[Hindsite]

You like fiction.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

Flynn Attorney Sidney Powell: This Whole Thing Was Orchestrated Within The FBI, Clapper, Brennan, And President Obama

BARTIROMO: So, fast forward to January. Fast forward to January 2017, Sidney, because, this morning, President Obama is out trashing this exoneration.

He's basically saying that the rule of law is being lost and that there's no precedent for all of this. So, we go to January 2017 and February 2017. The morning of January 4, the FBI drafts a document to close the Flynn probe, Crossfire Razor.

They wanted to close it. They had nothing, so they want to close it. So the next day, on January -- later that afternoon, Peter Strzok texts, don't close the Razor yet. And the seventh floor is involved.

And then there's a meeting in President Obama's Oval Office. Talk to us about that, Sidney, because Sally Yates was there, Jim Comey was there, John Brennan was there, James Clapper was there briefing President Obama in the Oval Office on the Russia probe. Joe Biden and Susan Rice were there as well. This was January 5, 2017. Walk us through it.

POWELL: Exactly.

Well, the day before, Comey had found and McCabe had found the transcripts of Flynn's call with Kislyak. And he briefed Clapper on it immediately. Clapper then immediately went and briefed President Obama on it.

Then they have the Oval Office meeting on the 5th. Comey admits in his testimony that the FBI are the people that unmasked General Flynn, our people, whatever that means. And at the meeting on the 5th, Sally Yates was stunned because Obama mentions to her out of the blue about the call and the transcript of the call.

She knew nothing about it, because Comey hadn't briefed DOJ.

BARTIROMO: Of -- of Kislyak.

POWELL: Yes. Yes. So, then they dispatch Comey the very next morning to brief President Trump only on the salacious aspects of the dossier on January 6 to set the news hook for BuzzFeed and CNN to run with the dossier they knew was a lie.

Then Peter Strzok is watching a CNN report on that and texts about he and Priestap sitting there watching it and using it as a pretext to go interview some people. So the whole thing was orchestrated and set up within the FBI, Clapper, Brennan, and in the Oval Office meeting that day with President Obama.

BARTIROMO: So, you think this goes all the way up to the top, to President Obama?

POWELL: Absolutely.
https://www.21cir.com/2020/05/michael-f ... ent-obama/

[blackjack21]

Durham is on the prowl. They know it was orchestrated from the Oval Office now. The Obama-era officers are shitting their pants now.

[ingliz]

Question...

How do you entrap someone to lie?

[Finfinder]

Question...

How do you entrap someone to lie?


:?:

Ask the FBI Are you pretending this information doesn't exist.

[blackjack21]

Question...

How do you entrap someone to lie?

You ask questions for which you already have the answers via a verbatim transcript. Then, you characterize any omission as a lie.

The interview didn't need to happen. They already had all the information. Also, there was no crime being investigated. So it was improper to conduct the interview without a criminal predicate.

[pugsville]

Just goes to show how stupid the left is. First they screw up by getting caught rigging the Democrat primary and screwing Bernie Sanders,then caught spying on Trump. They were caught with the fake Mueller report. Now caught red handed setting up a 3 star general and war hero. How stupid can they be, yet they all still continue the lie and pretend that Flynn is some massive dangerous criminal. They tried to set up a war hero of all people, what morons.

3 star generals and war heros are not above the law. He pleaded guilty. letting ideology determine the truth is dangerous thing.

[ingliz]

there was no crime being investigated.

Wrong.

Flynn was also under legal scrutiny by Mueller's team for undisclosed lobbying that he did during the presidential campaign on behalf of the Turkish government.

It's against the law to lobby in the United States on behalf of a foreign government without informing the Justice Department.

[blackjack21]

Wrong.

Flynn was also under legal scrutiny by Mueller's team for undisclosed lobbying that he did during the presidential campaign on behalf of the Turkish government.

It's against the law to lobby in the United States on behalf of a foreign government without informing the Justice Department.

The FBI interview occurred before there was a Mueller special counsel. So Mueller's subsequent investigation is irrelevant. There was also a counter-intelligence investigation against Flynn before the FBI interview that came up snake eyes. So, again, you still haven't presented a legal rationale for why the FBI went to interview Flynn since they didn't have a criminal investigation underway at the time.

[ingliz]

Mueller's subsequent investigation is irrelevant

So get the son banged up for FARA offences (He's lost the legal protection the deal gives him) and bankrupt the sleazy 3-star "you sold your country out” bastard with the legal costs he was hoping to avoid.

[Finfinder]

Wrong.

Flynn was also under legal scrutiny by Mueller's team for undisclosed lobbying that he did during the presidential campaign on behalf of the Turkish government.

It's against the law to lobby in the United States on behalf of a foreign government without informing the Justice Department.

So you are saying that you read the FBI's notes (which clearly say they set Flynn up) and yet you still do not believe Flynn was set up. That is the only conclusion we can come up with. Anybody with a micro measure of credibility and objectiveness would think the Mueller investigation was tainted from the start because they knew already that the FBI set up Flynn and many others.

[late]

That is the only conclusion we can come up with.

No, that is the conclusion you were handed.

"President Donald Trump went on a Twitter rampage Thursday about his former adviser Michael Flynn, flooding the zone with conspiracy theories and paper-thin allegations that crooked FBI investigators entrapped Flynn as part of a "deep state" plot.
Many of these claims have already been cast aside by independent fact-checkers, rebutted by Justice Department lawyers and dismissed out of hand by a federal judge.

The latest round of table-banging from Trump and allied media outlets ignores basic facts about Flynn's case. Not only is Trump trying to rewrite history on Flynn, he also continues to use his platform (effectively the largest megaphone in the world) to delegitimize the damning findings about his own behavior by former special counsel Robert Mueller."

More at the link if you haven't completely left reality for conspiracy theory hallucinations:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/30/politics/flynn-trump-conspiracy-theories-pardon/index.html

[Finfinder]

No, that is the conclusion you were handed.

"President Donald Trump went on a Twitter rampage Thursday about his former adviser Michael Flynn, flooding the zone with conspiracy theories and paper-thin allegations that crooked FBI investigators entrapped Flynn as part of a "deep state" plot.
Many of these claims have already been cast aside by independent fact-checkers, rebutted by Justice Department lawyers and dismissed out of hand by a federal judge.

The latest round of table-banging from Trump and allied media outlets ignores basic facts about Flynn's case. Not only is Trump trying to rewrite history on Flynn, he also continues to use his platform (effectively the largest megaphone in the world) to delegitimize the damning findings about his own behavior by former special counsel Robert Mueller."

More at the link if you haven't completely left reality for conspiracy theory hallucinations:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/30/politics/flynn-trump-conspiracy-theories-pardon/index.html

You seem to be the one who has completely left reality since you edited my entire post to a select 10 words.

This is the part you left out, which applies to you.

Anybody with a micro measure of credibility and objectiveness would think the Mueller investigation was tainted from the start because they knew already that the FBI set up Flynn and many others.

[late]

You seem to be the one...

Yes, call me Neo..

Love the way you pretend reality doesn't exist...

I'm quite curious to see what shows up in the amicus briefs.

[blackjack21]

So get the son banged up for FARA offences (He's lost the legal protection the deal gives him) and bankrupt the sleazy 3-star "you sold your country out” bastard with the legal costs he was hoping to avoid.

Well, that's an interesting reference. What do you think Judge Sullivan meant when he said, "Arguably, you've sold your country out"? Failing to accurately reflect all the details of a conversation for which the FBI had a verbatim transcript, and the interlocutors finding Flynn credible with no intent to lie or mislead hardly sounds like betraying one's country. Is there something else that they are upset about that they don't want to disclose to the public?

So you are saying that you read the FBI's notes (which clearly say they set Flynn up) and yet you still do not believe Flynn was set up.

I think they are ultimately upset about something else that they do not want to divulge.

More at the link if you haven't completely left reality for conspiracy theory hallucinations:

Your link is old. The FBI transcripts have been released. Not even Judge Sullivan had that information. Now it is public, and it is clear from the writings that they didn't have a criminal predicate for an interview, already had all the answers to any questions they could ask about the call, speculated that the purpose of the interview was to try to get Flynn to lie, and then speculated whether their goal was to get him fired or to prosecute him. Old news doesn't address newly revealed information.

This is why Obama flipped out and said that there was no precedent for someone committing perjury and getting away with it when Flynn had not even been charged with perjury.

I'm quite curious to see what shows up in the amicus briefs.

They are pointless. It's just a last bite at the apple to criticize Flynn. Eventually, the court will have to drop the case. There is a precedent for dropping the Flynn case: namely, Holder's action in United States vs Stevens.

[late]

They are pointless. It's just a last bite at the apple to criticize Flynn. Eventually, the court will have to drop the case.

What happens when the decision stands is that you will walk away from the train wreck, and keep faking it.

[Finfinder]

Yes, call me Neo..

Love the way you pretend reality doesn't exist...

I'm quite curious to see what shows up in the amicus briefs.

Some facts you lack understanding

This was a malicious prosecution by the Obama administration
Brady material was concealed and withheld
A coerced guilty plea
It was shown he had ineffective assistance by council
Independent review by the AG and Assistant United State Attorney
The prosecution made a motion to dismiss

This is a trial court. There is literally no reason for Amici brief except for it being for political reasons.

"Jenny Ellis "

[blackjack21]

What happens when the decision stands is that you will walk away from the train wreck, and keep faking it.

What happens is that it will be appealed and overturned on appeal. Sullivan has already fucked it up. He's gone from having Watergate prosecutors come in (for a 1001 case of making a false statement to the FBI, which is meaningless since he's not a president and he didn't abuse power or anything), to having a retired judge come in, ostensibly to tell Sullivan how to rule--Sullivan already knowing he should dismiss the case and will get overruled by an appellate court if he doesn't. Sullivan will then go down as having violated his own ruling in United States vs. Stevens.

What you guys didn't learn from Nixon was "Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself."

You folks are destroying yourself with your all-consuming hatred of Donald Trump.

[ingliz]

Is there something else that they are upset about that they don't want to disclose to the public?

It's a lot simpler than that.

The FBI had a prima facie case against him and his son on FARA violations. The lies were a bonus, another criminal act, that gave them greater leverage. They traded both for 'cooperation' in the Russia investigation and cooperate he did. See the prosecutor's recommended sentence. Only 3 months in a holiday camp; out in a month or so, if he's a good boy. I could do that standing on my head. Typically, if you are convicted of making a false statement (He made four) you are looking at up to five years in federal prison.

[blackjack21]

It's a lot simpler than that.

The FBI had a prima facie case against him and his son on FARA violations.

They didn't submit it to the DoJ or the Special Counsel. Neither the DoJ nor the Special Counsel pursued it. Prosecutors don't drop open-and-shut cases or decline to charge them.

The lies were a bonus, another criminal act, that gave them greater leverage. They traded both for 'cooperation' in the Russia investigation and cooperate he did.

They didn't charge a FARA violation. You can't trade what you don't charge. How has Flynn's cooperation worked out for them?

See the prosecutor's recommended sentence. Only 3 months in a holiday camp; out in a month or so, if he's a good boy. I could do that standing on my head.

That's what you would do. That's what Papadopolous did. So you anti-Trump guys run around saying, "Papadopolous was guilty! See? There was collusion!" when Papadopolous' lie was that he had Russian connections when in fact he did not.

Papadopolous was just a young guy trying to make himself seem more important, got caught and wanted this thing to go away, and he did exactly what you would do. He plead out and spent six weeks in the tank.

General Flynn is a soldier. He fights. Now all of this shit has come about about unmasking, and one of the people asking for unmasking was Biden himself. Now we have the 302s and Priestap's handwritten notes.

That's my point about Nixon's quote. That's my point about Sullivan's action. This was a case the deep state should have dropped. They should have let it go. Now it is blowing up in their faces.

Typically, if you are convicted of making a false statement (He made four) you are looking at up to five years in federal prison.

You think that's funny?

Biden claimed he knew nothing about the Flynn investigation only a few days before the list of people requesting unmasking came out. He's on that list. That means Biden had to provide a rationale for requesting the unmasking. We will soon learn why Biden wanted to unmask Flynn in intelligence reports.

For all intents and purposes, the political people like ourselves care about the Flynn case. The public generally doesn't. They do care about what candidates say and do. Biden is going to be shown to be a liar in this. That will not sway Democratic base voters, but it will sway independent voters.

Look at the polls. Same problem as 2016. Biden is ahead. Except he's behind in the battle ground states. Almost 1/3 of Democrats want Biden replaced on the ticket. Same problem as Hillary. You can't make a dead horse gallop.

All of the Russia collusion narrative is now being shown to have been completely orchestrated by the Democratic party to smear Trump. The CIA even sat on evidence that Russia preferred Hillary Clinton to Trump. They even sit on the rationale why, saying that they preferred Hillary to Trump, because she was a known quantity and stable. Au contraire, they preferred Hillary because she was sloppy with IT and they knew her every move before she made it, because they hacked her systems. Putin's morning briefing included Hillary Clinton's emails. The deep state is still hiding how fucked up she was.

[late]

"“If prosecutors attempt to dismiss a well-founded prosecution for impermissible or corrupt reasons, the people would be ill-served if a court blindly approved their dismissal request,” the op-ed’s authors argued. “The independence of the court protects us all when executive-branch decisions smack of impropriety; it also protects the judiciary itself from becoming a party to corruption.” They advised that the judge could demand career prosecutors explain their conduct or “appoint an independent attorney to act as a ‘friend of the court,’ ensuring a full, adversarial inquiry, as the judge in the Flynn case has done in other situations where the department abdicated its prosecutorial role. If necessary, the court can hold hearings to resolve factual discrepancies.”

"Several points stand out in this highly unusual case.

First, Sullivan is signaling to the Justice Department (especially to career lawyers) that he is not going to let it off the hook when it does President Trump’s bidding. Sullivan will act independently in evaluating the attorney general’s move, perhaps even calling witnesses to testify as to Barr’s motives.

Second, Barr’s attempt to dismiss the case is not a slam dunk. Far from it. Former prosecutor Renato Mariotti observes, “Sullivan’s decision here means that he’s seriously considering denying DOJ’s motion and he wants to consider whether that decision is wise and what the implications of that decision are. . . . Today’s order by Judge Sullivan is very bad news for the DOJ. Their motion was highly unusual, and they will have to be prepared to answer many difficult questions about the odd positions that they’ve taken.”

Third, Gleeson is a wise pick, which means trouble for the Justice Department lawyers. Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe — who said, “Retired U.S. District Court Judge John Gleeson is a strong choice for the task assigned to him by Judge [Emmet] Sullivan” — and multiple former prosecutors with whom I spoke attest to Gleeson’s skills as a prosecutor and his integrity. His interest here is in preventing the sort of perversion of the courts that Barr cavalierly undertakes in service to Trump, whom Barr wrongly believes is his client. (The American people are his client.)"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/14/judge-sullivan-shows-awesome-power-federal-judges/