The former judge selected to advise on the case against Michael Flynn is accusing the Justice Department of distorting the justice system.
John Gleeson is recommending that the judge handling the case proceed to sentence Flynn.
The Government has engaged in highly irregular conduct to benefit a political ally of the President.
If you are talking about Barack Obama, I agree!
XJ is an IMBECILE..no one cares what a corrupt judge hand picked by another corrupt judge to prosecute a case has to say... neither has any authority to prosecute any case...it is entirely up to the executive branch to decide whether to not to prosecute,,,the judge is there to judge, period...more clown show politics that @sswipe TDS imbeciles like Xj gobble up ..cuz..
gotta do what they tell you...
but the obama admin is not going to get away with their corruption...no matter how much Xj wishes they would...
Someone said it well last night during their interview ...
If you want to call me seduced by American exceptionalism, I’ll plead guilty. I’ll also plead guilty to underestimating the cowardice of Republican politicians… I’m ashamed of the party I used to belong to.
Republican approval of Trump decreased this week. Maybe some are starting to see what many of us have seen for years.
keep dreaming....sad that you cheer for corruption...
Wishcasting. Polls bounce with weekly dissatisfaction but the fundamentals haven't changed. Progressive notions of open borders, increased housing density, lax immigration control, mass transit, global outsourcing, UN control, and even reusable bags all look horrid now. Add standing up to China and energy independence. All issues Trump is right about, and Biden is NOT.
mach es sehr schnell
'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Looks like Flynn will be released.
Coupled with a federal prosecutor set to testify that he was pressured to cut Roger Stone a break by the higher ups. I'm against politicizing the DOJ when undertaken by either party, and right now it's pretty clear there is politicizing. This is all a really good argument for an independently elected attorney general's office.
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Looks like Flynn will be released.
Probably will be appealed to the full Court of Appeals.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Looks like Flynn will be released.
Probably will be appealed to the full Court of Appeals.
By whom? Both parties want it dismissed. I don't think anyone else has standing?
Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk
True...not sure if the judge can ask for the en banc review.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Looks like Flynn will be released.
Probably will be appealed to the full Court of Appeals.
must carry the farce as far as possible...a fvcking judge is not a prosecutor...it's a ridiculous abuse of power and overreach of authority...
exculpatory evidence was withheld...that evidence negates the case and the prosecution is dropping it...flynn will be getting a huge payday when this is all said and done...
mach es sehr schnell
'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Looks like Flynn will be released.
Probably will be appealed to the full Court of Appeals.
By whom? Both parties want it dismissed. I don't think anyone else has standing?
Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk
True...not sure if the judge can ask for the en banc review.
From what I've read he can and probably will ... whether it will change anything is anyone's guess. Some suggest Sullivan will prevail? Who knows ...
... in other news, sounds like a DOJ official plans to testify that Bill Barr demanded he go easy on Roger Stone because of Stone's personal relationship with Trump. Color me shocked.
What I don't understand is why go through all this with Flynn and Stone? Why doesn't Trump pardon them both, as he's legally permitted, and move on?
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Looks like Flynn will be released.
Probably will be appealed to the full Court of Appeals.
By whom? Both parties want it dismissed. I don't think anyone else has standing?
Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk
True...not sure if the judge can ask for the en banc review.
From what I've read he can and probably will ... whether it will change anything is anyone's guess. Some suggest Sullivan will prevail? Who knows ...
... in other news, sounds like a DOJ official like all the liars who testified at the sham impeachment? no one gives a fvck what unelected apparatchiks have to say...plans to testify that Bill Barr demanded he go easy on Roger Stone because of Stone's personal relationship with Trump. Color me shocked.
What I don't understand is why go through all this with Flynn and Stone? Why doesn't Trump pardon them both, as he's legally permitted, and move on?
cuz both of them were targeted specifically by the DOJ/FBI because they were political opposition...both were egregious stretches of the law including the CNN photo op raid of stone''s house...and those who participated in this targeting of trump and associates need to be held accountable... they investigated these people solely because they were political opposition and they investigated them until they were able to conjure up some kind, any kind of "crime" against them...then they made public spectacle of all of it....
and here you are defending it, suggesting foul play by barr ( always taking that one side you are) and giddily claiming some say Sullivan may prevail...that you can even pretend that sullivan has ANY standing here is again despicable...any abuse of the law that dings trump, a trump associate or even a trump supporter you have no problem with...
and anyone who is for any of that is most certainly an enemy of the country and the people ...and indeed freedom itself...
mach es sehr schnell
'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
XtremeJibber2001 wrote: What I don't understand is why go through all this with Flynn and Stone? Why doesn't Trump pardon them both, as he's legally permitted, and move on?
Seriously? 1) That would open a huge can of opposition "Conspiracy Pardon". 2) By letting it go through the courts, it gets more credibility and public viewing. It needs daylight, not a rug thrown over it.
Would love a more public viewing. Specifically, who asked the prosecutor to cut Stone a break and why? And where did the idea to dismiss Flynn's case come from? Betting in both cases these directives came from POTUS himself.
easyrider16 wrote:Would love a more public viewing. Specifically, who asked the prosecutor to cut Stone a break and why? first we need to know who actually saw this, cuz so far all we have is unsubstantiated third hand info from an anonymous source.,..And where did the idea to dismiss Flynn's case come from?flynn's lawyer... Betting in both cases these directives came from POTUS himself. of course you are, the orange man is bad...
Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk
just another garage pull...
mach es sehr schnell
'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
madhatter wrote:first we need to know who actually saw this, cuz so far all we have is unsubstantiated third hand info from an anonymous source.,..
Sure thing, bozo. Here's the opening statement from Zelinksi, one of the prosecutors who just testified in Congress:
The prosecution team – which consisted of three career prosecutors in
addition to myself – prepared a draft sentencing memorandum reflecting this
calculation and recommending a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range.
We sent our draft for review to the leadership of the U.S. Attorney’s Office. We
received word back from one of the supervisors on February 5, 2020, that the
sentencing memo was strong, and that Stone “deserve[d] every day” of our
recommendation.
However, just two days later, I learned that our team was being pressured
by the leadership of the U.S. Attorney’s Office not to seek all of the Guidelines
enhancements that applied to Stone – that is, to provide an inaccurate Guidelines
calculation that would result in a lower sentencing range. In particular, there was
pressure not to seek enhancements for Stone’s conduct prior to trial, the content
of the threats he made to Credico, and the impact of his obstructive acts on the
HPSCI investigation. Failure to seek these enhancements would have been contrary
to the record in the case and to the Department’s policy that the government must
ensure that the relevant facts and sentencing factors are brought to the court’s
attention fully and accurately.
When we pushed back against incorrectly calculating the Guidelines, office
leadership asked us instead to agree to recommend an open-ended downward
variance from the Guidelines –to say that whatever the Guidelines recommended,
Stone should get less. We repeatedly argued that failing to seek all relevant
enhancements, or recommending a below-Guidelines sentence without support
for doing so, would be inappropriate under DOJ policy and the practice of the D.C.
U.S. Attorney’s Office, and that given the nature of Stone’s criminal activity and his
wrongful conduct throughout the case, it was not warranted.
In response, we were told by a supervisor that the U.S. Attorney had political
reasons for his instructions, which our supervisor agreed was unethical and wrong.
However, we were instructed that we should go along with the U.S. Attorney’s
instructions, because this case was “not the hill worth dying on” and that we could
“lose our jobs” if we did not toe the line.
He goes on to basically suggest that the U.S. attorney was getting political pressure from higher ups and was afraid of the President.
madhatter wrote:first we need to know who actually saw this, cuz so far all we have is unsubstantiated third hand info from an anonymous source.,..
Sure thing, bozo. Here's the opening statement from Zelinksi, one of the prosecutors who just testified in Congress:
The prosecution team – which consisted of three career prosecutors in
addition to myself – prepared a draft sentencing memorandum reflecting this
calculation and recommending a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range.
We sent our draft for review to the leadership of the U.S. Attorney’s Office. We
received word back from one of the supervisors on February 5, 2020, that the
sentencing memo was strong, and that Stone “deserve[d] every day” of our
recommendation.
However, just two days later, I learned that our team was being pressured
by the leadership of the U.S. Attorney’s Office not to seek all of the Guidelines
enhancements that applied to Stone – that is, to provide an inaccurate Guidelines
calculation that would result in a lower sentencing range. In particular, there was
pressure not to seek enhancements for Stone’s conduct prior to trial, the content
of the threats he made to Credico, and the impact of his obstructive acts on the
HPSCI investigation. Failure to seek these enhancements would have been contrary
to the record in the case and to the Department’s policy that the government must
ensure that the relevant facts and sentencing factors are brought to the court’s
attention fully and accurately.
When we pushed back against incorrectly calculating the Guidelines, office
leadership asked us instead to agree to recommend an open-ended downward
variance from the Guidelines –to say that whatever the Guidelines recommended,
Stone should get less. We repeatedly argued that failing to seek all relevant
enhancements, or recommending a below-Guidelines sentence without support
for doing so, would be inappropriate under DOJ policy and the practice of the D.C.
U.S. Attorney’s Office, and that given the nature of Stone’s criminal activity and his
wrongful conduct throughout the case, it was not warranted.
In response, we were told by a supervisor that the U.S. Attorney had political
reasons for his instructions, which our supervisor agreed was unethical and wrong.
However, we were instructed that we should go along with the U.S. Attorney’s
instructions, because this case was “not the hill worth dying on” and that we could
“lose our jobs” if we did not toe the line.
He goes on to basically suggest that the U.S. attorney was getting political pressure from higher ups and was afraid of the President.
so zelinsky was told by a supervisor that leadership said...same ol BS as we heard time after time in the bogus impeachment trial..third hand info from an un-named source...
who's the supervisor? who is the member of the leadership team? who supposedly said this? what exactly did that person say?
as always, you got nothing...
mach es sehr schnell
'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
