Court-appointed adviser blasts 'corrupt' DOJ move to drop Flynn case

Yes, this is normal behavior of a criminal lawyer

SNIP
Michael Flynn’s lawyer asked President Trump not to pardon his former national security adviser and personally briefed the president on Flynn’s case in recent weeks, his attorney told a judge during a Tuesday hearing reviewing the Justice Department’s bid to dismiss the prosecution.

Sidney Powell, a lawyer for Flynn, told the judge she had talked with Trump and a legal adviser for his campaign and “asked him not to issue a pardon and gave him the general update.”
ENDSNIP

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...6d0a6a-00d1-11eb-8879-7663b816bfa5_story.html

There used to be a term for this before the Trump regime....

Ah yes... appearance of impropriety...

 

Liberal stooge!

 

Which one, Larry, Curly, or Moe?

I bet it was Larry... he always had that look about him...

 

What documents? If they came from the FBI then we already know they are BS. The FBI had begun the plan to unseat Trump.

 

They came from the recording. You know kind of like the Woodward tapes.

 

That's rich because if we take that tact. He appointed a biasd individual as amicus, considered perjury where there was none until the former POTUS made actual substantive remarks on the case.

How can one claim improperity and ignore the other side. So you know what? Call it political because it is, but the Sullivan/Gleeson side is NOT innocent of that improperity.

 

1. Sullivan appointed a retired judge as amicus, to counter the one-sided claim by the DOJ and present the other side. Don't blame Gleeson because he has the far better and defensible argument.
2. Sullivan only considered perjury when Flynn perjured himself by saying his plea statements were incorrect.
3. Having the defense counsel meet personally with the POTUS for a "status update" is completely improper and it will continue to add to the appearance that the fix is in for Flynn. Sullivan reportedly sounded pretty disgusted with that revelation today.

 

1) No he doesn't. An accusation without evidence is not something that a court room should accept.

When that argument comes from someone who writes an OPED. Dude, if you were the defendant you'd be furious. Any other defendant would be furious. Gleeson's performance and the conspiracy question is proof of the virtue of the Mandamus and the failure of the appeals court to uphold it.

Even that 10-2 ruling, the appeals court told THIS judge not to broach the question and yet they did just that. I'll get to the specifics further down but suffice it to say that Sullivan ignored the advice of the court.

2: There's two outstanding issues relevant to this absurdity. If we took Sullivan's power play at it's core, criminal defendants could not (as this case has) change their plea upon the discovery of relevant exculpatory evidence. While Sullivan can choose to accept the change or not, what he cannot do is charge perjury. Even contempt which is actually legally within his power would've been outrageous but at least regular order.

The other secondary issue is the timing. If Sullivan wants to claim that it's due to the changed plea, it was at least five to seven days before the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss.

Why didn't Sullivan act in that time frame instead of what actually happened which was former President Obama's remarks.

Sullivan owes the court an assurance in light of his conspiracy theory that he was not influenced by Obama's remarks. Finally that brings us to the third detail.

3: We don't know the exact particulars of the discussion between Powell and Trump, were I Flynn's lawyer I would have avoided it just because of the conspiracy theory used against my client.

That said, I have no regard for Sullivan based on his behavior so my actual answer to him is that there's no gag order. Powell can theoretically discuss this case as she pleases provided it doesn't jeopardize the legal proceedings and of course her client.

What we do know about the admission is that it actually reveals the opposite of your claims and wit large theirs.

You and wit them have been arguing for months, MONTHS that it was a scheme to avoid pardoning Flynn. If that were true and they were in on it, this conversation is utterly redundant. As I alluded to before it's outright risky as its red meat for the conspiracy theory.

Also a pardon would be a failsafe option. Unless the defense truly believes that it will ultimately prevail in court.

Powell told Trump not to pardon Flynn as she wanted to clear her client and wasn't sure that Trump wouldn't intervene.

In other words, the exact opposite of the conspiracy theory. The government and the defense are not in cahoots. Logic has further shown that. But in TDS fashion I'm expecting that logic won't prevail regarding this conversation.

 

huh?

sounds like the lawyer said she had a good case, and Flynn made it clear he didn't want the President to do that

 

so you all believe if someone takes a plea deal, it they are guilty of perjury?

is that the new left wing idea

 

No need to repeat myself. Those were FBI documents.

 

She's still not...

 

The documents were declassified by former acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell before he departed this week. Newly confirmed Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe sent them to Congress Friday, and Senate Republicans then released them publicly.

You might have more fun in the conspiracy threads.

 

A: Declassified from where exactly? Oh yes, the FBI

1. B: Also Grenell left more than a month ago.

 

So the tapes and documents didn't come from the FBI?

 

Unknown if the tapes did... it's been reported the calls were "recorded by U.S. intelligence agencies."

Is that the FBI?? Probably not, but they sure got access to the calls pretty quickly.

Good cooperation between agencies there...

 

This case against Flynn is just another government Trump hating circle jerk. Who cares what some appointed goober says?

 

My current attitude about the FBI and intelligence services is pretty jaded. I tend take what they say with block of salt.

 

You'll get over it... in time...

The FBI may have cut a few corners, but I will not question their motives in 2016, especially with what's happened since...

 

Unbelievable.

 

I agree...it's obvious the motives of Comey and the Obamagate gang was to undermine the election, the new admin, and the peaceful transission of power....and what we have learned since makes that absolutely clear

 

You got that right...

 

You sure it wasn’t Russia helping trump, after they told his son they wanted to help him?

 

he didn’t speak to russia. he spoke to a russian attorney and client of fusion gps. that a british man they were friends with set up

 

A Russian agent who told him that Russia wanted to help.
And she was right!