Politics MUELLER LIKELY TO LOSE FLYNN PROSECUTION

[MarAzul]

why don't they prosecute?

Apparently, they follow the Constitution.

 

[Denny Crane]

Why should patience be required? They have all the incriminating evidence already, according to you.

barfo

It takes time to interview people.

More obstruction:

1) Hiliar was allowed to physically destroy evidence: smashed mobile devices with a hammer
2) She was not questioned under oath
3) She was allowed to bleach blit (erase every trace of) her emails on her illegal server
4) Comey's original draft was an indictment, but was changed by Strzok, of all people
5) Her accomplices were granted immunity for no benefit to the investigation (only to save those people from appropriate prosecution)

Destruction of evidence that "might be of interest" to legal authorities is classic obstruction of justice, by definition. The Benghazi committee was the legal authority interested in her emails.

There's more, but you would just deny it as usual.

 

[barfo]

It takes time to interview people.

More obstruction:

1) Hiliar was allowed to physically destroy evidence: smashed mobile devices with a hammer
3) She was allowed to bleach blit (erase every trace of) her emails on her illegal server

Destruction of evidence that "might be of interest" to legal authorities is classic obstruction of justice, by definition. The Benghazi committee was the legal authority interested in her emails.

There's more, but you would just deny it as usual.

But according to you, that evidence exists on the NSA servers still, and Congress has and had access to it. So at best it was attempted, unsuccessful obstruction. According to you. So that should not have delayed the successful prosecution and conviction of Hillary, only hastened it.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

But according to you, that evidence exists on the NSA servers still, and Congress has and had access to it. So at best it was attempted, unsuccessful obstruction. According to you. So that should not have delayed the successful prosecution and conviction of Hillary, only hastened it.

barfo

Congress doesn't have access to the NSA data. They have to subpoena that kind of information and the FBI and CIA and NSA resist and redact the shit out of the info after months of delay.

Given what we've witnessed, whistleblower types in the FBI, NSA, CIA, and other agencies were glad to leak dirt about Trump to the WaPost (and others). Not so for Clinton. And WaPost wouldn't print dirt about Clinton anyway, or would at least spin it as fake news or not passing their "fact" checker.

There was a concerted effort to downplay, dismiss, and cover up her crimes. From Loretta Lynch directing the FBI to call the investigation a "matter" to the revision of the FBI's findings to Obama signaling the agencies to find her not guilty.

In fact, Obama lied about knowing about her server.

I await your denial of the evidence and facts, once more.

 

[barfo]

Congress doesn't have access to the NSA data.

Oh really? Somebody once told me they did:

I repeat that the NSA has EVERYTHING on everyone. Every call, every email, every tweet or facebook post. Mueller, the Obama administration, congress, and swamp dwellers (deep state) have access to it all. Digging through it for a year and haven't found squat.

Oh look, that poster has the same name as you!

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I was mistaken about suggesting congress has access in the sense they can just query it at will. My correction stands.

 

[Denny Crane]

barfo's government at work.

Kind of (well, not kind of, actually!) supports what I wrote yesterday. Intelligence officials willing to leak to the most suspect of "news" sites and "journalists." (So they would leak the actual evidence of collusion if it did exist).

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/15/c...on-it-has-already-given-to-favored-reporters/

CIA Argues The Public Can’t See Classified Information It Has Already Given To Favored Reporters

Intelligence officials can selectively release classified information to trusted journalists while withholding the same information from other citizens who request it through open records laws, CIA lawyers argued Wednesday.

In amotionfiled in New York federal court, the CIA claimed that limited disclosures to reporters do not waive national security exemptions to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies frequently deny records requests on the basis of protecting sensitive national security information, one of nine exemptions written into the federal FOIA law.

The case stems from lawsuit against the CIA by New York-based independent journalist Adam Johnson, who had used FOIA to obtain emails between the agency’s public information office and selected reporters from the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and The New York Times. The emails the CIA provided to Johnson were redacted, leading him to question why he was not allowed to see the same information that had been given to uncleared reporters.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...urn-in-the-michael-flynn-case/article/2649272

Byron York: An unusual turn in the Michael Flynn case?

First, there is some mystery surrounding the removal of Judge Rudolph Contreras from the case. Just days after accepting Flynn's guilty plea, Contreras was taken off the case by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. No reason was given.

...


On Dec. 12, after just a few days on the Flynn case, Sullivan, acting on his own, ordered the office of special counsel Robert Mueller "to produce to [Flynn] in a timely manner — including during plea negotiations — any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant's guilt or punishment."

Sullivan also ordered Mueller "to produce all discoverable evidence in a readily usable form." And he declared that "if the government has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material, the government shall submit such information to the Court forin camerareview." In other words, Sullivan declared that he, not Mueller, would be the judge of what evidence should be produced.

While the move could be simply standard procedure for Sullivan, it was nevertheless notable because Flynn had already pleaded guilty, and, as part of that guilty plea, agreed to "forgo the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of [Flynn's] guilty plea."

"It certainly appears that Sullivan's order supersedes the plea agreement and imposes on the special counsel the obligation to reveal any and all evidence suggesting that Flynn is innocent of the charge to which he has admitted guilt,"wroteNational Review's Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor.

...

On Jan. 31, the two sides in the case agreed to delay sentencing for Flynn until at least May. Some observers saw that as an entirely routine development in a case in which the defendant is cooperating with prosecutors on an open matter. On the other hand, in the Flynn case, the delay took place in the context of Sullivan's evidence order, and there is no way for the public to know whether that played a role in the decision.

 

[Rhal]

That article certainly doesn't' vindicate Flynn or make me think he is going to win the case against Mueller. Its a bunch of "we aren't exactly sure what happened but here is what we think happened". Since no one here knows what happened, and clearly those in the article don't know they are simply guessing as well, all this does is put a different narrative out that Flynn might have a case where as before he was fucked.

 

[julius]

That article certainly doesn't' vindicate Flynn or make me think he is going to win the case against Mueller. Its a bunch of "we aren't exactly sure what happened but here is what we think happened". Since no one here knows what happened, and clearly those in the article don't know they are simply guessing as well, all this does is put a different narrative out that Flynn might have a case where as before he was fucked.

Sounds like it's pretty much how every article that Denny posts is.

 

[MarAzul]

Since no one here knows what happened

Sure we do.

He was unmasked, and then the information was illegally leaked.

 

[Denny Crane]

That article certainly doesn't' vindicate Flynn or make me think he is going to win the case against Mueller. Its a bunch of "we aren't exactly sure what happened but here is what we think happened". Since no one here knows what happened, and clearly those in the article don't know they are simply guessing as well, all this does is put a different narrative out that Flynn might have a case where as before he was fucked.

The one who's "guessing" was a former US Attorney.

The information is in the public record - that the judge ordered exculpatory evidence to be turned over to Flynn/his lawyers. And this was done after the plea deal. And the original judge recused himself or was removed.

 

[Denny Crane]

barfo is going to be SAD about this one.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/nat...d-US-Election-Meddling-Mueller-474309733.html

Mueller Indicts 13 Russians Accused of Election Meddling
Charges include conspiracy, wire fraud, bank fraud and aggravated identity theft

"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity," Rosenstein said, adding there "there is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."

...

Some of the defendants communicated with "unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities."

...

The organization’s strategy by May 2014 was to interfere with the 2016 presidential election with the goal of “spread[ing] distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general.”

 

[barfo]

barfo is going to be SAD about this one.

I have no reason to be sad about it, other than the fact we'll probably never be able to mete out any justice since they are presumably all beyond our reach.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I have no reason to be sad about it, other than the fact we'll probably never be able to mete out any justice since they are presumably all beyond our reach.

barfo

It basically exonerated any/all Americans. No collusion.

 

[barfo]

It basically exonerated any/all Americans. No collusion.

Well, if Mueller closed his investigation today, then you'd have a good claim for that. Did he?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, if Mueller closed his investigation today, then you'd have a good claim for that. Did he?

barfo

Seems he's wrapping it up.

And he's finding no collusion or criminal activities by the Trump campaign, during the campaign.

 

[MarAzul]

This sure seems like a heavy handed way to do not much.
I should think it is a mindless way to conduct international relations with any country.

Opening a PayPal account with a bogus SS #?
I would wager there are more from south of the board doing this one than from Russia. We need a Special Counsel for this?

 

[barfo]

Seems he's wrapping it up.

Based on what? Wishful thinking?

And he's finding no collusion or criminal activities by the Trump campaign, during the campaign.

I don't think we know what he is or isn't finding, until the indictments come down.

Yesterday, we didn't know that 13 Russians were about to be indicted, did we?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Based on what? Wishful thinking?



I don't think we know what he is or isn't finding, until the indictments come down.

Yesterday, we didn't know that 13 Russians were about to be indicted, did we?

barfo

Based on not much else to investigate.

We had a good idea that Russians would be indicted. But you're the expert on the law.

 

[barfo]

Based on not much else to investigate.

Reports are he just talked to Bannon for 20 hours. Maybe Bannon only confirmed things he already knew... but maybe not.

Reports are that Gates has flipped. Maybe Gates didn't have any new information to proffer either?

And that's just what's been publicly reported this week...

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Reports are he just talked to Bannon for 20 hours. Maybe Bannon only confirmed things he already knew... but maybe not.

Reports are that Gates has flipped. Maybe Gates didn't have any new information to proffer either?

And that's just what's been publicly reported this week...

barfo

Bannon only answered 25 questions, according to your hero the whiny clown (Schiff).

 

[Denny Crane]

Sometimes the PRESIDENT tweets something spot on.

 

[barfo]

Bannon only answered 25 questions, according to your hero the whiny clown (Schiff).

That's the intelligence committee. I was talking about Mueller.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

That's the intelligence committee. I was talking about Mueller.

barfo

And your imagination is running wild again.

 

[barfo]

And your imagination is running wild again.

No, all I said is that it was reported that Bannon talked to Mueller for 20 hours. That it was reported is a fact, I could link it if you really need.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

No, all I said is that it was reported that Bannon talked to Mueller for 20 hours. That it was reported is a fact, I could link it if you really need.

barfo

Yes. According to source(s) familiar with the proceedings who refuse to be identified because they're not supposed to be talking about the proceedings.

Hmmmmm.... Sounds kinda unethical to me, if not illegal.

Hard to trust someone who is unethical and willing to break the law, isn't it?

 

[barfo]

Yes. According to source(s) familiar with the proceedings who refuse to be identified because they're not supposed to be talking about the proceedings.

Hmmmmm.... Sounds kinda unethical to me, if not illegal.

Hard to trust someone who is unethical and willing to break the law, isn't it?

I didn't say I trusted them. I said it was reported. Which it was.

And now in the other thread you claim you know what Bannon talked to Mueller about, which is interesting...

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I didn't say I trusted them. I said it was reported. Which it was.

And now in the other thread you claim you know what Bannon talked to Mueller about, which is interesting...

barfo

You were going to provide me a link to what Bannon talked to Mueller about in the other thread.

LOL

I don't claim to know what they talked about. I do not think there's anything Bannon could say that would implicate anyone, short of him being personally involved in some conspiracy with the Russians to hack and distribute stolen data.

"Yeah, Trump was angry with Comey, even about the Russia nonsense, so he fired him."

I just pointed out how Comey himself says the president can fire the FBI director, FOR ANY REASON.

The more you let your imagination run wild, the more SAD you will be.

 

[barfo]

You were going to provide me a link to what Bannon talked to Mueller about in the other thread.

You are getting confused again. My offer of a link is post #86 in this thread.

I don't claim to know what they talked about.

You did, you said they talked about Comey's firing.

barfo