purpose?

Pretty much this. A judge doesn't bring cases to trial nor can one. It's up to a prosecutor to bring a case to trial. If the prosecutors don't want to prosecute there is nothing a judge can do at that point.

It's a generalization of a statement I made. Nothing I made in that statement is wrong. Judges don't bring cases to trial.

On the other hand your statement at Flynn can only go free on a pardon IS WRONG. I highlighted above all the scenarios that can play out at this point and a pardon is only one of them. So why don't you admit you are wrong here and move on.

 

[fskimospy]

You are being obtuse on purpose?


It's a generalization of a statement I made. Nothing I made in that statement is wrong. Judges don't bring cases to trial.

On the other hand your statement at Flynn can only go free on a pardon IS WRONG. I highlighted above all the scenarios that can play out at this point and a pardon is only one of them. So why don't you admit you are wrong here and move on.

The post you quoted and said ‘pretty much this’ said explicitly that the judge had no choice but to let him go and that is wrong. Don’t endorse wrong things if you don’t want people to call you out for endorsing wrong things.

This thread is just another comedy of errors by you as you once again try your hand at understanding the law.