December 19, 2018

"The outburst was too much even for the lawyers for Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who had to tell the judge that Mr. Flynn did not represent any foreign entity while at the White House."

"Judge Sullivan later apologized, sort of, telling the courtroom not 'to read too much into' his outburst about 'treason.' But that came after the falsehood made global headlines."

267 comments:

1 – 200 of 267   Newer›   Newest»
Not Sure said...

He should've just tweeted that shit.

tcrosse said...

Un-ring that bell.

rehajm said...

When we’re making up so much shit it’s hard to keep everyone on the same page. Sometimes the lesser players try to freelance.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

Isn’t this the judge that Judge Jeanine was lauding just a few days ago and was Trumpists’ best hope to have Flynn’s case dropped?

LYNNDH said...

We are suppose to have faith in our judicial system. Can't do that any more. More's the pity.

rehajm said...

Juidiciary is but one more political weapon, yes.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

How can the Judge remain on the case after this. Wouldn't a real judge apologize and then send the case to another judge. Don't judges care about the perception of fairness anymore.

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Sylwester said...

It's treason to lobby for Turkey, which has been our NATO ally since 1952.

Nonapod said...

You have Flynn and his lawyers telling this judge in so many words that he was absolutely not entraped and that he (basically) totally knew he was lying to the FBI. I assume this was a condition of whatever the plea agreement was, confess that you lied and you won't go to jail? I guess it's important to the great witchfinder general Mueller that all sins are confessed and the sinners are repentant.

Ralph L said...

With almost a year to prepare for his highest-profile hearing since the Ted Stevens fiasco, and Sullivan makes two major fuckups, in addition to not blasting the FBI and SC as they deserve.

His colleagues (or Roberts) need to have a sit down with him.

Mike Sylwester said...

When will our FBI question the John Podesta brothers about their lobbying for Russia without registering themselves?

FullMoon said...

Whut?

"Judge Emmet G. Sullivan — who a day earlier had excoriated former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — ordered the government to allow migrants with iffy claims to be given a full chance to make their case for asylum.

And he ordered the U.S. to un-deport plaintiffs in the case who were already ousted under the new policy, saying they deserve to be brought back and allowed to claim asylum.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/19/judge-blocks-donald-trumps-asylum-crackdown/

gerry said...

This is so stupid there must be something else going on.

John said...

I think the judge did not understand what Flynn was pleading guilty to.

The judge saw the unredacted version, right? So he saw all the things that Flynn did that he wasn’t charged with in exchange for pleading guilty to lying and co-operating. That’s what lead to the outburst.

Darrell said...

This is so stupid there must be something else going on.

Yeah. The end of the world--by to you by the Democratic Party. They're just making shit up now. Really they have been for two years.

Chuck said...

So the Trump blogosphere, typified in this case by Atlhouse, loves them some mistaken (and erroneous) references to "treason." Which have no consequence beyond yesterday's news. Flynn isn't being charged with treason. He won't be charged with treason. It was cleared up on the record yesterday before the day was done. The only people with their knickers in a twist over "treason" are the Trumpkins including the Althouse Trumpikins. Flynn's lawyers aren't concerned about it. The prosecutors aren't concerned about it.

It's a nothingburger. A double nothingburger with cheese.

Now I am going to tell you what was important yesterday. No; better to have David French at National Review tell you:

"Judge Emmett Sullivan unleashed an angry — and, quite honestly, over-the-top and inappropriate — tirade after Flynn accused the FBI of misconduct in his sentencing brief but backed away from its claims in open court. It was a brief that read well in conservative media but was singularly inappropriate to file in a court with a judge who has more complete command of the facts of the case than the talking heads on television or the Twitter lawyers online.
...
"All that spin you’ve been hearing about perjury traps? Those arguments you heard that the FBI mistreated Flynn and duped him into lying? When it was time to put up or shut up — when it was time to be held accountable rather than please the crowd — Flynn’s team failed.

"And why did they fail? Because they knew more you knew. They knew that Flynn was more vulnerable than any of us thought. How do we now know that? Because the judge made it plain that he could have been indicted for more crimes, and only his cooperation had prevented further legal jeopardy..."

madAsHell said...

How can the Judge remain on the case after this.

I would have thought the same. I'm not Perry Mason, but doesn't this open the window to a mistrial, or an appeal?

Another thought, if the judge can't understand the charges, then......

traditionalguy said...

The Judge is smarter than that. He made a big show of offering a dismissal and threatening a jail sentence if Flynn thought otherwise...but by the way you are a Traitor. All that happened despite the Prosecution's open recommendation of no jail time.

The General stood his ground, and the result was the Judge postponed everything. The charge remains open giving Mueller the authority to continue gathering evidence. That is what Trump's plan has been all along. Gather evidence, interview witnesses under oath, and more witnesses and more.

Darrell said...

There is speculation that the judge wants Flynn to withdraw his plea, so that he can go after Mueller and the process. Flynn refuses because of the threats made by Mueller against his family (supposedly.) I don't see how the "traitor lecture" helps Flynn to decide how the judge wants.

Bob Boyd said...

The judge may have had to walk it back a little, but basically it's mission accomplished.
He's has probably been taking a beating in his social life for being a pro-Trumper because media people have been saying he may toss Flynn's case. He did this to redeem himself.

AllenS said...

OK, I'll say it, this is another example why affirmative action is so wrong.

Big Mike said...

Isn’t this the judge that ... just a few days ago and was Trumpists’ best hope to have Flynn’s case dropped?

Yes. I don't see how, ethically, he can fail to recuse himself at this point.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Oh look, pretend lawyer Lifelong Cuck and decrepit old lefty cunt Inga are fighting with eachother about who gets to fellate misconduct by judicial officals on behalf of the deep state.

Both of whom totally didn't vote for Hillary Clinton, just ask them.

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Docetad said...

Are we getting the real story from the MSM? I doubt it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5dEKtGJ2Zs

James K said...

Isn’t this the judge that Judge Jeanine was lauding just a few days ago and was Trumpists’ best hope to have Flynn’s case dropped?

Um, he is the judge on the case, so it's rather obvious he's the "best hope to have Flynn's case dropped," given that Flynn has already pleaded out. And he's still the best hope, given that it's been delayed another 3 months, and Flynn is apparently willing to keep his deal rather than subject himself to whatever Mueller has threatened him with as an alternative.

Chuck said...

I want to single out this comment for particular, detailed ridicule:

FullMoon said...
I think the judge did not understand what Flynn was pleading guilty to.
After reading and listening to everything, the judge somehow did not realize Flynn was only pleading to the FBI entrapment deal.
That is pretty scary.


"Entrapment." Note that word; entrapment.

Now FullMoon -- and everybody else -- I want to do this in a way that comes as close as possible in a digital world to my grabbing you by the scruff of your neck and rubbing your nose in this. You see, Judge Sullivan yesterday asked Flynn's lawyer Robert Kelner (a criminal law superlawyer from Covington & Burling, who specializes in defending public corruption, election law and security cases) very specifically about "entrapmanet."

THE COURT: Is it your contention that Mr. Flynn was entrapped by the FBI?

MR. KELNER: No, your Honor.


Now there were five more questions in that colloquy. The Court asked Mr. Kelner if he or his client were contending that the FBI was obligated to tell Mr. Flynn that he needed a lawyer before the interview. ("No.") The Court asked if the Defendant was contending that the FBI had an obligation to warn him that it was a crime to lie to them. ("No.") The Court asked if Mr. Kelner was in any way contending that Mr. Flynn's rights had been violated in the conduct of the FBI interview. ("No.") And finally the Court asked, in particular reference to the sentencing memo that had been prepared on Flynn's behalf, if they were contending that any act of misconduct by the FBI raised any doubt about Mr. Flynn's guilt. ("No.")

Judge Sullivan killed your notion of "entrapment," FullMoon. Judge Sullivan killed it, drove a wooden stake through its lifeless heart, and pissed in its still-open mouth.

Big Mike said...

@Chuck, I believe now, and will always believe, that Flynn's support for Robyn Gritz in her sex discrimination suit against McCabe is the primary reason why Flynn is now standing before Judge Sullivan.

Any woman that does not rally behind Flynn deserves anything that happens to her in the future. Sisterhood??? Nothing but bunk.

Larry J said...

LYNNDH said...
We are suppose to have faith in our judicial system. Can't do that any more. More's the pity.


A significant percentage of all judges come across as nothing more than failed lawyers with sufficient political connections to get appointed or elected to the bench. This particular judge is no different.

dda6ga dda6ga said...

weissman showed the judge pictures last week, the judge is not stupid..

Rabel said...

In Chuck's link to David French, French fails to note that "judge who has more complete command of the facts of the case than the talking heads on television or the Twitter lawyers online" accused Flynn of treason because he, the judge, was completely wrong about the timeline of the actions in question.

Chuck said...


Big Mike said...
@Chuck, I believe now, and will always believe, that Flynn's support for Robyn Gritz in her sex discrimination suit against McCabe is the primary reason why Flynn is now standing before Judge Sullivan.

Any woman that does not rally behind Flynn deserves anything that happens to her in the future. Sisterhood??? Nothing but bunk.


Huh; I sort of thought that Flynn was pleading guilty because of this written, signed allocution, confessing his guilt:
https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Uh oh, pretend attorney and republican Lifelong Cuck is having his violent fantasies again.

" want to do this in a way that comes as close as possible in a digital world to my grabbing you by the scruff of your neck and rubbing your nose in this. "

It's a mixed bag, Full Moon, while at least he isn't doing his other go to fantasy of "shoving things down your throat" he is instead going back to the well with his fetish for roughing up women.

Thankfully, just like Chuck is a pretend tough guy on the internet (just like a pretend lawyer, and pretend republican) he will will do nothing more than run his cunt mouth about his violent fetishes from behind his keyboard. Just like Greta would beat the shit out of him in real life, I'm sure that his fantasy of putting his hands on your neck would end with him laying in a puddle of his own blood and urine were he to attempt it in meat space.

wendybar said...

Read Michael Goodwins New York Post opinion piece. He hit the nail on the head... https://nypost.com/2018/12/18/more-proof-the-deep-states-hypocrisy-is-alive-and-well/?fbclid=IwAR0_SufRMqfI-lU44hg16lDyEg339_VWUh87eyvvX1v1e1a9VrguhIjmFmQ

President-Mom-Jeans said...

"and pissed in its still-open mouth."

I take it back, I had missed Chuck's pee pee fetish and again using language about other men's mouths.

Jesus Christ Chuck, your pretend rants against Obergefell couldn't be any more transparent. Your closet is decorated with rainbows and glitter.

FullMoon said...

Internet Tough GuyChuck imagines

Now FullMoon -- and everybody else -- I want to do this in a way that comes as close as possible in a digital world to my grabbing you by the scruff of your neck and rubbing your nose in this.


Actual reasonable lawyer explains "perjury trap" vs "entrapment"

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/flynn-fact-and-narrative/
The FBI did not treat Flynn fairly. It is breathtaking to hear former director Comey brag about how he “got away with” dodging protocol in order to interrogate him. Nevertheless, while the Bureau’s situational ethics leave much to be desired, their aggressive tactics did not violate the law. Like the rest of us, Flynn is blessed to live in a republic in which we have a right to refuse to speak to police. If you choose to speak, it is your duty to speak honestly. He failed his duty. He may have walked into a perjury trap, but it wasn’t an entrapment.

At the same time, if you find yourself talking about treason and General Mike Flynn in the same sentence, you ought to start wondering where you went wrong. I suspect it’s when you decided narratives were more useful than facts.

rhhardin said...

He may just have not understood the case. Mark Steyn vs. Michael Mann had the same problem, the judge got the parties reversed somehow.

Big Mike said...

Huh; I sort of thought that ...

@Chuck, please do not use any word related to cogitation when describing yourself.

FullMoon said...

Oldie but Goodie surreptitiously requested by Chuck:


Chuck said...

Fuck you, Full Moon. I am not going to "deny it." I say again; I propose to grab Greta exactly the way that Corey grabbed Michelle. I expect Greta to be surprised and offended, and maybe even a bit frightened. Good. That's how Michelle felt, no doubt. But Greta thinks it was frivolous in Michelle's case. Again, good for me when I do it to her.

Chuck said...

FullMoon, in open court on the record, Michael Flynn's attorney had ample opportunity to claim that the FBI engaged in "entrapment," which was YOUR WORD.

The answer was no!

There was ample opportunity to claim that Flynn had not been treated fairly; had been subjected to a perjury trap; that breaches of Bureau ethics should be taken into account in his plea and his sentencing.

FLYNN'S OWN LAWYER SAID THAT NONE OF THAT WAS THE CASE YESTERDAY. It's true that they tried to run a bit of that story in the sentencing memo filed on Flynn's behalf. And by most accounts, that seems to have been the main reason why the Judge went off on Flynn and his lawyers yesterday.

The TrumpWorld hopes that Flynn's guilt could be blamed on the FBI were destroyed.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Sometimes the written or spoken word simply doesn't properly convey the true essence of the expression and emotion that is required when responding to Chuck. I humbly submit for everyone's enjoyment, this 30 second musical clip which does a much better job of communicating.

Youtube video, but probably not something you would want to blast in your place of employment.

Chuck, feel free to play it as loudly as you like in whatever family member's basement you pretend to play attorney from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiunJmqmjvo

tim in vermont said...

Chuck seems to think that he lives in a world where one can take everything said by the government literally and unquestioningly.

stevew said...

So much lying and so many falsehoods. Sad.

Jim at said...

Chuck said... .... scroll
Chuck said... .... scroll
Chuck said... .... scroll

Rinse. Repeat.

James K said...

I sort of thought that Flynn was pleading guilty because of this written, signed allocution, confessing his guilt

Even former FBI people have acknowledged that they get innocent people to plead guilty for fear of being prosecuted for more serious crimes (of which they may also be innocent). The flip side is of course that they don't prosecute everyone who is guilty. (See Clinton, Hillary.) So whatever Flynn may be technically guilty of, he's mainly guilty of pissing off the wrong people.

FullMoon said...

Chuck said...

FullMoon, in open court on the record, Michael Flynn's attorney had ample opportunity to claim that the FBI engaged in "entrapment," which was YOUR WORD.

The answer was no!


Haha! Ya got me Chuck. I did not know the difference between entrapment and perjury trap. Is my law license in jeopardy?
Now, did the judge mis-understand what Flynn was pleading to when he ranted about treason? Is lying to the FBI treason?

AllenS said...

Chuck, for your information, these proceedings have impoverished Flynn. As others, especially black or poor people in general, trying to go up against the FBI, which has unlimited funds, cannot afford to go to trial, so, like Flynn, they take a plea and do the time, because, once again, they cannot afford to outlast the FBI.

Chuck said...

tim in vermont said...
Chuck seems to think that he lives in a world where one can take everything said by the government literally and unquestioningly.


No, dumbass. I expect you to take the things that Michael Flynn and his lawyer (from one of the nation's most powerful law firms) say literally and unquestioningly.

Or are you now questioning Flynn? Is Flynn now lying about his lying?

Flynn and his lawyer were in open court and said that Flynn had not been unfairly set up. Flynn signed the allocution that I linked to. So that's not "the government" talking. That's Flynn saying, "these are my words."

John Pickering said...

hat tip to Daniel Larison:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/live-by-illegal-presidential-warfare-die-by-presidential-whim/

Congress has never debated or voted to authorize the use of force in Syria against anyone. U.S. forces have been operating in Syria for four years with no legal mandate from anyone. The 2001 AUMF has no application here, no matter how many times government officials pretend otherwise. The American presence in Syria does not have the Syrian government’s permission to be there and it is in violation of international law. Ending the previously open-ended, illegal mission is the obvious and necessary correction that has been missing for years. Naturally, hawks all over Washington are having a conniption fit in response to the news that this might actually happen.

Under the Constitution, Congress should be the branch to decide when and where the U.S. goes to war, and the president then carries out that decision. According to our current practice, the president takes the U.S. to war wherever he wants for any reason, and Congress meekly accepts each new war as it comes. Congressional hawks seem not to have grasped that a president who is allowed to initiate wars on his own authority without their approval will also be able to end them just as arbitrarily without taking Congress’ views into account. When Congress acquiesces in presidential decisions to start illegal wars, they can’t very well complain when a president suddenly decides to end one.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The left are fine with the big lie.

The damage is done. The left are fascists,.

Chuck said...

No, FullMoon; lying to the FBI is not treason. Lying to the FBI is a felony. A felony for which you might get no jail time if you have 30+ years of faithful and courageous service to the nation, and if you cooperate as fully as you possibly can with the Department of Justice.

Neither the judge, nor the prosecutors, nor Flynn nor his attorneys are going to spend another minute worrying about "treason." "Treason" is a subject that Trumpkins are going to spend the next weeks whining about among themselves.

While the Office of Special Counsel keeps on working.

FullMoon said...


Blogger Chuck said...

No, FullMoon; lying to the FBI is not treason.

So, you agree the judge mis understood. Or, is there another reason for the treason rant that I may not understand?
Thanks for that.

Chuck said...

AllenS said...
Chuck, for your information, these proceedings have impoverished Flynn. As others, especially black or poor people in general, trying to go up against the FBI, which has unlimited funds, cannot afford to go to trial, so, like Flynn, they take a plea and do the time, because, once again, they cannot afford to outlast the FBI.


So Flynn has spent a personal fortune, on one of the very best law firms and one of the best qualified lawyers in the nation. And yet he pled guilty. He pled guilty, he's been given the opportunity to recant his plea, and he's been given the generous offer of no jail time.

And he is still pleading guilty.

He's guilty.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

You people are so mired down by one conspiracy theory after another. Now you think the Judge acted in this manner to actually “get” Mueller? You believe this is some grand plan by Trump to get the FBI for entrapment and other nefarious things? Oh boy. Reality seems to be slipping out of the grip of so many of you as time goes by.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Or, is there another reason for the treason rant that I may not understand?
Thanks for that.”

Most likely there is. He has the unredacted version of the charges against Flynn.

Ralph L said...

he, the judge, was completely wrong about the timeline of the actions in question

To say nothing about the what the Constitution(!) says about treason.

Rick said...

The only people with their knickers in a twist over "treason" are the Trumpkins including the Althouse Trumpikins.

So someone alleges treason which is clearly not treason and Chuck concludes that person's critics are deranged.

It's truly unbelievable how stupid some people are.

Jim at said...

You people are so mired down by one conspiracy theory after another. - Inga

The jokes write themselves.

Chuck said...

Hey FullMoon I am not going to yell at you anymore about "treason." Rant all you want about "treason." I don't care.

Procedurally, I am going to predict what happens next. We have a 90-day continuance in the sentencing hearing. During that time, Judge Sullivan may be recused, but I very much doubt it. So in mid-March (and remember that this strongly implies that the OSC investigation will be continuing until that time at least) Judge Sullivan will revisit this issue, looking for signs that Flynn is providing full cooperation with the DoJ. And in that regard, I expect that Flynn will go way, way out of his way to make it clear that HE IS NOT BLAMING THE FBI FOR HIS GUILT.

Because what I heard yesterday was that Flynn had already given full cooperation with the DoJ. They were a bit mystified how to answer the question about any future cooperation.

So what is left, is the issue raised in Flynn's sentencing memo and by folks like you. That is, the claim that the FBI 'set up' Flynn. And I think that in the next 90 days, Flynn and his lawyers are going to try to bury any such claim on Flynn's behalf.

FullMoon said...

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Or, is there another reason for the treason rant that I may not understand?
Thanks for that.”

Most likely there is. He has the unredacted version of the charges against Flynn.

12/19/18, 3:26 PM


Oh, you mean the secret charges not mentioned in court and kept from the public. Those charges?

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Chuck and Inga, sitting in a tree. C U C K I N G

Music definitely helps express oneself when commenting how once again lefty twats Chuck and Inga are once again fully in alignment with the DNC talking points of the day.

But just every day.

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

tim in vermont: Chuck seems to think that he lives in a world where one can take everything said by the government literally and unquestioningly.

I used to think Our Chuck was just a poor devil afflicted with an oddly limited, oddly literal cast of mind, his outbursts of spleen being a manifestation of the understandable frustration an oddly limited, oddly literal sort of person feels at the mockery his oddly tangential and self-absorbed responses inevitably attract.

Now I'm seeing that there's a downright sordid side to Our Chuck that wasn't apparent to me before.

FullMoon said...

Chuck said...

Hey FullMoon I am not going to yell at you anymore about "treason." Rant all you want about "treason." I don't care.


Ok, cannot explain it then. Thanks for trying.
Inga did the job for you. Answer is in the secret un redacted charges. Haha!

Humperdink said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rick said...

Pretty amusing posting these comments back to back.

You people are so mired down by one conspiracy theory after another. ...Reality seems to be slipping out of the grip of so many of you as time goes by.

Then

“Or, is there another reason for the treason rant that I may not understand?
Thanks for that.”

Most likely there is. He has the unredacted version of the charges against Flynn.


Just making it up is totally different from losing a grip on reality.

Chuck said...

Rick said...
"The only people with their knickers in a twist over "treason" are the Trumpkins including the Althouse Trumpikins."

So someone alleges treason which is clearly not treason and Chuck concludes that person's critics are deranged.

It's truly unbelievable how stupid some people are.


The judge mentioned treason in a question to Flynn's counsel. There was no allegation. The prosecutors agree there is no allegation. There will be no allegation. The judge apologized for having made the mere mention of the word.

What is the substantive import of it now?

Chuck said...

If you shit heads were Flynn's lawyers, he'd be in leg irons right now, on a bus to a federal prison.

rhhardin said...

This fits right in:
A young newlywed lesbian couple goes to an idyllic remote forest cabin to spend some quality time together. Unfortunately, one of them turns out to be an emotionless sociopath and sadistic serial killer who plans to hunt her emotional new wife down and brutally torture her to death both physically and mentally, just like she did with her first wife. Will history repeat itself?

Sebastian said...

Is there any precedent, in the annals of American law, for a judge, in open court, to accuse someone of treason and selling out his country, and then having to take it back? Is there any precedent for a Republican saying that, when such a thing happens to a citizen, it is nothing to worry about?

Of course, Flynn was entrapped: interviewed under false pretenses, set up by McCabe himself, in a matter that was none of the FBI's business, for which the FBI already had all information, itself acquired illegally, interviewed for the purpose not of clarifying anything unclear in the actions revealed by the wiretaps but simply to try and catch Flynn in a lie, which the FBI itself then failed to record as required.

Think of it this way. Suppose Flynn had answered with nothing but the truth: would the FBI have followed up in any way, pursued a case against anyone, held anyone accountable for anything illegal? Of course not. And there's the point: the interview had no purpose other than to nail Flynn, and indirectly to nail Trump.

Even at that, it almost failed: the agents apparently did not think they got enough, Flynn's answers to multi-pronged questions are being construed as "lies," and only Mueller's pressure made Flynn go broke and cave.

FullMoon said...

Chuck said...
The judge mentioned treason in a question to Flynn's counsel. There was no allegation. The prosecutors agree there is no allegation. There will be no allegation. The judge apologized for having made the mere mention of the word.

What is the substantive import of it now?

12/19/18, 3:36 PM


It is simply a matter of curiousity on my part. The simple question is why was the judge enraged enough to ask prosecuter id treason was considered.
My average guy opinion is that the judge did not understand that Flynn was only pleading to lying. The only alternative you have come up with is secret charges in unredacted PDF

Dave Begley said...

The second comment by tcrosse has it right. You can't un-ring that bell.

Flynn is now a traitor. Worse than Benedict Arnold per MSNBC.

Puke!

AJ Lynch said...

The FBI & DOJ have become a joke. Why even debate whether any of the Trump associates were treated fairly when we know they were not.

Since some well paid liar came up with the Trump Russia collusion BS, about 15 to 20 FBI/ DOJ high-level staff have been fired or resigned or demoted or shown to be loons [Jim Comey]. Yet the press cozies up to Comey as if he still had credibility. Why should we believe anything the FBI or DOJ claims?

Trumop and Repubs should beat this drum daily and remake both agencies with some new, honest, credible and smart execs.

FullMoon said...

Chuck said...

If you shit heads were Flynn's lawyers, he'd be in leg irons right now, on a bus to a federal prison.

12/19/18, 3:38 PM


Uh, ok.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

Dear Inga, you need to keep in mind the con-spiracy theory that is usually espoused. It is that Mueller is cooperating with Trump and under Trump's power because of the many Treasonous acts he was involved in with the Clintons. His plea deal is for a lesser sentence for Mueller provided he keeps this Russia Hoax story going about a crazy and unfair investigation of Trump. All the while the rest of the DOJ has spent its last 20 months mapping out the spider web of evidence needed to be collected for criminal cases against the Bushes and the Clintons and their minions.

Remember those 56,000 sealed indictments are either a fake cases or we are awaiting a mass arrest day for imprisonment in Guantanomo Navy Base's newly expanded facilities to hold all of the high level prisoners facing Military Tribunal Justice.

DJT first needed 5 votes on the Scotus and an actual majority of 53 votes in the Senate first. That is about completed.( the supposed Republican Senators McCain, Corker and Flake were never Trump voters so Trump only had 48 Senators, but that is now 53 Senators)

EDH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Remember those 56,000 sealed indictments are either a fake cases or we are awaiting a mass arrest day for imprisonment in Guantanomo Navy Base's newly expanded facilities to hold all of the high level prisoners facing Military Tribunal Justice.”

Oh Tradguy, you truly believe this? This makes me so sad, because I like and respect you.

n.n said...

Mueller et al are concerned that the judge's characterization will invite unwelcome scrutiny of their warlock hunt a la the prophecy of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

James K said...

Flynn and his lawyer were in open court and said that Flynn had not been unfairly set up. Flynn signed the allocution that I linked to. So that's not "the government" talking. That's Flynn saying, "these are my words."

So, Chuck, if someone says, "There is no god but Allah" while a Muslim fanatic is holding a knife to his throat, does that mean he believes what he saying, and is guilty of blasphemy if he's a Christian?

Flynn is being threatened with all sorts of prosecutions with severe punishments and huge legal expenses. That's the equivalent of the knife to the throat. So, yeah, that's the government talking.

EDH said...

Besides Flynn's coerced confession, what proof existed that Flynn lied during his interview with the FBI about his otherwise perfectly legal talks with Russian officials?

My understanding is the FBI failed to file timely reports from the interview that documented what Flynn said, and that any reports filed much later were suspect in timeline, creation, content and originality.

Plus didn't those FBI reports actually say Flynn didn't lie; it was only after Mueller took up the case that Flynn was accused of lying.

That's what I (and others) thought Judge Sullivan was looking behind before the sentencing when he asked for the 302s.

Clearly, Flynn folded cards based on what the government had against him in matters unrelated to Russia, both in proof and severity.

His lawyers would have opened themselves to malpractice claims, however, if they threw a wrench in the plea deal being offered by raising legal and ethical objection to the FBI conduct in the Russian questioning, because they could have tried him on the Turkey work.

Yet, doesn't this show Mueller's Team wanted a conviction on a dubious charge related to Russia more than to route-out what the judge mistakenly labelled "treason"?

That's what makes it seem political and a face-saving move on Mueller's part.

Jupiter said...

David Docetad said...
"Are we getting the real story from the MSM? I doubt it:"

Excellent video, David, but I think a better way of introducing it is to say, here is an extended commentary by someone who was present in court during the events in question, which puts matters in a rather different light;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5dEKtGJ2Zs

robother said...

Judicial temper does not equal judicial temperament.(Clinton minority appointee behaving exactly as one would predict.) He read about Flynn's ex-partners lobbying for Turkey in the WaPo yesterday morning, and concludes Flynn is a traitor over breakfast--federal district court judges don't need no stinking evidence! Either that, or he wants this case to go away, he's old, tired and cranky.

Mike said...

Flynn may not be a traitor in the legal sense, but he is in the moral sense. He was taking money from Turkey to represent their interests while he was in the Obama White House. He was the only one who opposed an anti-ISIS attack because the Turks didn't like it, thinking it would help the Kurds. He helped hatch a crazy plan to kidnap a Turkish dissident and send him back to Turkey and continued to lobby for deporting the dissident while being an undisclosed paid agent for the Turks.

After being caught lying to the FBI, he's been spending weeks trying to play both sides: claiming real contrition to get out of a jail sentence while stoking Fox News with ridiculous tales of how he was "entrapped". Judge Sullivan got him to admit all that was BS: that he knew the consequence of what he did, that he lied with deliberation.

The fact that so many Trumpists are defending this piece of garbage is just one more sign of the bizarre Cult of Personality you guys have formed around this orange cretin (or, the Democrat Derangement Syndrome that assumes anything that hurts Trump is bad). It' going to be so much fun to watch, when Trump turns on Flynn, every single one of you do a 180 and talk about how awful Flynn is.

Chuck said...

LOL!

The Althouse Gang doesn't even believe it when Flynn pleads guilty and is given a wonderfully generous sentencing offer by the prosecution. They still think he's innocent and with the advice of counsel Flynn only pled guilty to avoid a massive unjust trial on other charges.

Think of this if and when Trump is indicted. Think of how no amount of proof will convince the Trump dead-enders. They won't believe what the lying media is telling them.

We should get them some of the islands in the South Pacific where lost Japanese soldiers from WWII held out into the 1950's and 60's. We'll get them satellite dishes that can pick up the Fox News Channel and radio broadcasts of Rush Limbaugh.

FullMoon said...


Blogger Jupiter said...

David Docetad said...
"Are we getting the real story from the MSM? I doubt it:"

Excellent video, David, but I think a better way of introducing it is to say, here is an extended commentary by someone who was present in court during the events in question, which puts matters in a rather different light;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5dEKtGJ2Zs


Answers may questions. Nothing at all to do with Inga and Chucks "secret charges" in unredacted version.

Birkel said...

John Pickering takes Obama to the woodshed and gives credit to Trump.

Beelzebub is building a snowman.

Chuck said...

This story reminds me of the time that Trump got into it with Senator Blumenthal and the media over the reported comment by then-Judge Neil Gorsuch in his pre-confirmation interview, wherein Blumenthal told the press that Gorsuch found it "disheartening" and "demoralizing" that President Trump was personally disparaging federal judges who ruled against him on executive orders and in the Trump University fraud case. Trump went berserk on Twitter, claiming that Gorsuch was being mischaracterized.

And what I remarked at the time was basically; Just wait! There is going to be a hearing in just a few weeks! It will be on national television, and Blumenthal is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he is going to ask Gorsuch about this whole kerfuffle...

It happened just like I predicted. And Gorsuch used the same words in front of the whole nation. "Disheartening" and "demoralizing."

So now we've got this thing with Flynn, and what I am saying is that within 90 days, Flynn is going to be back in court, with a jail term on the line, and he is going to disown the whole fiction of, "Flynn was set up by the FBI."

But now as we see, the Trump dead-enders won't even accept that, not even from Flynn's own mouth.

Birkel said...

Chuck believes a sitting president can be indicted.
Let that sink in.

Fopdoodle cannot lawyer good.

Drago said...

Brian Stelter Republican Chuck: "The Althouse Gang doesn't even believe it when Flynn pleads guilty and is given a wonderfully generous sentencing offer by the prosecution."

"Wonderfully generous" is how I would describe the deals the DOJ gave to every single Clinton associate who lied to federal investigators: full immunity without providing testimony against anyone else and to walk away free.

We have actual texts from FBI investigators joking about how Clinton's IT guy "lied his ass off" and then......nothing. Except freedom.

Nice.

Hillarys interview? 9 lawyers present, not under oath, no video, no notes.

Every single leftist is cool with this.

And so is Chuck.

Reasonable inferences may be drawn.

Rick said...

The judge mentioned treason in a question to Flynn's counsel. The prosecutors agree there is no allegation. There was no allegation.

How stupid does someone have to be to write this? Of course the Judge's question is an allegation Flynn could be guilty of treason, that's the entire point of the question! Chuck is deriding others based on the fact that the prosecutors didn't charge him but since no one believes that it's a strawman. Note how he devalues the judge's gratuitous "treason" to a mere "mention" as if there were no specific link to Flynn. Maybe we're to believe the judge was just musing about a poem in which the word randomly appeared.

What is the substantive import of it now?

Chuck's new standard is that criticism cannot be offered for outrageous allegations unless they are accompanied by legal charges. We know this is a deeply held principle because he's applied it to exactly one fact pattern in the entirety of human history. The universal nature of this standard justifies claiming everyone who violates it is somehow deranged.

Or we recognize that some people including Chuck are incapable of reason.

Drago said...

LLR Chuck: "This story reminds me of the time that Trump got into it with Senator Blumenthal..."

One must remember that LLR Chuck reserved some his most passionate dem defense (and thats sayin' something!)for this Stolen Valor hack liar.

Chuck reveled in defending him even as he attacked and insulted decorated Navy doctor Jackson.

Chuck loves him some dem hacks.

James K said...

The Althouse Gang doesn't even believe it when Flynn pleads guilty and is given a wonderfully generous sentencing offer by the prosecution.

Chuck, I don't know what Flynn is guilty of. Neither do you. But surely you're not so stupid as to think that a plea agreement constitutes metaphysical truth about an actual crime. Flynn may be pleading guilty for something that will give him a slap on the wrist to avoid being charged with more serious crimes committed before Trump was elected. Nor do you know why he was offered this deal.

Beyond that, the flip side is that lack of a conviction or indictment is no proof of innocence, as the case of Hillary shows.

EDH said...

Mike, Chuck:

What I'm saying is Mueller used a dubious charge of lying to FBI investigators about what seem to be perfectly legal talks with Russians to manufacture a result for political reasons.

I do think Flynn may be "innocent" of the lesser charges he's pled guilty to, either because there's a failure of proof or on a technicality.

Moreover, I'm all in favor of Flynn being charged for any other real crimes involving Turkey, for instance, which Mike says spanned two administrations (provided other swap creatures are pursued with similar vigor for the same offense).

But it appears Mueller's team chose for PR reasons to charge the lying to FBI agents offense simply because it involved RUSSIA.

The FBI interview in the early days of the administration appears to have been a contrivance, part of the Russian collusion "insurance policy" strategy, a continuation of the dirty tricks operation run through the FBI, DOJ and Clinton campaign.

Comey admitted to the FBI's role in that in a recent interview about the conduct of the Flynn interview.

That's why I think Mueller's conduct as a prosecutor is suspect, and this plea agreement sadly political and face-saving.

Chuck said...

Birkel I think that everyone from the Office of Legal Counsel, to (main) Justice, et cetera, think that an indictment can be filed under seal and held/stayed until a president leaves office. And indictment under seal, with no other legal proceedings would not distract a sitting president or require him to detract from his executive duties.

Here's a discussion, including one of Althouse's former colleagues at Wisconsin.

"There is substantial concern that if Mr. Trump has committed crimes, he could first say that he is unable to be prosecuted while president only to say he can no longer be prosecuted because the applicable statutes of limitations have expired after his term ends.

"Prof. [Keith] Findley [of the University of Wisconsin] argued that one 'solution would be to indict the president within the limitations period, but then stay the prosecution while the president is in office. The statute of limitations requires only that the prosecution be initiated within the limitations period, by filing of the indictment of information. Once filed, the statute of limitations is satisfied, even if the prosecution is held in abeyance pending the president’s term in office.'"

Jay Elink said...

@ Chuck:

A secret indictment? What about the constitutional right to confront your accusers?

What about "justice delayed, is justice denied"?

Rabel said...

The "treason" accusation was based on the judges incorrect understanding that Flynn's representation of Turkey continued after he began working in the White House for the Trump administration.

The representation in question took place in 2015.

Chuck said...

Hahaha.

You poor disgusting motherfuckers. See you in court in March. Good luck until then.

By the way, I hope that none of you wanted to meet with Flynn anywhere outside a 50-mile radius of Washington DC in that time. He's under a travel restriction and his passport was ordered to be surrendered.

Let that be a lesson to anybody who wants to play Trump-media games with a federal court.

FIDO said...

I remember reading about a symposia with Socrates where he desperately wanted to go home but his followers, who conceded he was the most persuasive man on the planet, wished him to stay and continue to converse.

He asked if there was any way he could persuade them and they said that their counter was that they would refuse to listen.


Or perhaps Cassandra is the key. She was supposed to be a 100% correct prophetess...but was cursed by the gods with the fact that NO ONE would believe her. So she would see the coming disaster but for reasons undisclosed...no one would listen.

But that seems a cop out: 'gods'. Maybe Cassandra was incredibly obnoxious. Maybe she was a miserable Feminist, brighter than most, who had some foresight...but so turned off the power structure, so alienated herself from her fellow human beings by insults and lack of emotional, spiritual, and intellectual maturity that she...was...ignored.

Chuck, I am sure these musings are apropos of nothing, though why your name should come up on this topic, I have no idea.

Certainly it wasn't due to my being wowed by your prognosticative ability or intellect.


narciso said...

It's like ground hog day, without bill murray, Mueller's record from boston to bcci, to anthrax mailing fiasco, the aipac executives charged with espionage, for relaying info about the kurds to Israel, the mishandling of the Enron task force, by Weissman and his supervisor, chris wray, the way the hospital bed meeting re Ashcroft was misrepresented,

Birkel said...

Chuck,
And I think everybody hypothesizing about those sorts of thinks is a fool.

All "right thinking people" think going after Hillary and Obama for their criminal behavior would be bad for future governance. Those same people think going after Trump would be copacetic.

Principles are neat. You should try one.

iowan2 said...

I wish Chuck would read a little law before spouting off about stuff he has no clue about.

Flynn is being coerced by Mueller. He will say what he is ordered to say, or Mueller will take what ever assets he has left. Levy fines in the $millions and lock him up. Along with his wife, her family and their children. Mueller's power is uncheckable.
You sticking up for this kind of abuse of power is sickening.

EDH said...

What Chuck and Mike don't seem to grasp is not that we think Flynn is clean.

It's that we view the ongoing manipulation of the legal process by FBI, DOJ and Mueller is so dirty and political.

Vance said...

So based on this thread, can Chuck still claim to be a Republican? He and noted leftist Inga are singing from the same hymnal... again.... and again.... for the umpteenth time.

Accusing Republicans of treason...something lifelong Republicans have always done in the past, right Chuck? You proudly stand on the side that says working with Trump is treason, I am sure.

What's next, you'll ask for the "severely conservative" position of mass executing every one who voted for Trump (except you, of course!)? Just like any good leftist would?

FIDO said...

I wonder what strategic or impact on the credibility of the Mueller lawyers their having to publicly concede that Flynn is NOT a traitor this will have on their optics and their case.

narciso said...

furthermore, how did this become about turkey, whose leader was Obama's no. leader, even after the crushing of the taksim square protests, now we're given to understand that turkey is trust worthy, except when it's not,

iowan2 said...

Chuck said...
Hahaha.

You poor disgusting motherfuckers. See you in court in March. Good luck until then


Pay attention.
Chuck is our better.

Biotrekker said...

Our courts are are a steaming pile.

Jim at said...

What Chuck and Mike don't seem to grasp is not that we think Flynn is clean.

It's that we view the ongoing manipulation of the legal process by FBI, DOJ and Mueller is so dirty and political.


Shhhh. That's crazy talk.

EDH said...

Chuck said...
Hahaha. You poor disgusting motherfuckers. See you in court in March. Good luck until then.

I guess that means you won't address the arguments I raised about Mueller allowing his investigation to become a continuation of the highly and improperly political "insurance policy" strategy originally hatched at the FBI, DOJ and the Clinton campaign?

Birkel said...

EDH has the measure of my concern.

The Mueller appointment is doing its assigned task: hiding the malfeasance of the 4th Amendment breaches perpetrated by the Obama Administration.

narciso said...

I know chuck, can't hold two unrelated ideas, in his head at the same time, but pretend to do so,

Fernandistein said...

I represent a foreign entity.

Char Char Binks said...

None dare call it treason without walking it back. Oopsies!

Dave Begley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave Begley said...

One thing to bear in mind is that Althouse was a law clerk for a federal judge. It is really unforgivable that a federal judge would get the facts wrong from the bench and essentially call Flynn a traitor. Ann knows that from her experience. The three federal judges that I know would never make such a mistake. That's why they are federal judges!

Flynn is branded for the rest of his life. Branded! What can you do when you're branded? Can you live like a man?

Francisco D said...

The judge excoriated Flynn for unregistered lobbying for Turkey before and after the Presidential campaign. How is it treason to lobby for a foreign power, especially if it has been a formal ally for over 50 years? Did he pass on confidential information, like something you might find on an illegal server?

How often do people in government lobby for foreign countries without registering? How serious of an offense is this?

Where is the Russian Collusion angle in all this?

So far, this sounds like the Manafort case which has absolutely nothing to do with Trump.

Chuck and Inga seem to be getting excited about some vague hopes, only to be dashed once again by a hoax that a seventh grader would not believe.

Chuck said...

Vance said...
So based on this thread, can Chuck still claim to be a Republican? He and noted leftist Inga are singing from the same hymnal... again.... and again.... for the umpteenth time.

Accusing Republicans of treason...something lifelong Republicans have always done in the past, right Chuck? You proudly stand on the side that says working with Trump is treason, I am sure.

What's next, you'll ask for the "severely conservative" position of mass executing every one who voted for Trump (except you, of course!)? Just like any good leftist would?


Vance there are some malicious idiots among the Althouse commentariat. And there are some mendacious ones too.

You are just one of the ordinary, uninformed, barely literate idiots.

Vance, read this slowly. I will use small words and short sentences.

I did not accuse Flynn of Treason. I have no reason to suspect that Flynn committed treason. The prosecutors did not charge treason. They did not allege treason. Flynn pled guilty, but not to treason. He never had to answer a charge of treason. Judge Sullivan mentioned treason, and it was a mistake for him to do that. The day that he did it, in the course of the same hearing (after a break) the Judge expressed his regret and apology for having mentioned treason. The Judge was right, to express that regret for his error, and he did it on the record which was also right.

Now Vance; do you understand? I am not "accusing Republicans of treason," and I am not defending anyone who did accuse any Republican of treason, at least as far as concerns this story.

Do you get that, Vance? Do you see what a preposterous little allegation it was that you made against me? Much like the preposterous little allegation (if anybody wanted to think it was an allegation) that you Trumpkins are complaining about with Judge Sullivan and Mike Flynn.

Birkel said...

Chuck knows which office a man goes to, to get his reputation back.
Chuck knows because Chuck is banned from that office.

Chuck said...

EDH said...
Chuck said...
"Hahaha. You poor disgusting motherfuckers. See you in court in March. Good luck until then."

I guess that means you won't address the arguments I raised about Mueller allowing his investigation to become a continuation of the highly and improperly political "insurance policy" strategy originally hatched at the FBI, DOJ and the Clinton campaign?


It means I don't care. I am happy to argue one point with all of you. Abut 60 of you versus 1 of me seems like a fair fight. But I am not going to play call-in program with you and answer questions about any other topics you want to bring up. Even for a long time listener but a first time caller.

narciso said...

words like treason are tough for chuck to get around, never mind ignoring the whole squalid basis for this investigation:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/19/buzzfeed-russia-dossier-lawsuit-setback-1068728

Sally said...

How old is Sullivan anyway? It sounded to me like he was conflating two different cases.

Char Char Binks said...

"The judge excoriated Flynn for unregistered lobbying for Turkey... Where is the Russian Collusion angle in all this?"

Well, Turkey isn't very far from Russia. Maybe Flynn MEANT to collude with Russia, and accidentally colluded with Turkey instead.

Jason said...

Imagine being so stupid you think only guilty people cop a plea bargain.

And Imagine being Chuck. But I repeat myself.

Birkel said...

Fopdoodle at 5:02 PM, restated:

I am ok with 4th Amendment violations against American citizens by the federal government and any cover-up of those illegal behaviors, thereafter.

Getting Trump is more important than the Constitution of the United States and its civil liberties protections.

FullMoon said...

Sally said...

How old is Sullivan anyway? It sounded to me like he was conflating two different cases.

12/19/18, 5:02 PM


That is what I thought also but this youtube video linked by someone above explains it pretty well. Much better than Chuck and Inga's 'secret charges" stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5dEKtGJ2Zs

gadfly said...

WSJ used some really strange logic in defense of Flynn's foreign agent status while working in the White House, even using the word "bizarre" in "The Flynn Fiasco" editorial. As M.T. Wheeler points out:

There’s a grammatical difference between [Judge] Sullivan’s two comments. He first said that Flynn was “an unregistered agent of a foreign country, while serving as the National Security Advisor.” That was, technically, true. For the entirety of the time Flynn served as National Security Advisor, FIG [Flynn Intelligence Group] had not admitted [in its March 1917 FARA filing] that it had actually been working directly for Turkey. Indeed, FIG continued to lie (and so remained unregistered) about that fact until December 1, 2017, when Flynn pled guilty."

robother said...

“All along, you were an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the National Security Adviser to the President of the United States. That undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably you sold your country out,” is what Judge Sullivan said, coupling it with a threat to sentence Flynn to hard time, despite the prosecutor's leniency request.

Does this sound like a Judge who meant it when he took back his words? Does this sound like a Judge who Flynn's lawyers would ever trust to abide by the leniency request? The Judge is probably pissed as hell that the lawyers for Flynn (and the prosecution) pointed out his error of fact.

Birkel said...

gadfly,

You will be happy to know 2015 is not the same year as 2017.
You are welcome.

Humperdink said...

LLR Chuck reveling in a 30 year veteran going to the pokey for the simple reason he agreed to work for Trump. Sickening.

"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." Lavrentiy Beria, Josef Stalin's secret police chief.

Chuck said...

robother said...
“All along, you were an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the National Security Adviser to the President of the United States. That undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably you sold your country out,” is what Judge Sullivan said, coupling it with a threat to sentence Flynn to hard time, despite the prosecutor's leniency request.

Does this sound like a Judge who meant it when he took back his words? Does this sound like a Judge who Flynn's lawyers would ever trust to abide by the leniency request? The Judge is probably pissed as hell that the lawyers for Flynn (and the prosecution) pointed out his error of fact.


I don't think that they did. I think that the Judge took a break, to allow Flynn to consult with his own lawyers. During that time, the Judge, in his chambers, probably became aware of the media firestorm brewing over his use of the word "traitor."

And so when he came back on the bench, knowing that, the Judge tried to correct himself and express his regret. But he also wanted to clarify whether Flynn might have been subject to charges in the 2 new indictments. (Flynn might have been charged with them but for his plea deal and cooperation.)

That is what I think happened. Do you know better? I have seen parts of the transcript, but not the entire transcript.

Matthew Sablan said...

I think Flynn probably did something illegal. Even Stzork didn't think he lied. Once the original 302 was lost or destroyed or whatever and a new one drafted that changed.

The FBI and Mueller who have admitted to destroying exculpatory evidence in the cell phones of Stzork and Page and Clinton's various documents and devices probably couldn't have won the lying case.

Chuck said...

robother; one more thing...

The judge questioned counsel about "treason." He brought it up, in connection with his self-correction. Nobody "corrected" him.

Rick said...

See you in court in March. Good luck until then."

I initially took this to mean he wouldn't be back until March, imagine my disappointment.

I wonder why Chuck doesn't apply his 'criticizing the judge for alleging Flynn's acts might be treason is proof of derangement' standard to WSJ editors who...criticized the comments as clearly inappropriate.

Why it's almost like his rants are completely unrelated to the justifications he supposedly bases them on.

narciso said...

I tend to doubt that, regardless there is a reason, you can count on one hand the number of fara prosecutions, if all you got is a hammer, now if the judge was addressing any circumstance related to Russia today, he might have a better understanding, except consider every other public official who appeared on that channel,

EDH said...

FullMoon said...
That is what I thought also but this youtube video linked by someone above explains it pretty well. Much better than Chuck and Inga's 'secret charges" stuff.

Indeed, that was a interesting take outside Sullivan's courtroom: a pox on all your houses. Very much in line with what I was speculating in an earlier draft...

Maybe what motivated Judge Sullivan's intemperate hyperbole in the courtroom was the fact he was confronted with a difficult choice:

1.) Allow Flynn who he thinks is dirty for reasons unrelated to the charges before him off easy, or

2.) let the government have it's dirty, political prosecution get a tainted plea.

Reminds me of Pontius Pilot's predicament (a man before me probably innocent of what he's charged with, but an potential existential threat nonetheless).

Not surprising, perhaps, that Judge Sullivan would like to "wash his hands" of the entire matter.

EDH said...

And take a shower after that!

Howard said...

Just who the fuck does that judge think he is??? Donald J Trump? He grabbed Flynn by the pussy

Matthew Sablan said...

I just want to know how anyone thinks Mueller wins this charge without a plea. What jury convicts a guy the FBI didn't think lied to them until additional political pressure was applied and tried to hide the evidence the accused didn't do what they were accused of all while denying the accused a chance to have a lawyer present.

Like. Who really thinks this is a winnable case but for the plea?

Matthew Sablan said...

Mind you. We still don't know WHO unmasked Flynn illegally if we believe Powers didn't like the order says but she denies.

Matthew Sablan said...

Given that the order to unmask him was illegal, can we even use the evidence obtained from it?

Chuck said...

Matthew;
Flynn, and Flynn's lawyers, and the prosecutors, and the FBI, and Judge Sullivan all know a whole lot more about this than you and I do.

And they all agree that Flynn is pleading guilty to a charge of lying to the FBI. It seems very, very likely that Flynn could have been charge with a lot more.

And Flynn's lawyers would like no jail time. The prosecution is okay with no jail time. But the judge is considering it, and he is not so sure right now that Flynn should get away with no jail time.

That sounds pretty serious. And all based on more knowledge than either one of us possesses.

Matthew Sablan said...

I think no. If a warrant were forged and would not normally be granted, like the unmasking requests, I'm pretty sure evidence obtained that way is inadmissible. How else do you prove a lie no one who heard it thought was a lie even knowing the illegal evidence without invoking illegal evidence to justify a politicized rewrite and destruction of the previous files?

What is the Mueller legal strategy if Flynn made it to trial?

gadfly said...

Blogger Birkel said...
gadfly,

You will be happy to know 2015 is not the same year as 2017.

You are welcome.

I have no idea what your reference to 2015 is about. Flynn's lawyer filed his first and only FARA report in March 2017. Turkey was not named in the filing.

narciso said...

an intriguing question, that chuck doesn't consider,

FIDO said...

I don't like all that is hidden by this plea deal.

It is protecting the FBI and their tactics as much as letting Flynn off the hook.

The Judge should bring it to trial and let Mueller prove his case. I don't think he can.

But he CAN perhaps prove something else...but he likely can't offer a plea on that charge.

This is murky. I don't like murky.

Matthew Sablan said...

People have pled guilty and had DNA exonerate them. My point is that this was never a legit prosecution save to pressure Flynn. Just like Mueller delayed when one Russian business answered the charges and demanded a trial.

Drago said...

Rick: "I wonder why Chuck doesn't apply his 'criticizing the judge for alleging Flynn's acts might be treason is proof of derangement' standard to WSJ editors who...criticized the comments as clearly inappropriate."

Andy McCarthy called the Judges treason comments "despicable".

No doubt its just as despicable to attempt to minimze the impact of such despicable commentary.

But then again, LLR Chuck has that "thing" about conservative military veterans that causes him to lash out.

With LLR Chuck and the left, you can be a Stolen Valor hack or an actual deserter and get your fellow soldiers killed and the Lefty/LLR cabal will call you a hero and go to bat for you.

Its really quite instructive.

narciso said...

and podesta and mercury partners got to file their paperwork late, their cases get reassigned to another jurisdiction, where they will be examined...someday, now likely steele's few paying clients included deripaska, just like firtash employed a whole host of attorney like lanny davis (conflict of interest) and Michael Chertoff, who is really big on the Russian front,

Drago said...

Oh look, gadfly is back to try again!

Thats the spirit gadfly! Dont make LLR Chuck look bad.....again. I know he has high hopes for you!

LOL

narciso said...

Now davis and Chertoff, kept firtash from being extradited, on a matter concerning bribes in india, lisa page filed the paperwork, with the usual attendant negligence,

Chuck said...

Matthew Sablan said...
People have pled guilty and had DNA exonerate them. My point is that this was never a legit prosecution save to pressure Flynn. Just like Mueller delayed when one Russian business answered the charges and demanded a trial.


You know maybe a trial is a good idea. Let's ask Manafort about that.

narciso said...

as they said of Cromwell:


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/sens-jeff-flake-and-chris-coons-to-introduce-bipartisan-carbon-tax-bill

EDH said...

Chuck said...
And they all agree that Flynn is pleading guilty to a charge of lying to the FBI. It seems very, very likely that Flynn could have been charge with a lot more. And Flynn's lawyers would like no jail time. The prosecution is okay with no jail time. But the judge is considering it, and he is not so sure right now that Flynn should get away with no jail time.

Yes, Chuck --

Which all goes to show Mueller isn't concerned with justice, to the consternation of Judge Sullivan.

Mueller's team simply wants a PR victory tying something, anything ostensibly between Trump and RUSSIA.

That's why Comey sent the agents to the White House in the first place: the "insurance policy".

Now it's just a matter of Team Mueller saving face with the CNN/MSNBC crowd (aka Democrats).

Drago said...

EDH: "Now it's just a matter of Team Mueller saving face with the CNN/MSNBC crowd (aka Democrats)."

Now it's just a matter of Team Mueller saving face with the CNN/MSNBC/LLR crowd (aka Democrats).

FIFY

Birkel said...

Trick question for gadfly:

In what year did Podesta file his FARA paperwork and in what year was the FARA work done?

Matthew Sablan said...

As far as I know Manafort didn't have the 302 that exonerated him mysteriously memory holed with a new one ginned up after the fact. Nor did at least two government devices that may have had exculpatory texts on them mysteriously get deleted as well. Manafort's trial was pretty straightforward on charges lots of reasonable prosecutors had passed on for him previously and passed on others doing the same thing. At best he could argue it was selective. The FBI never told him to not bring a lawyer. How would a judge react to police telling Joe Schmoe off the street he doesn't need a lawyer.

Matthew Sablan said...

But. Yes. I think Flynn deserves a trial. We deserve to know the full path to trying him for a crime he didn't commit according to the investigators at the time. Why did they change their mind? What meetings did they have? Who talked to them? Lots of answers that may be totally reasonable. But we'll never know.

Brian said...

Chuck, why delay sentencing? Sullivan’s pissed. Got it. He can throw the book at Flynn for the charge he plead guilty too. He can make hi, go to jail for just a day to make the point you don’t get to claim innocence on.

Instead he kicked the can down the road 90 days. Causing real problems for the government.

Why the delay?

I would only add that it’s possible to feel you were entrapped and still admit you lied. Those are not mutually exclusive things. And if a judge wanted me to say I wasn’t entrapped to avoid jail time that doesn’t mean anything. I’d tell him the moon is made of green cheese.

narciso said...

the point is the local prosecutors had examined manaforts case in 2014, along with gates, the previous year and it was found without merit, hence my notion this began out of deripaskas revenge for being slighted by manafort, of course that ultimately brought scrutiny on him,

Chuck said...

EDH, do you really think that Judge Sullivan is angry at the prosecution for overcharging Flynn, or for otherwise being unfair to Flynn?

I don't. And there is no way to read the proceedings from yesterday in my view, other than to conclude that the judge was pissed off beyond belief that Flynn's sentencing memo tried to do a kind of wink-wink attack on the FBI.

There were two main points being advanced by Judge Sullivan yesterday. One was that the stuff that Flynn did was really bad, and probably merited jail time. The second thing was Judge Sullivan's cross-examination of attorney Robert Kelner about whether he and his client were claiming that the FBI had set Flynn up and treated him unfairly. It wasn't any open questioning. It was a cross-examination. The judge was hammering the anti-FBI claim.

That is why I think that the next 90 days will be spent with Flynn walking back every conceivable notion that the FBI ever treated Flynn unfairly.

Amadeus 48 said...

That didn’t take long. Emmet Sullivan went from the fearless, truth-telling judge that was going to tank the Mueller investigation to just another underinformed, erratic swamp dweller in about half an hour.
We are never going to know what happened here, but it looks like the FBI spied on a US presidential campaign for no good reason. Sullivan couldn’t be bothered to familiarize himself with the file. The sob must read the Wasington Post and watch CNN all day in his chambers.
Sad.

narciso said...

we base our expectations, on previous events, likey the stevens case, but one learns no good deed goes unpunished,


https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/19/trump-asylum-domestic-violence/

Birkel said...

A fopdoodle would rather punish his perceived enemies than see the law applied evenly.
The 4th Amendment violations perpetrated by the Obama Administration must be ignored.

What an ignorant slut!

Amadeus 48 said...

This is so screwed up. Flynn can’t even plead guilty without the DC doofuses stepping on their own dicks.
Things are even worse than Trump says.

FullMoon said...

This vid from a guy who was actually in the courtroom goes contrary to Royal Oak Chuck's view.
Judge is on Flynn's side

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5dEKtGJ2Zs

Matthew Sablan said...

But see. They DID. Even if he changes his tune, it doesn't undo what we know the FBI did. He might still be guilty of something though.

Chuck said...

Brian said...
Chuck, why delay sentencing? Sullivan’s pissed. Got it. He can throw the book at Flynn for the charge he plead guilty too. He can make hi, go to jail for just a day to make the point you don’t get to claim innocence on.

Instead he kicked the can down the road 90 days. Causing real problems for the government.

Why the delay?

I would only add that it’s possible to feel you were entrapped and still admit you lied. Those are not mutually exclusive things. And if a judge wanted me to say I wasn’t entrapped to avoid jail time that doesn’t mean anything. I’d tell him the moon is made of green cheese.


That's fine. If you wish to claim that the FBI set you up, that is your right to make that claim if that is what you think. You can make that claim on the record in open court. In fact, you'll be asked about it, under oath.

And now, as for your sentence. I am mindful that the prosecution recommended no jail time and your counsel asked for no jail time and you have an admirable record of service. It is my judgment that you should serve 18 months in a federal penitentiary.

Thank you and have a nice day.

gadfly said...

Blogger Birkel said...
Trick question for gadfly:

In what year did Podesta file his FARA paperwork and in what year was the FARA work done?

Don't know or care about Podesta, Tony or John - whichever. As far as I know, the Podesta brothers have nothing to do with General Flynn - whose sentencing hearing is the subject of this comment string.

Birkel said...

4th Amendment be damned.
--Chuck, fopdoodle extraordinaire

Birkel said...

gadfly,
You are an ignorant son of a bitch.
And here I am trying to help you.

At least you are not overtly a jackass like Chuck, fopdoodle extraordinaire.

narciso said...

at the time, general Flynn, didn't know that there was so little substance to this case, he wanted to get it over with, but like Christian zell, in marathon man, mueller likes to inflict pain for the joy of it,

Amadeus 48 said...

Chuck—yeah. Throw the book at that asshole Flynn. Why the hell did he lie to the FBI? He should know better. Obama did Trump a favor when he told him to drop Flynn. And Trump fired him in 24 days for lying to him and Pence.

On the other hand, Sullivan should know that Flynn had stopped his work for Turkey before he joined the White House. The whole “treason” rant was crazy. It is always nice when the judge has read the file if he is going to go off on a rant like that. Sullivan should be disciplined.

This whole investigation is a political joke.

Bruce Hayden said...

“THE COURT: Is it your contention that Mr. Flynn was entrapped by the FBI?

MR. KELNER: No, your Honor.

Now there were five more questions in that colloquy. The Court asked Mr. Kelner if he or his client were contending that the FBI was obligated to tell Mr. Flynn that he needed a lawyer before the interview. ("No.") The Court asked if the Defendant was contending that the FBI had an obligation to warn him that it was a crime to lie to them. ("No.") The Court asked if Mr. Kelner was in any way contending that Mr. Flynn's rights had been violated in the conduct of the FBI interview. ("No.") And finally the Court asked, in particular reference to the sentencing memo that had been prepared on Flynn's behalf, if they were contending that any act of misconduct by the FBI raised any doubt about Mr. Flynn's guilt. ("No.")

Judge Sullivan killed your notion of "entrapment," FullMoon. Judge Sullivan killed it, drove a wooden stake through its lifeless heart, and pissed in its still-open mouth.”

I read that differently than you did. What I read into it was that Flynn wasn’t going to personally blow up his plea deal with Mueller. He wasn’t going to formally claim entrapment, failure to warn, etc, because then the judge would have been ethically required to pursue those matters, and that would have blown up his plea deal. He wasn’t claiming though that it wasn’t entrapment, etc. he just wasn’t making those claims before the court. I suspect that Flynn would have been just fine if the judge had brought up and addressed those issues sua sponte. But he couldn’t be the one formally bringing those items before the court. This maybe becomes more apparent if you substitute “formally raising this issue” for “contending” in that colloquy. I think that Flynn’s attorneys were inviting Judge Sullivan to go there, to address those issues on his own volition, with their sentencing memo. Flynn couldn’t be the one to bring up those issues, because that would blow up his plea deal, but the judge could, if he were so minded. But he wasn’t, maybe because he screwed up the timeline, and for a short period of time believed Flynn to have been a traitor, instead of the hero that he actually is. The judge here did what judges most typically do, which is to stick with the actual claims and arguments made.

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chuck said...

FullMoon:

At approximately the 7:10 mark of that YouTube video that you posted, the speaker makes my point.

He is reciting the fact from the hearing that Judge Sullivan was very displeased with the defense "briefing" (the sentencing memorandum of Brief in Aid of Sentencing) and the Flynn attempt to "have it both ways," suggesting that Flynn's lawyers made a mistake by pleading guilty but claiming that the FBI set him up.

That is the inconsistency. That is what offended Sullivan. That was the error on the part of the Flynn defense.

I think Flynn would be walking away now, but for the gamesmanship by his counsel in their attempt to blame the FBI.

Chuck said...

So Flynn has pled guilty to the crime, in a signed plea agreement.

In court, his lawyer has agreed that the FBI didn't violate Flynn's rights, that the FBI didn't entrap Flynn, and that the FBI specifically did not owe any duty to warn Flynn that he should not lie to them, or that Flynn needed a lawyer.

With that record (it would be interesting if the statements of counsel in the sentencing hearing would be admissible), it would be a heck of a trial.

I think that Matlock, Alan Dershowitz, Clarence Darrow and Johnny Cochrane together could not win that case for Flynn.

Of course if this plea deal falls apart, maybe Flynn will be charged with 22 new felony counts.

Ken B said...

The definition of impeachable. Impeach, remove.

Ken B said...

A judge, from the bench, making false capital charges is not nothing Chuck.

rcocean said...

Flynn and Mueller have turned into the Valrie Phlame affair and Scooter Libby part II.

i don't blame althouse for posting but personally, I've lost interest.

We've had two years of this Crap! Congress is STILL talking to Comey. Articles are STILL being published on the Steele Dossier.

God, When does it end?!

EDH said...

Chuck said...
EDH, do you really think that Judge Sullivan is angry at the prosecution for overcharging Flynn, or for otherwise being unfair to Flynn?

No, I think Sullivan is suspicious as to why Mueller is so UNDERCHARGING Flynn with a lesser crime that Flynn by all looks could beat when Sullivan sees a stronger case of worse crimes right in front of him.

I don't. And there is no way to read the proceedings from yesterday in my view, other than to conclude that the judge was pissed off beyond belief that Flynn's sentencing memo tried to do a kind of wink-wink attack on the FBI.

I think Sullivan is confounded by the fact that Flynn is pleading to a lesser charge that everyone (including Sullivan) thinks Flynn could beat, yet his lawyers still insisted on putting their allegations of FBI misconduct on the record (all of which taints the plea deal Sullivan would be accepting, and trial court judges hate appeals, plus Flynn's lawyers may have their eye on the calendar with respect to the FARA charge if it was 2015...

"Since 1966 there have been no successful criminal prosecutions under FARA and only 3 indictments returned or informations filed charging FARA violations... The three criminal cases post 1966 were... United States v. John P. McGoff (D.D.C. 1986), which the Department lost because of a statute of limitations problem...


There were two main points being advanced by Judge Sullivan yesterday. One was that the stuff that Flynn did was really bad, and probably merited jail time. The second thing was Judge Sullivan's cross-examination of attorney Robert Kelner about whether he and his client were claiming that the FBI had set Flynn up and treated him unfairly. It wasn't any open questioning. It was a cross-examination. The judge was hammering the anti-FBI claim.

That is why I think that the next 90 days will be spent with Flynn walking back every conceivable notion that the FBI ever treated Flynn unfairly.

Perhaps, all under duress of Mueller bringing the FARA and whatever charges. Moreover, a defense lawyer who blows a plea deal with no jail is risking malpractice if the client is in later convicted of the other, more serious charges.

Birkel said...

NSA data files were improperly accessed on four U.S. citizens.
Hundreds more were illegally surveilled.

Chuck is cool with constitutional violations.
He just cares that Trump is damaged.

What a good Democrat!

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Did you like the song I posted for you, Chuck?

I mean you are doing such a good job demonstrating that you never passed a bar exam, and never voted for a Republican in your miserable life, I thought you should be serenaded.

Bruce Hayden said...

“In what year did Podesta file his FARA paperwork and in what year was the FARA work done?

Don't know or care about Podesta, Tony or John - whichever. As far as I know, the Podesta brothers have nothing to do with General Flynn - whose sentencing hearing is the subject of this comment string.”

Ah, but a FARA violation was probably the sword hanging over Flynn’s head, and why he would stipulate to essentially noncrimes, because the stipulated noncrimes were more likely to result in non incarceration than the real crime he could be accused of committing.

In real life, the lying to the FBI wasn’t going to get to court in the first place. Too much crossing the line by the FBI and the prosecutors. If I were the defense, I would have started with a motion to suppress the conversation with the Russian Ambassador, since it is likely that it was fraudulently obtained by Strzok and company in the first place. Or maybe more accurately, that the unmasking of Flynn was fraudulently obtained, likely through a Logan Act argument. And if the unmasking was fraudulently obtained, using it against Flynn is likely a 4th Amdt violation. Then, there is the problem that the FBI agents took too long to get the original FD 302 in the system, the day after it had been personally approved by DD McCabe, whose wife had received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from one of the Clintons long time bag men (VA Gov McCauliffe). It. Took them too long for the 302 to probably be considered contemporaneous, or anything close to a present sense impression. And then it was politically massaged seven months later by Mueller’s partisan hacks. With all the irregularities, I think that the case would have collapsed long before trial.

So, with that, why would Flynn plead out to charges that Mueller and his partisan hacks couldn’t prove in court? Part of it might be to keep them away from his son. Part might be financial. And part, very likely, is that they were holding worse charges over his head, and with what we know now, that likely included FARA violations.

The flip side though of that is that Mueller and his team of hyper Clintonista prosecutors would have had a hard time keeping from indicting the Podesta brothers, if they indicted Flynn for such, because they were far more egregious. And, they are very likely partisan enough not to want to do so, and hence maybe their choice to let Flynn plead out to the noncrime crime - even though a FARA violation would advance their Russian collusion narrative far better than lying to the FBI would.

Chuck said...

Ken B said...
A judge, from the bench, making false capital charges is not nothing Chuck.


Indeed it would not be "nothing" if it were a serious charge. It wasn't. It isn't. Nobody is doing more screaming about this than TrumpWorld. Vintage Trumpist victimology.

I am not aware of anyone who is at this point seriously claiming that Flynn should be charged with, or should be guilty of, treason. I don't think he is guilty of treason based on what I know. I don't think he should be charged with it. I don't think that "treason" merits any discussion in Flynn's case. I think it was a mistake for the judge to have mentioned it. I think the judge was right to retract it and apologize for it.

So now what do you want? You want the judge to recuse himself? Wouldn't bother me if he did. You want all charges to be dismissed against Flynn? That's not happening. But if it did, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Flynn isn't the Big Fish. Flynn isn't the racketeering kingpin. Flynn has already provided his cooperation on that.

Jupiter said...

You guys REALLY ought to watch this video me, Dave and FullMoon have been trying to tell you about. Because if this guy, who was in the courtroom the whole time, is correct, then this entire argument is based on a complete misconception. No one accused anyone of treason. The WaPo got the whole thing wrong, whether through malice or stupidity I can't say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5dEKtGJ2Zs

Bruce Hayden said...

“In court, his lawyer has agreed that the FBI didn't violate Flynn's rights, that the FBI didn't entrap Flynn, and that the FBI specifically did not owe any duty to warn Flynn that he should not lie to them, or that Flynn needed a lawyer.”

No, they didn’t agree to those things. They just refused to contend such. As a lawyer, you should be able to see the difference. (This is akin to why lawyers use double negatives to mean something different from the affirmative).

Birkel said...

Chuck knows how to get the toothpaste back into the tube.
All LLRs know that sort of thing.

Bob Loblaw said...

So whatever Flynn may be technically guilty of, he's mainly guilty of pissing off the wrong people.

Yep. Trump should pardon him, and soon.

Bob Loblaw said...

Flynn is also being prosecuted for being stupid. The FBI basically called him and said "Why don't you swing by the office. We have a few things we want to put to bed. Shouldn't take long." The alarm bells should be putting dents in your skull when that happens. Never talk to the state if you have the option, and if you don't always, always, always have a lawyer there in the room.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Inga- you are mired in the Mueller-Hillary conspiracy that the Russians caused her to lose.

Birkel said...

Flynn made a lot of mistakes.
His memory was inconsistent with the recordings the FBI had in its possession.
And the FBI decided it was a lie six months later.

Democrats and fopdoodles cheer the government's behavior.

Unknown said...

You guys REALLY ought to watch this video me,

It's a 15 minute video. Life is too short. If it needs to be referenced here, tell us what it says.

Gunner said...

Mark Steyn is right. Some of these "judges" should be working at the DMV. They owe their careers to political patronage.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Flynn is also being prosecuted for being stupid. The FBI basically called him and said "Why don't you swing by the office. We have a few things we want to put to bed. Shouldn't take long." The alarm bells should be putting dents in your skull when that happens. Never talk to the state if you have the option, and if you don't always, always, always have a lawyer there in the room.”

Actually, it was the other way around. DD McCabe called up and asked if it was ok if a couple of his guys dropped by. Flynn apparently figured that they were on the same team, so said Sure. Should he get the attorneys involved? No, McCabe said, that would just complicate things. So, an hour or so later, Strzok and another agent dropped by, and the three guys just talked informally. Except, that it was a setup from the start. The only reason that the two agents went to the White House at all was to spring a perjury trap on Flynn. They didn’t want to know what had been said between Flynn and the Russian Ambassador - they knew. Legally, they probably shouldn’t have known, and knowing was probably a FISA, and thus 4th Amdt violation, but they knew. Which leaves going there to spring a perjury trap on the US National Security Advisor solely because they didn’t like him, and they didn’t like his (and their own) boss, the President, whom they (Strzok) admitted in text messages that they wanted to destroy.

Ken B said...

Impeachment and removal would make global headlines too.
The Democrats will never agree of course but the GOP should use this to expose the Democrats' sham over impeachment.

Birkel said...

Listening to Kislyak's calls was never a 4th Amendment problem. The truly incidental discovery of Flynn's conversation was therefore not a 4th Amendment problem.

The problem was the FISA warrant developed against Flynn outside of this incidental collection.

Just to be clear.

Bruce Hayden said...

“His memory was inconsistent with the recordings the FBI had in its possession.
...
Democrats and fopdoodles cheer the government's behavior.”

That the FBI ILLEGALLY had in its possession. Or at least the agents very likely illegally had an unmasked copy of such.

Democrats are supposed to be the party of civil rights and civil liberties, and if they ever thought this through, they would probably be as appalled as many on the other side are. The previous Administration, along with top people in multiple agencies, have used tools designed to protect us from terrorism and a repeat of the attacks on 9/11/01 to surveil their political opponents, appearing to legally justify such by claiming Logan Act violations, a two century old statute that has never been used, and is very likely Unconstitutional. Then, after illegally unmasking Flynn’s identity, two FBI agents, under the direct supervision of the Deputy Director, went over to the White House with the specific intent of taking out the United States National Security Advisor with a perjury trap. This is a process crime designed and executed here by the FBI specifically to entrap its victim into committing a prosecutable pseudocrime.

chickenlittle said...

Seems to me that everyone agrees that the judge ran his mouth when he shouldn't have, including the judge. It doesn't matter that he apologized because judges aren't supposed to make those kinds of errors. We all make errors as humans, but the judge should step away from this case. Would this tarnish the judge's reputation? Of course it would. But it wouldn't impoverish the judge. Flynn made mistakes too but he doesn't get to just say "sorry." If he won't recuse himself, he should be replaced and forced to live with that publicity.

Birkel said...

Correct, Bruce Hayden.
The unmasking was a 4th Amendment violation against a U.S. citizen.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 267   Newer› Newest»