DOJ dropping criminal case against Gen Flynn (UPDATE: DC Cir. dismisses case) (3 Viewers)

Beach Friends said:

Sooo, what did you think of the article?

Click to expand...

This.

Simply stated, there is no way prosecutors could have proved Flynn's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

So if that is the case than we should let out all people that plead guilty to anything for less time. Remind you this is a opinion piece from one of Rudy's underlings.

Simply stated you can say that about everything that has not gone to trial. Someone has an opinion of what could have been just like this pathetic guy.

Simply stated you don't get tricked into a guilty plea when you are a LTG because you are not a moron. Yes people get duped usually they are not as educated or even understand the laws that they are being charged with. This is not the case he was a LTG for crying out loud. Knew he was breaking laws the laws. Had no business doing what he was doing point blank.

Simply stated he is a crook.

Anything else?

Here is my opinion piece as a response.


Please let me know what you think of it. It is from Mary McCord. She is a pretty important person in this case. Actually she is the one that wrote the 302 in question.

Savage said:

Why dismiss the Flynn case? Because the FBI can’t prove it

The FBI agents went out of their way to deceive Flynn about the purpose of their interview, hoping to trip him up.

thehill.com

Excellent opinion piece by Andrew McCarthy.

Click to expand...

McCarthy summarized the reasons why the Flynn case needed to be dropped very well.

He also mentioned the part about how "Federal law makes materiality an essential element of a false-statements charge."

Van Grack to Judge Sullivan: The govt has provided all Brady Evidence. The government has not "suppressed evidence." [All this turned out to be false.]

Based on these misrepresentations - Judge Sullivan concluded that the Flynn interview was based on Trump/Russia (it wasn't) and thus his "lies" were material.

New evidence shows Sullivan's conclusion was incorrect.

SaintForLife said:

McCarthy summarized the reasons why the Flynn case needed to be dropped very well.

He also mentioned the part about "Federal law makes materiality an essential element of a false-statements charge."

Van Grack to Judge Sullivan: The govt has provided all Brady Evidence. The government has not "suppressed evidence." [All this turned out to be false.]

Based on these misrepresentations - Judge Sullivan concluded that the Flynn interview was based on Trump/Russia (it wasn't) and thus his "lies" were material.

New evidence shows Sullivan's conclusion was incorrect.

Click to expand...

Well was he correct in the death panels in the affordable care act?

Was he correct when he said Jamal khashoggi an oppertive for the for the Muslim brotherhood?

Dude is a quack!

The moose said:

This.

Simply stated, there is no way prosecutors could have proved Flynn's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

So if that is the case than we should let out all people that plead guilty to anything for less time. Remind you this is a opinion piece from one of Rudy's underlings.

Simply stated you can say that about everything that has not gone to trial. Someone has an opinion of what could have been just like this pathetic guy.

Simply stated you don't get tricked into a guilty plea when you are a LTG because you are not a moron. Yes people get duped usually they are not as educated or even understand the laws that they are being charged with. This is not the case he was a LTG for crying out loud. Knew he was breaking laws the laws. Had no business doing what he was doing point blank.

Simply stated he is a crook.

Anything else?

Here is my opinion piece as a response.

Opinion | Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Here’s the Truth. (Published 2020)

The F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was constitutional, lawful and for a legitimate counterintelligence purpose.

www.nytimes.com

Please let me know what you think of it. It is from Mary McCord. She is a pretty important person in this case. Actually she is the one that wrote the 302 in question.

Click to expand...

So, you think she is important because she "wrote the 302 in question." Which 302?

Hell, did she write any 302?

Beach Friends said:

So, you think she is important because she "wrote the 302 in question." Which 302?

Hell, did she write any 302?

Click to expand...

Did you read it,?

The moose said:

Did you read it,?

Click to expand...

Lol, yes - and I comprehended it.

The moose said:

Did you read it,?

Click to expand...

Did you? Is there anything important you want to highlight from it?

Savage said:

Did you? Is there anything important you want to highlight from it?

Click to expand...

What do you need me to loan ya four bucks?

Read an article from the people involved. Actually someone in the interviews.

Beach Friends said:

Lol, yes - and I comprehended it.

Click to expand...

So what did you get from it?

Considering that is from a lawyer involved rather than Rudy's lawyer buddy that keeps trying to sell books.

The moose said:

So what did you get from it?

Considering that is from a lawyer involved rather than Rudy's lawyer buddy that keeps trying to sell books.

Click to expand...

What I got from it is she was referencing a 302 from a July 2017 interview of her. Do you think she, as a lawyer with the DOJ, filled out the FBI form 302? When she was the subject of the interview?

Now that would be an interesting development in the case.

Finally, do you think that when we have been discussing the irregularities in the 302 from the Flynn interview that we were really talking about the 302 from the McCord interview?

That's why I asked you in the beginning which 302 you thought was in question.

The moose said:

So what did you get from it?

Considering that is from a lawyer involved rather than Rudy's lawyer buddy that keeps trying to sell books.

Click to expand...

Instead of trying to discredit the author of the article, why don't you try showing how he is wrong in what he was stating in the article?

Are you familiar with McCord at all besides her being a lawyer and her writing that article?

McCord claims in the article that the interrogation of Flynn was necessary due to "the possibility of Russian direction or control over Mr. Flynn." McCord fails to identify any accurate basis for that possibility because it never existed. McCord helped the Democrats prepare for the impeachment as well and we know how that turned out.

More on McCord's article:

SaintForLife said:

Instead of trying to discredit the author of the article, why don't you try showing how he is wrong in what he was stating in the article?

Are you familiar with McCord at all besides her being a lawyer and her writing that article?

McCord claims in the article that the interrogation of Flynn was necessary due to "the possibility of Russian direction or control over Mr. Flynn." McCord fails to identify any accurate basis for that possibility because it never existed. McCord helped the Democrats prepare for the impeachment as well and we know how that turned out.

More on McCord's article:

A Damning Defense of the FBI | National Review

“Rogueness” indeed.

www.nationalreview.com

Click to expand...

Sorry guy I don't read right wing propaganda web sites.

Just like that dipshirt you keep bringing up is a right wing propaganda spewing hack.

He has done nothing since the 911 trials expect attack and spew right winged crap.

By all means I am allowed to call fake news to your propaganda posts.

Try and find an article from someone somewhat reputable.

2000 former and current DOJ employees have called for Barr's head for this says way more than the absolute hacks you keep posting.

The moose said:

Sorry guy I don't read right wing propaganda web sites.

Click to expand...

Apparently you don't read the articles you bring to the table either.

Beach Friends said:

What I got from it is she was referencing a 302 from a July 2017 interview of her. Do you think she, as a lawyer with the DOJ, filled out the FBI form 302? When she was the subject of the interview?

Now that would be an interesting development in the case.

Finally, do you think that when we have been discussing the irregularities in the 302 from the Flynn interview that we were really talking about the 302 from the McCord interview?

That's why I asked you in the beginning which 302 you thought was in question.

Click to expand...

Her notes were in it.

Try and find any article defending Barr's actions not on a right wing propaganda spewing hack website.

When you do I will read them.

Andrew McCarthy is a hack.

I posted numerous things he was dead wrong about in his past.

Beach Friends said:

Apparently you don't read the articles you bring to the table either.

Click to expand...

Find an article defending Barr's actions from any site that is not a propaganda machine.

And not an opinion piece from a hack like Andrew McCarthy. Hell the actor of the same name would have more creditability at this point than that hack.

The moose said:

Her notes were in it.

Go on get your big boy panties on and try and find any article defending Barr's actions not on a right wing propaganda spewing hack website.

When you do I will read them.

Andrew McCarthy is a hack.

I posted numerous things he was dead wrong about in his past.

Click to expand...

Figures you would resort to rage and insults rather than just acknowledge that you did not comprehend the article you brought to us.

Moose, do you have a list of acceptable websites and authors we can reference so that we don't read propaganda and engage in wrongthink in the future?

The national review is funded by lobbies. To push their agenda. It has been that way since the inception. Buckley founded that rag and was paid by lobbies to push their agenda in print.


Other publication sell adds. The circulation and add money not lobbies.

That is what I mean by propaganda. They are paid to push it on you.