Trump says he could bring back fired ex-national security adviser Flynn

[Langsuan Man]

3 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

No, you're wrong.

 

"Criminal charges are filed by a prosecutor because they believe that they can prove their case, but the judge or jury may not agree with them. ... Only the prosecutor or the arresting officer is able to drop charges."

 

https://www.yourphiladelphialawyers.com/criminal-charges-dropped-dismissed/

 

 

The article you quote is first of all is an advertisement for a law firm, and secondly does not address a situation where the prosecution is finished, it's part is over. The case is now in the hands of the Judge because of the guilty plea 

 

The sentence was only delayed by the court to assist the defendant (Flynn) to allow him more time to continue to assist the government.  It wasn't even requested by the defense but was offered by the judge as a warning since he stated that he felt that there should have been additional charges and Flynn had better provide more evidence of his cooperation to the court before sentencing 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Langsuan Man

[Chiphigh]

Amazingly, alot of the the Flynn news is never appearing here. 

 

Anyway, the judge has refused outside parties amicus briefs 24 times in the past , but now he is inviting it. 

 

I smell a rat. 

 

The evidence is blatantly clear that the fbi conspired to set up a perjury charge and the corrupt special counsel attacked his son and tried to hide it and of course in a miraculous coincidence, the original interview forms have disappeared as well as the agent who wrote it. 

 

Evidence now shows page and strzok changed the interview notes then sent it directly to the corrupt Andrew McCabe. 

 

What does it take for the blind libs to see what a travesty of fair honest treatment is? 

 

Unbelievable how much they can ignore the actions of these people just to satisfy their hatred 

[Langsuan Man]

14 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

The evidence is blatantly clear that the fbi conspired

I am sure the learned judge will take that red herring into account when he thinks about why Flynn pleaded guilty if he wasn't in fact guilty 

[Langsuan Man]

 

BREAKING NEWS

 

Court Appoints Retired Judge To Oppose Justice Department In Michael Flynn Case

May 13, 20208:17 

 

source: https://www.npr.org/2020/05/13/855788528/court-appoints-retired-judge-to-oppose-justice-department-in-michael-flynn-case

 

Quote

 

 

The presiding judge in Michael Flynn's criminal case has appointed a retired judge to present arguments in opposition to the Justice Department's move to dismiss its prosecution of the former national security adviser.

Judge Emmet Sullivan has asked John Gleeson, a retired judge in the Eastern District of New York, to act as a friend of the court and look into whether Flynn should face a contempt hearing for perjury.

The order does not address the government's attempt to drop the case or suggest when the judge might make that decision. It comes a day after Sullivan issued an order soliciting "friend of the court" briefs and said he would provide a schedule at a later time.

The move signals the judge could have some reservations about the DOJ's effort to dismiss the case.

 

 

 

 

[Chiphigh]

On 5/14/2020 at 9:15 AM, Langsuan Man said:

 

BREAKING NEWS

 

Court Appoints Retired Judge To Oppose Justice Department In Michael Flynn Case

May 13, 20208:17 

 

source: https://www.npr.org/2020/05/13/855788528/court-appoints-retired-judge-to-oppose-justice-department-in-michael-flynn-case

 

 

Yes, this same judge penned a wapo article saying that they should do precisely what this judge has just done. 

 

A complete 180 turn from what the judge said in one of the 24 rejected attempts at this very thing. 

 

A complete hack this judge is. 

 

Prosecution has dropped the case. So an activist judge decides he wants it prosecuted anyway. 

[Tippaporn]

Some on this thread have raised the baseless in fact argument that Flynn's call with Kislyak was either inappropriate or not legal.  I just wanted to add some more confirmation via this January 13th, 2017 Obama daily presser in which the question is asked directly.  Video starts at the relevant time.

 

 

[simple1]

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Some on this thread have raised the baseless in fact argument that Flynn's call with Kislyak was either inappropriate or not legal.  I just wanted to add some more confirmation via this January 13th, 2017 Obama daily presser in which the question is asked directly.  <SNIP>

 

At the time Flynn made the call he was a private citizen attempting to undermine Obama administration foreign policy.

 

Flynn's lawyers are claiming he was coerced to plead guilty; if true what does that say about the character of a senior national security adviser under pressure - one sure would not want to rehire the guy.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

14 minutes ago, simple1 said:

At the time Flynn made the call he was a private citizen attempting to undermine Obama administration foreign policy.

 

Flynn's lawyers are claiming he was coerced to plead guilty; if true what does that say about the character of a senior national security adviser under pressure - one sure would not want to rehire the guy.

Wrong.  Flynn was Trump's incoming NSA.  Tell me, why do you insist on spreading rubbish when the facts directly contradict said rubbish?

 

Per Wikipedia:

 

On November 18, 2016, Flynn accepted Trump's offer for the position of National Security Advisor.

 

Phone call with Kislyak was on December 29th, 2016.

 

Wrong again.

 

Per Wikipedia:

 

On December 1, 2017, Flynn and special counsel Robert Mueller agreed to a plea bargain in the District of Columbia's U.S. District Court. In the agreement, Flynn pleaded guilty to "willfully and knowingly" making "false, fictitious and fraudulent statements" to the FBI regarding conversations with Russia's ambassador.

 

Flynn had already been bankrupted, they were now unjustly targeting his son which would in the least have bankrupted him as well, and he received bad advice from his Covington attorney's (Eric Holder's firm).  It was after all of these events and the realization that he was going to be railroaded that Flynn agreed to the plea deal.

 

Of course you're going to say, "BS."  Whatever suits you, simple1.  Believe only that which fits your cherished narrative, however false it is.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Wrong.  Flynn was Trump's incoming NSA.  Tell me, why do you insist on spreading rubbish when the facts directly contradict said rubbish? <SNIP>

 

 

Less of the insults and misinformation would be good. Flynn did not commence his tenancy as National Security Adviser until 23/01/2017. Flynn's attempted interference in the Obama administration foreign policy prior to that date was flatly wrong, which was compounded by his further errors of judgement by lying to the FBI.

Edited May 20, 2020 by simple1

[Tippaporn]

20 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Less of the insults and misinformation would be good. Flynn did not commence his tenancy as National Security Adviser until 23/01/2017. Flynn's attempted interference in the Obama administration foreign policy prior to that date was flatly wrong, which was compounded by his further errors of judgement by lying to the FBI.

And every other incoming administration is authorized to communicate with other foreign leaders and dignitaries.  Just not Trump's, correct?  LOL

 

I assume you've listened to the YT I posted this morning in which the Obama administration affirms it in the January 13, 2017 daily presser?  He was asked by the reporter outright whether or not there was an issue with contact between the incoming administration and foreign leaders.

 

Since you continue to push this then I'll ask you to verify your claim by providing evidence in writing.  Prove it.

[simple1]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I assume you've listened to the YT I posted this morning in which the Obama administration affirms it in the January 13, 2017 daily presser?  He was asked by the reporter outright whether or not there was an issue with contact between the incoming administration and foreign leaders.

Just listened to the segment with the State Department guy. He was talking to 'in principal', at no time did he mention it is OK for a member of an incoming transition team to attempt to counter / undermine an incumbent's foreign policy activities. 

 

The trump administration doesn't respect usual norms of good governance and professional courtesy, plus trump supporters admire such behaviour. Accordingly I'm likely wasting my time, but an opinion piece which talks to protocols for an incoming transition team is provided below. it's reasonable to suppose Flynn would not have made the observations he made to the Russian Ambassador without trump's authorisation...

 

The expectation is that the incoming administration won’t get in the way of the president who is still in office. A 1986 bipartisan commission on presidential transitions and foreign policy co-authored by a number of former cabinet officials recommended that “Pre-inaugural meetings between representatives of the incoming administration and foreign diplomats or leaders should be sharply limited” Above all, it concluded, “Nothing should give the impression that the president-elect has any authority to act before the inauguration or interfere with ongoing actions by the incumbent administration.”

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/01/michael-flynn-called-the-russians-is-this-normal.html

 

 

[Tippaporn]

57 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Just listened to the segment with the State Department guy. He was talking to 'in principal', at no time did he mention it is OK for a member of an incoming transition team to attempt to counter / undermine an incumbent's foreign policy activities. 

He stated that Obama's State Department would assist the Trump incoming administration in arranging any communications with foreign leaders.

 

Important note:  ". . . to attempt to counter / undermine an incumbent's foreign policy activities."  This is your personal opinion which you're slyly and disingenuously trying to pass off as fact.

 

57 minutes ago, simple1 said:

The trump administration doesn't respect usual norms of good governance and professional courtesy, plus trump supporters admire such behaviour. Accordingly I'm likely wasting my time, but an opinion piece which talks to protocols for an incoming transition team is provided below. it's reasonable to suppose Flynn would not have made the observations he made to the Russian Ambassador without trump's authorisation...

Give me a break, simple1.  The utter hypocrisy of your musing (not fact) of Trump administration disrespect for usual norms of good government and professional courtesy is stunning considering that you have full knowledge of Comey's betrayal of those same norms.

 

Asked how two FBI agents ended up interviewing Flynn Comey replies, "I sent them." (To a sickening roomful of laughter applauding and admiring Comey's disregard of protocol and deceit in purposely going around White House counsel.)

 

 

57 minutes ago, simple1 said:

The expectation is that the incoming administration won’t get in the way of the president who is still in office. A 1986 bipartisan commission on presidential transitions and foreign policy co-authored by a number of former cabinet officials recommended that “Pre-inaugural meetings between representatives of the incoming administration and foreign diplomats or leaders should be sharply limited” Above all, it concluded, “Nothing should give the impression that the president-elect has any authority to act before the inauguration or interfere with ongoing actions by the incumbent administration.”

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/01/michael-flynn-called-the-russians-is-this-normal.html

From the piece you linked to:

 

“Foreign governments are always interested in feeling out the incoming administration and it’s certainly not uncommon for representatives of the president-elect to have discussions with representatives of foreign powers just as an informational exercise to allow each side to get to know each other,” says David Clinton, chair of the political science department at Baylor University and co-author of Presidential Transitions and American Foreign Policy. “Such exchanges are part of modern day transitions.”

 

For an incoming administration to speak with foreign leaders is not uncommon (and again the Obama administration even offered to have their State Department assist in setting up such communications) and yet you and the rest of the libs are trying to paint it as criminal and a violation of the arcane and never prosecuted Logan Act.  I will agree that such communications should not be an attempt to undermine an incumbent administration's policies.  Yet no one to date (including Flynn and his attorneys) has seen the Flynn-Kislyak call transcript so there can be no judgement whatsoever by anyone as to what was discussed.  I'll point you back to your first sentence in which you liberally (excuse the pun) suggest that Flynn's call was indeed an attempt to counter / undermine the Obama administration's foreign policy.

 

I mean, what else can I say, simple1?  Your entire positions are not only simply false but also you have no problem with attempting a modicum of dishonesty in your presentations.  Perhaps I'm wasting my time as you will not ever concede on any point in spite of soundly being proved wrong.

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Tippaporn

[Sujo]

Prosecution are not needed. He pleaded guilty and is at sentencing stage. Prosecution usually provide a sentencing range but they dont have to.

[MyTHaiMyKe]

I wish all of you who are bad mouthing President Trump would tell us what country you came from so we could laugh at all of you for the bad leaders in your country and in the world! Jealousy must be it! President Trump has done more for the USA then any president before! He will be reelected guaranteed and you can take it to the bank! All I heard was how hillary was going to win from all of you, what happened, not a squeak from none of you! So keep listening to the lying msm, cnn, msdnc and democrats and you will know absolutely nothing about the truth what is really going on in the USA! But come November you will see! So stay jealous that President Trump and the USA is the greatest country in the world! Period!!! No matter what you all say!

[Rimmer]

A personal attacks leading to bickering have been removed

 

25) No public discussion is allowed with regard to other forum members

[Eric Loh]

14 minutes ago, MyTHaiMyKe said:

I wish all of you who are bad mouthing President Trump would tell us what country you came from so we could laugh at all of you for the bad leaders in your country and in the world! Jealousy must be it! President Trump has done more for the USA then any president before! He will be reelected guaranteed and you can take it to the bank! All I heard was how hillary was going to win from all of you, what happened, not a squeak from none of you! So keep listening to the lying msm, cnn, msdnc and democrats and you will know absolutely nothing about the truth what is really going on in the USA! But come November you will see! So stay jealous that President Trump and the USA is the greatest country in the world! Period!!! No matter what you all say!

Can’t wait for November to get rid of him. World leaders will be thankful and US will be happy that democracy can be restored. Good American values like morality and decency will return. 

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Can’t wait for November to get rid of him. World leaders will be thankful and US will be happy that democracy can be restored. Good American values like morality and decency will return. 

Your problem is that you guys don't have a viable candidate.  And you know it.  LOL

[i84teen]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Your problem is that you guys don't have a viable candidate.  And you know it.  LOL

oh, I dunno, they do have big sleepie Joe.

 

555

MAGA

Day-1289

[simple1]

16 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

He stated that Obama's State Department would assist the Trump incoming administration in arranging any communications with foreign leaders.

 

Important note:  ". . . to attempt to counter / undermine an incumbent's foreign policy activities."  This is your personal opinion which you're slyly and disingenuously trying to pass off as fact.

 

Give me a break, simple1.  The utter hypocrisy of your musing (not fact) of Trump administration disrespect for usual norms of good government and professional courtesy is stunning considering that you have full knowledge of Comey's betrayal of those same norms.

 

Asked how two FBI agents ended up interviewing Flynn Comey replies, "I sent them." (To a sickening roomful of laughter applauding and admiring Comey's disregard of protocol and deceit in purposely going around White House counsel.)

 

 

From the piece you linked to:

 

“Foreign governments are always interested in feeling out the incoming administration and it’s certainly not uncommon for representatives of the president-elect to have discussions with representatives of foreign powers just as an informational exercise to allow each side to get to know each other,” says David Clinton, chair of the political science department at Baylor University and co-author of Presidential Transitions and American Foreign Policy. “Such exchanges are part of modern day transitions.”

 

For an incoming administration to speak with foreign leaders is not uncommon (and again the Obama administration even offered to have their State Department assist in setting up such communications) and yet you and the rest of the libs are trying to paint it as criminal and a violation of the arcane and never prosecuted Logan Act.  I will agree that such communications should not be an attempt to undermine an incumbent administration's policies.  Yet no one to date (including Flynn and his attorneys) has seen the Flynn-Kislyak call transcript so there can be no judgement whatsoever by anyone as to what was discussed.  I'll point you back to your first sentence in which you liberally (excuse the pun) suggest that Flynn's call was indeed an attempt to counter / undermine the Obama administration's foreign policy.

 

I mean, what else can I say, simple1?  Your entire positions are not only simply false but also you have no problem with attempting a modicum of dishonesty in your presentations.  Perhaps I'm wasting my time as you will not ever concede on any point in spite of soundly being proved wrong.

 

All you have managed to achieve with the above is to demonstrate your ability at dishonest spin in support of trump. Today another attempt by trump at voter suppression (corrupt governance) by threatening to withhold funds from States permitting mail in votes - his justification - unproven claims of voter fraud and advantageous to the Dems.  

 

Trump's never ending assaults on decency, hyperbolic division, general nastiness and lies are traits he has proven to date he will not change and continues to double down. Accordingly, IMO, trump is unfit to represent the Office of the President of the USA. Yes, you are wasting your time with me as I am with you; therefore no further replies.

Edited May 20, 2020 by simple1

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, simple1 said:

All you have managed to achieve with the above is to demonstrate your ability at dishonest spin in support of trump. Today another attempt by trump at voter suppression (corrupt governance) by threatening to withhold funds from States permitting mail in votes - his justification - unproven claims of voter fraud and advantageous to the Dems.  

 

Trump's never ending assaults on decency, hyperbolic division, general nastiness and lies are traits he has proven to date he will not change and continues to double down. Accordingly, IMO, trump is unfit to represent the Office of the President of the USA. Yes, you are wasting your time with me as I am with you; therefore no further replies.

Your reply has zero to do with our discussion of whether Flynn was authorized to communicate with foreign leaders.  Rather than engage in that discussion you go off-topic and attempt to use off-topic points to indirectly and favourably bolster your position.  And since it is therefore obvious that you cannot prove your point (you haven't produced evidence as to your claim) you then unjustly tarnish your opponent and cry that you're taking your ball and going home.  With that attitude how is it possible to debate and conclude as to the truth on anything then?

[simple1]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 With that attitude how is it possible to debate and conclude as to the truth on anything then?

from my post - therefore no further replies.

[Langsuan Man]

15 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Your problem is that you guys don't have a viable candidate.  And you know it.  LOL

Trump's administration has been such an unmitigated disaster, we don't need a viable candidate,  just a warm body should be enough 

[Rimmer]

An inflammatory post has been removed

[Tippaporn]

These are the latest developments in the attempted railroading of General Flynn.

 

First, a recent important and relevant to Flynn SCOTUS decision on May 7, 2020 regarding Sullivan's judicial role.  Jonathon Turley explains the decision of a case which similarly involves the invitation of amici.

 

Jonathon Turley - A “Radical Transformation”: Supreme Court Unanimously Overrules The Ninth Circuit

 

The case involves the conviction of Evelyn Sineneng-Smith for violating a federal law related to encouraging illegal immigration and the Ninth Circuit reversed but not before the court named three amici and invited them to brief and argue the issues. The third added amici were the Federal Defender Organizations of the Ninth Circuit, the Immigrant Defense Project[,] and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild.”  The Supreme Court cried foul:

 

To put all of this in plain English SCOTUS just ruled 9-0 that a judge's role is to be a neutral arbiter.  The only exceptions in criminal cases are to protect the rights of defendants.

 

From the SCOTUS decision (here's the opinion as a PDF):

 

In our adversarial system of adjudication, we follow the principle of party presentation. As this Court stated in Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U. S. 237 (2008), “in both civil and criminal cases, in the first instance and on appeal . . . , we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.” Id., at 243. In criminal cases, departures from the party presentation principle have usually occurred “to protect a pro se litigant’s rights.”

 

Bottom line is that Judge Sullivan is inviting amici to re-prosecute Flynn.  The defendant's attorneys and the prosecutors are attempting to exonerate Flynn while the judge is trying to prosecute him!!  Per the SCOTUS decision Sullivan is clearly out of bounds.

 

As Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton put it, "Michael Flynn has already been abused by the executive branch and now he's being harassed by the judicial branch. Perhaps House Dems could pass a bill of attainder so Flynn could hit the trifecta."

 

What's even more sad is that there isn't a single lib here who would condemn this injustice.  Not a one.  To the contrary, they are vocally supportive of the immoral means used toward's an innocent man's demise solely because he is affiliated with President Trump.

 

Samuel Adams, circa 1749:

 

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."

 

This wise quote applies now, when a people are in universal support of corrupt actions for the sole purpose of attaining their ends.  Get rid of Trump by any means necessary.  God help the U.S.A.

[Tippaporn]

FYI, a very important update on the Flynn saga.  The phone transcripts between Flynn and Kislyak have been released.  I'm not commenting yet as I just found out and need to review myself.

[Tippaporn]

Senator Chuck Grassley responds to the released transcripts.

 

The Epoch Times - Grassley: Flynn Transcripts Show ‘There Was Nothing Improper’ in Calls With Russian Ambassador

 

“Lt. General Flynn, his legal team, the judge and the American people can now see with their own eyes—for the first time—that all of the innuendo about Lt. General Flynn this whole time was totally bunk,” Grassley said in a statement. “There was nothing improper about his call, and the FBI knew it.”

[Tippaporn]

Here's a link from Grasseley's .gov website to the released transcripts in PDF.

[rabas]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Here's a link from Grasseley's .gov website to the released transcripts in PDF.

Lol, collusion. General Flynn asking, almost telling the Russians to stand down and not reciprocate against the US for the Obama administration’s actions against the Kremlin for Russian spying. Discussing our common enemy in Syria.  Very professional conversation.

 

Nothing burger. Where's the bun?

[candide]

I just read the transcripts. There have been several calls and several topics have been followed up. In particular, there has been a prolonged discussions over the sanctions.

During one call, Flynn asked Russia to respond only by 'reciprocal' measures only, and the ambassador replied he will talk about it to Moscow. Then in a next call, the ambassador replied that Moscow agreed to the principle of a reciprocal response.

 

The transcripts show that the sanctions issue has not been a side issue, but one of the core issues discussed. It is impossible that Flynn just 'forgot' about it.

 

Another remark is that it is very surprising that Flynn did not inform the WH of this diplomatic achievement.

Edited May 30, 2020 by candide

[metisdead]

A post with a comment on moderation has been removed.  Rather than comment on moderation, use the report button to report a post if it is in violation of forum rules:

 

Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately via the report function. We do have the ability to remove objectionable messages and will make every effort to do so if we determine that removal is necessary. Please use the report button only for posts in blatant violation of the forum rules. Misuse of the report button is not allowed. Removal is a manual process so please realize we may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately. Responding to objectionable messages is discouraged.