Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Breathtaking Corruption

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    When the incoming National Security Advisor opens himself up to blackmail by one of America's most dangerous adversaries, it needs to be investigated. If you think this case will be thrown out you're in for a big disappointment.

    You should turn off Hannity, Rush, and Breitbart for a change, and check out some other news outlets. Educate yourself on the facts, instead of filling your empty skull with right-wing talking points. Otherwise you will end up looking foolish again, like you did with the Tara Reade story.
    It needs to be investigated the right way which is something you obviously don’t care about. My guess is if Rice, Rhodes, or Yates were treated the same you’d be singing another tune. In a non-Obama administration country that we live in, we don’t set up, trap, and coerce our own people for the single goal of taking down an elected POTUS because we don’t like him. You don’t talk about that because you could never defend the corruption from the previous administration. You wanna impeach Trump for crowd sizes, weather maps, and fake conspiracies but you turn a blind eye from the blatant corruption waged against Trump and his admin. Face it, you’re the party of hypocrisy which is why a guy like Trump is sitting in the White House.

    After watching the fake outrage coming from the left over the women they paraded during the Kavanaugh hearings, how could anyone look foolish bringing up Tara Reade? You wanna talk about credibility problems? Funny that didn’t seem to be an issue for you back then, did it? Nope. Which is just another example of your hypocrisy. You keep getting exposed at ever turn. Your “do as we say not as we do” mantra is the reason you guys have no momentum heading into an election. Good luck in November!

    Comment


      https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/mich...enna-ellis.amp

      “First, he could be concerned that any response will be used against him in disciplinary action or some adverse consequence.”

      There already appears to be sufficient evidence just in the public record of Sullivan’s actions in the Flynn case that he has violated several of the canons, including that judges should uphold integrity and independence of the judiciary, avoid the appearance of impropriety, and that a judge should perform the duties of the office fairly, impartially and diligently. Sullivan could face private or public censure, or request for his voluntary retirement.

      Second, perhaps Sullivan just doesn’t have a solid rationale. “ As I’ve previously written, there is not any genuine legal argument an amicus could provide that would justify a judge ordering the prosecutor to continue their case when they have moved to dismiss (even after a plea has entered), especially on the clear bases the government provided in their motion. The bizarre trajectory of this case began as political and is continuing to be political, rather than just.”

      Third, Sullivan could be bribed, is threatened, or is fulfilling a political promise. “ It’s also not unheard of, and with everything else we already know about the setup, cover-up, and railroaded prosecution, it’s possible.”

      Comment


        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/mich...enna-ellis.amp

        “First, he could be concerned that any response will be used against him in disciplinary action or some adverse consequence.”

        There already appears to be sufficient evidence just in the public record of Sullivan’s actions in the Flynn case that he has violated several of the canons, including that judges should uphold integrity and independence of the judiciary, avoid the appearance of impropriety, and that a judge should perform the duties of the office fairly, impartially and diligently. Sullivan could face private or public censure, or request for his voluntary retirement.

        Second, perhaps Sullivan just doesn’t have a solid rationale. “ As I’ve previously written, there is not any genuine legal argument an amicus could provide that would justify a judge ordering the prosecutor to continue their case when they have moved to dismiss (even after a plea has entered), especially on the clear bases the government provided in their motion. The bizarre trajectory of this case began as political and is continuing to be political, rather than just.”

        Third, Sullivan could be bribed, is threatened, or is fulfilling a political promise. “ It’s also not unheard of, and with everything else we already know about the setup, cover-up, and railroaded prosecution, it’s possible.”
        Just the kind of delusional fluffery you would expect from an opinion piece that admits this about its author at the end of the article: "Jenna Ellis is the Senior Legal Adviser to the Trump 2020 campaign. She is an attorney to President Trump . . .”

        You probably shouldn't double down on this one. The Flynn saga will not go the way your favorite alt-right propagandists are saying it will.

        Comment


          So it begins.

          https://www.theblaze.com/news/mail-c...ail-in-ballots

          A West Virginia mail carrier has been charged with attempted election fraud, after allegedly altering several mail-in ballots on his contracted route.

          The DOJ said in a press release that mail carrier Thomas Cooper was charged with attempt to defraud the residents of West Virginia of a fair election after an investigation found that the 47-year-old allegedly made changes to a number of mail-in ballots sent to individuals on his contracted route with the United States Postal Service.

          The Daily Wire pointed out that "the news comes as Twitter started attaching warning labels to President Donald Trump's tweets on Tuesday that led to a series of articles from left-wing media organizations that claimed that Trump's warnings about fraud coming from mail-in voting were 'unsubstantiated.'"

          The outlet reported further that "Jenny Trobiani, a 36-year veteran carrier with the U.S. Postal Service, said she had never seen anything like the influx of absentee ballots that were 'no good.'" She said, "(The recipients) had all moved or died."

          Comment


            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            https://www.theblaze.com/news/mail-c...ail-in-ballots

            A West Virginia mail carrier has been charged with attempted election fraud, after allegedly altering several mail-in ballots on his contracted route.

            The DOJ said in a press release that mail carrier Thomas Cooper was charged with attempt to defraud the residents of West Virginia of a fair election after an investigation found that the 47-year-old allegedly made changes to a number of mail-in ballots sent to individuals on his contracted route with the United States Postal Service.

            The Daily Wire pointed out that "the news comes as Twitter started attaching warning labels to President Donald Trump's tweets on Tuesday that led to a series of articles from left-wing media organizations that claimed that Trump's warnings about fraud coming from mail-in voting were 'unsubstantiated.'"

            The outlet reported further that "Jenny Trobiani, a 36-year veteran carrier with the U.S. Postal Service, said she had never seen anything like the influx of absentee ballots that were 'no good.'" She said, "(The recipients) had all moved or died."
            theblaze.com, LOL

            "Overall, we rate The Blaze strongly Right Biased based on story selection that almost always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to failed checks and loaded emotional headlines. The founder of The Blaze, Glenn Beck, has an abysmal track record with 6 Pants on Fire claims from Politifact alone."
            https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-blaze/

            Comment


              Flynn committed perjury and his guilty plea of lying to FBI should not be dismissed

              Michael Flynn committed perjury and his guilty plea of lying to the FBI should not be dismissed, a court-appointed adviser argued to a federal judge Wednesday, calling the Justice Department’s attempt to undo the conviction “a gross abuse of prosecutorial power.”

              In a formal briefing to the judge overseeing Flynn’s case, former New York federal judge John Gleeson issued a sharp rebuke of the Justice Department request, saying the move for dismissal was “corrupt” and “politically motivated.” Gleeson added that Flynn’s guilt “could hardly be more provable,” and President Trump has violated “foundational norms of prosecutorial independence.”

              It's nice to see the Rule of Law prevail over delusional bullsh1t for a change
              https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...rce=reddit.com

              Comment


                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                Michael Flynn committed perjury and his guilty plea of lying to the FBI should not be dismissed, a court-appointed adviser argued to a federal judge Wednesday, calling the Justice Department’s attempt to undo the conviction “a gross abuse of prosecutorial power.”

                In a formal briefing to the judge overseeing Flynn’s case, former New York federal judge John Gleeson issued a sharp rebuke of the Justice Department request, saying the move for dismissal was “corrupt” and “politically motivated.” Gleeson added that Flynn’s guilt “could hardly be more provable,” and President Trump has violated “foundational norms of prosecutorial independence.”

                It's nice to see the Rule of Law prevail over delusional bullsh1t for a change
                https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...rce=reddit.com
                Not one mention of an American general coerced into lying by a corrupt administration who said in their own words we need to “get him to lie”. Now did you pick up on the verbiage used in that statement? They didn’t say we need to “get him to tell the truth”, did they? Nope because all those players who testified under oath to include Clapper, McCabe, Rice, Rosenstein, Yates and the rest said they never had anything. Flynn was always a means to an end. This was about bringing down Trump and the first step needed was to threaten Flynn about his family to coerce a forced confession without any legal representation as the FBI again lied to him by stating there meeting was off the record. Now to his defense, Judge Sullivan was most likely not privy to this corruption when he came down on Flynn. Now Sullivan is stuck between a rock and needs his own representation to navigate through the cesspool of corruption. Sounds like the “rule of law” could use a tune up!

                Comment


                  The facts from an unbiased source

                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  Not one mention of an American general coerced into lying by a corrupt administration who said in their own words we need to “get him to lie”. Now did you pick up on the verbiage used in that statement? They didn’t say we need to “get him to tell the truth”, did they? Nope because all those players who testified under oath to include Clapper, McCabe, Rice, Rosenstein, Yates and the rest said they never had anything. Flynn was always a means to an end. This was about bringing down Trump and the first step needed was to threaten Flynn about his family to coerce a forced confession without any legal representation as the FBI again lied to him by stating there meeting was off the record. Now to his defense, Judge Sullivan was most likely not privy to this corruption when he came down on Flynn. Now Sullivan is stuck between a rock and needs his own representation to navigate through the cesspool of corruption. Sounds like the “rule of law” could use a tune up!
                  Here's a reading assignment for you in case you're actually interested in educating yourself on the facts in the Flynn case:
                  https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-re...ts-really-show
                  https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-...nts-flynn-case
                  https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-flyn...was-predicated

                  Read and learn. Use critical thinking skills. Think for yourself.

                  Or you can continue to believe what breitbart and other right-wing blogs tell you.

                  Choose wisely.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    Here's a reading assignment for you in case you're actually interested in educating yourself on the facts in the Flynn case:
                    https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-re...ts-really-show
                    https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-...nts-flynn-case
                    https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-flyn...was-predicated

                    Read and learn. Use critical thinking skills. Think for yourself.

                    Or you can continue to believe what breitbart and other right-wing blogs tell you.

                    Choose wisely.
                    Still no mention of “get him to lie”? For the guy who is so concerned with the “rule of law” you would think you wouldn’t just omit that part all together. One would think if the FBI really had something on Flynn they would get him to tell the truth. Furthermore, one would think the “rule of law” would allow for honesty about the “interview” and legal representation during questioning. I find it rather odd the judge in the case is afforded representation but the defendant wasn’t. Funny how the little things can throw a wrench into the whole corrupt process. So I took your advice and did a little reading. As much as it pains me to say, I’d take what CNN says over a keyboard warrior.

                    https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/04/29/p...iew/index.html

                    "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"

                    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...t-prove-it?amp

                    “the agents went out of their way to deceive Flynn about the purpose of the interview, at which they hoped to trip him up. It is rote for FBI "302" reports - used to summarize witness interviews - to start by recounting that interviewing agents advised the subject of the nature of the interview. But they did not do that with Flynn. He was discouraged from consulting counsel and from reporting the FBI's request to speak with him to his White House chain-of-command. He was not given the customary advice of rights - the FBI, after officials acknowledged among themselves that they owed it to Flynn to advise him that a false statement could be grounds for prosecution, willfully withheld this admonition from him.“

                    “Federal prosecutors leveraging one family member against another is a page directly out of a four-decade old prosecutorial playbook used successfully in Wall Street prosecutions.”

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      Here's a reading assignment for you in case you're actually interested in educating yourself on the facts in the Flynn case:
                      https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-re...ts-really-show
                      https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-...nts-flynn-case
                      https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-flyn...was-predicated

                      Read and learn. Use critical thinking skills. Think for yourself.

                      Or you can continue to believe what breitbart and other right-wing blogs tell you.

                      Choose wisely.
                      https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinio...d-often-abused

                      To think this is what the Obama administration was using to set up Flynn. More more one learns about it, the more laughable it becomes. Couple that with dishonest FBI agents and you have a recipe for corruption. If I were Judge Sullivan, I’d definitely get an attorney too.

                      After disgraced National Security Adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to the FBI and agreed to cooperate with Robert Mueller’s investigation, there’s been much speculation that the special counsel is using the “Logan Act” as leverage in his dealing with potential witnesses.

                      “Let’s hope not. No one has ever been found guilty of violating it since Congress passed the law in 1799. But that fact, which is circulating widely in the media, is a distraction. Far more concerning is another fact about the Logan Act: It has been repeatedly used as a partisan cudgel to harass political opponents for more than two American centuries. If Mueller makes this obscure law the centerpiece of his case against the Trump administration, he runs the risk of inviting accusations, however unfounded, that he, too, is a partisan hack.”

                      “... no one ever gets the ball rolling on an indictment tied to the Logan Act, much less a conviction. That’s because the law has never had much to do with crime and punishment. It was born a political weapon and has remained one ever since.”

                      Comment


                        The truth is there if you choose to believe facts

                        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                        Still no mention of “get him to lie”?
                        Flynn's testimony in the Mueller investigation hasn't been fully released yet, so we have no way of knowing how or whether certain strategies discussed by the FBI in those unsealed notes translated into an actual line of questioning. It doesn't matter, though. As noted in the lawfareblog piece:

                        "The Supreme Court has never held that the government's mere use of undercover agents or informants, or the use of deception by them, gives rise to a due process violation. The requisite level of outrageousness could be reached only where government conduct is so fundamentally unfair as to be "shocking to the universal sense of justice." Id. at 432. No court of appeals has held that a predisposed defendant may establish a due process violation simply because he purportedly was induced to commit the crime by an undercover agent or informant. See, e.g., United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515, 1521 (10th Cir.) (not outrageous for government "to infiltrate an ongoing criminal enterprise, or to induce a defendant to repeat, continue, or even expand criminal activity."), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 347 (1994)."
                        https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-re...ts-really-show

                        The truth is there for those who honestly seek it. Unfortunately there are some who prefer to get their opinions on the Flynn case from breitbart and Fox News instead of actual legal experts.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          Flynn's testimony in the Mueller investigation hasn't been fully released yet, so we have no way of knowing how or whether certain strategies discussed by the FBI in those unsealed notes translated into an actual line of questioning. It doesn't matter, though. As noted in the lawfareblog piece:

                          "The Supreme Court has never held that the government's mere use of undercover agents or informants, or the use of deception by them, gives rise to a due process violation. The requisite level of outrageousness could be reached only where government conduct is so fundamentally unfair as to be "shocking to the universal sense of justice." Id. at 432. No court of appeals has held that a predisposed defendant may establish a due process violation simply because he purportedly was induced to commit the crime by an undercover agent or informant. See, e.g., United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515, 1521 (10th Cir.) (not outrageous for government "to infiltrate an ongoing criminal enterprise, or to induce a defendant to repeat, continue, or even expand criminal activity."), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 347 (1994)."
                          https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-re...ts-really-show

                          The truth is there for those who honestly seek it. Unfortunately there are some who prefer to get their opinions on the Flynn case from breitbart and Fox News instead of actual legal experts.
                          Here’s everything you need to know about the corrupt process used against Flynn from the mouth of Jim Comey. Listen to his chosen words. Furthermore, when does the FBI conduct an interview at the White House with an in-coming administration using “undercover agents or informant”. Coney knew this whole thing was shady especially after he previously advised close the case on Flynn since nothing was found. Then out of nowhere Peter “insurance policy” Strozk begs to keep the case open. If you believe the “rule of law” includes coercion, family threats, “get him to lie”, “something I probably wouldn’t have done or gotten away with” to circumvent White House counsel then you’re part of the problem. You’re lack of acknowledgement in this corruption speaks volumes. You’d rather concentrate on an obscure law from 1799 and undercover agents and informants that have no bearing in your argument.

                          Asked to describe how two FBI agents ended up at the White House to interview Flynn in January 2017, Comey, speaking to MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace during a forum discussion Sunday, said flatly: “I sent them.”

                          Comey went on to acknowledge the way the interview was set up – not through the White House counsel’s office, but arranged directly with Flynn – was not standard practice. He called it “something I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more … organized administration.”

                          Describing how it is usually done, Comey said, “If the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel, and there would be discussions and approvals and who would be there.”

                          Recalling his decision to bypass those steps, Comey said, “I thought: ‘It’s early enough, let’s just send a couple guys over.’”

                          But according to Flynn's legal team, FBI agents in his case did not instruct Flynn that any false statements he made could constitute a crime and decided not to "confront" him directly about anything he said that contradicted their knowledge of his wiretapped communications with Kislyak.

                          Earlier this week, Flynn's legal team also made the allegation that the FBI had pushed him not to bring a lawyer to his interview with agents at the White House.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                            Here’s everything you need to know about the corrupt process used against Flynn from the mouth of Jim Comey. Listen to his chosen words. Furthermore, when does the FBI conduct an interview at the White House with an in-coming administration using “undercover agents or informant”. Coney knew this whole thing was shady especially after he previously advised close the case on Flynn since nothing was found. Then out of nowhere Peter “insurance policy” Strozk begs to keep the case open. If you believe the “rule of law” includes coercion, family threats, “get him to lie”, “something I probably wouldn’t have done or gotten away with” to circumvent White House counsel then you’re part of the problem. You’re lack of acknowledgement in this corruption speaks volumes. You’d rather concentrate on an obscure law from 1799 and undercover agents and informants that have no bearing in your argument.

                            Asked to describe how two FBI agents ended up at the White House to interview Flynn in January 2017, Comey, speaking to MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace during a forum discussion Sunday, said flatly: “I sent them.”

                            Comey went on to acknowledge the way the interview was set up – not through the White House counsel’s office, but arranged directly with Flynn – was not standard practice. He called it “something I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more … organized administration.”

                            Describing how it is usually done, Comey said, “If the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel, and there would be discussions and approvals and who would be there.”

                            Recalling his decision to bypass those steps, Comey said, “I thought: ‘It’s early enough, let’s just send a couple guys over.’”

                            But according to Flynn's legal team, FBI agents in his case did not instruct Flynn that any false statements he made could constitute a crime and decided not to "confront" him directly about anything he said that contradicted their knowledge of his wiretapped communications with Kislyak.

                            Earlier this week, Flynn's legal team also made the allegation that the FBI had pushed him not to bring a lawyer to his interview with agents at the White House.
                            You need to read the lawfareblog piece again. None of these things you are calling "corrupt processes" are outside the bounds of what is legal, acceptable, and commonplace in criminal investigations. Neither the Supreme Court nor any appeals courts have ruled otherwise.

                            You have no basis to continue whining about this, unless you consider right-wing media a higher legal authority than the U.S. court system.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                              You need to read the lawfareblog piece again. None of these things you are calling "corrupt processes" are outside the bounds of what is legal, acceptable, and commonplace in criminal investigations. Neither the Supreme Court nor any appeals courts have ruled otherwise.

                              You have no basis to continue whining about this, unless you consider right-wing media a higher legal authority than the U.S. court system.
                              You’re right, I don’t have any basis but the DOJ does which is why Barr is calling bullshît on the way this witch-hunt was conducted. Circumvent the White House counsel, advise Flynn no representation is needed, get him to lie, use the 1799 “political weapon“ Logan Act, threaten his family, and coercion. Yep sounds like they had a slam dunk case for sure. The FBI is better than that and you know it. If the Trump administration did this to a member of Obama’s clan, you’d be losing your shît. Look how upset Libtards are about Barr and the Durham investigation. It’s only good when the other side is being investigated, right?

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                                trump and his lapdog AG will regret they ever filed this motion to dismiss Flynn's case. This abortion of justice is about to be laid bare for the whole world to see. We will see lies and tortured logic the likes of which have never been seen before, to use a favorite trump phrase.

                                trump was hoping for the judge to cave and dismiss Flynn's case without fanfare. He should have done more research on this judge.

                                "Arguably, you sold your country out. I’m not hiding my disgust, my disdain for this criminal offense.”
                                -Judge Emmet Sullivan to Michael Flynn
                                https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...outputType=amp

                                U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan cannot scrutinize the Justice Department’s decision to drop its long-running prosecution of President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn and must dismiss the case, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
                                In a 2-1 decision, the court said it is not within the judge’s power to prolong the prosecution or examine the government’s motives for its reversal in the politically charged case.

                                Comment

                                Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                                Auto-Saved
                                x
                                Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                                x
                                Working...
                                X