Terry Mcauliffe: Stay in the basement Biden.

He should take Cocaine Mitch and retire at the Villages. Mentally he is already gone. "I don't deal in the truth, I deal in facts!"

 

The internet is just to bypass the corrupt media and you know it. There was a time when there was objective reporting. It's now a tool for the left.

 

I'll go all day if you want to compare Biden stuff to Trump stuff...

Well, I would have, but now I have to read the Gleeson filing calling the DOJ/Flynn case a "gross abuse" of prosecution discretion...

 

Where ever He wants to go to embarrass himself is fine by me.

 

You're going to find it is not a Judges job to prosecute.

 

I like to hear from the President directly....not the interpretation of a corrupt media.

 

Reads like you are already accepting that Trump is going to lose.

 

Instead, I'm learning a lot about what the phrase "leave of court" in rule 48(a) means ...

 

I'm preparing for all possibilities. If Trump wins, we are saved from a day one lame duck. If Trump loses, a vast majority of the nation can celebrate removing orange man bad, before being reminded in about a month that Biden is categorically worse than secretary Clinton would have been for President.

 

Filings are inherently one sided. Everything Gleeson is going to say "makes sense", because it is unopposed. The Oral arguments on the other hand, is where it's going to get juicy because Gleeson then has to hold his interpretation against the interpretation of the DOJ, Flynn's counsel and the Court's prior decision in Fokker.

Their gambit lacks constitutional standing, and the only argument they have is to try and undermine the DOJ's standing. It won't stand up to the response.

 

LOL... this would be libel, but who cares right? Just shut up already is the new conversation tool of the left.

 

We'll have to disagree on that one...

The law clearly says "with leave of court" and Gleeson covers what would historically prevent that from being granted.

SNIP

ENDSNIP

Here's the money shot paragraph from my reading so far

SNIP
In short, pursuant to an active investigation into whether President Trump’s campaign officials coordinated activities with the Government of Russia, one of those officials lied to the FBI about coordinating activities with the Government of Russia. It is hard to conceive of a more material false statement than this one.
ENDSNIP

 

His argument is laughable because the DOJ never charged any American with conspiring with the Russians. In order for a lie to be "material" it doesn't simply suffice to be a lie pertaining to the topic of discussion(and Gleeson already knows this.) The lie has to be material to the investigation, in other words it has to impede the investigation or undermine the investigation or be relevant to the investigation itself. The discussion of sanctions(even permitting that it was 'discussed' although brought up by the Russian ambassador, not by Flynn and certainly not in anyway to undermine the previous administration. But rather to deescalate tensions.) is not pertinent to a collusion conspiracy.

This is weak sauce by Gleeson, such that an internet poster refuted it. If this is the best they've got, they just need to accept the DOJ decision and slink away. Whether they like it or not, Barr chose not to prosecute and he's the AG.

 

It's completely pertinent... the investigation was not about sanctions... the investigation was about Trump campaign collusion with Russia...

You are missing the forest for the individual trees...

As an example, if Flynn had discussed Sanctions with another country pre-inauguration (say North Korea), you'd have a much better case, since nobody was investigating collusion with that country.

And, of course, you still have the Logan Act angle, which doesn't go away in any discussion of what Flynn was doing, regardless of how toothless that LAW might be considered....

 

ROFL. I want them to try arguing the Logan Act before the Court, see how fast the appeals court will throw it out. But what you don't realize is that what you just said makes my point(and frankly, the point of law) and thus why Gleeson's argument is invalid.

It was about the conspiracy of the Trump Campaign with Russia. The Administration(even as an incoming administration) is fundamentally separate from the campaign. Not only can Gleeson not conflate these two things(though he tries, and will be rejected accordingly), but again to verbatim quote Rod Rosenstein:

"No American has been charged with a crime in relation to these indictments.". Game, set, match. Flynn's statements were not charged by the special counsel in relation to the investigation, in fact Van Grack went out of his way to explicitly refute any assertions of treason because in fact of that very reality.

His argument is weaker then I would've thought. He's essentially saying "Wah, wah, do this for me." They won't.

 

While I laugh that you futilely try to separate Mike Flynn, Trump campaigner from Mike Flynn, Trump appointee..

It's the same guy... the clock doesn't restart the day after the election...

His argument is that the judiciary has the right by law, with grounds, to refuse a dismissal request from the DOJ and they exist here...

And BTW, nice try on the Rosenstein quote.... he was referring ONLY to the one set of indictments (THESE indictments) against the Russian hackers.... Zero to do with the Flynn side of the case...

 

Enough lawyer speak. I believe you lost.

 

He did not win anything based on himself, he won as a opposition to Trump who people think can win.

He is not a vote for guy, he is a vote against Trump guy.

How on Earth can the DNC not come up with a nominee people actually support?

 

Biden is not running in 2024? Is he aware he is running now? I can't see him winning but if he did the make-up of the congress would determine how much he could get done. As it looks now Biden is courting every far left policy to hopefully get the Sanders supporters to vote for him. If he tried to push those policies through he is DOA.

 

Well if Trump loses, we will no longer have POTUS who puts Putin above our national security interests. No I have not forgotten !!!!!!

 

That's not a good thing, holding onto things proven not to be true is damaging to your psyche.

 

Oh really..........

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/16/trump-russia-putin-summit-722418
President Donald Trump on Monday publicly sided with Russian President Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence agencies, refusing to condemn the Kremlin for interference in the 2016 election and saying that “I don’t see any reason” why Russia would have hacked Democratic computer servers.

Sometimes I wonder if you are an actual US citizen !!!!

 

Well then carry on since it matters so much..

 

Has Mexico still not paid for that damn wall Trump said they would?

 

But those indictments are central to the Special Counsel/Gleeson's arguments wit perjury. They claim that Flynn's "lie" that he wasn't sure of his conversation with the Russian Ambassador is pertinent to the investigation.( also, the counsel/Gleeson has failed to make any argument whatsoever on how it's even slightly connected to the investigation. They also run into the problem of the fact that they were going to close down Razor.)

They must prove that it actually was pertinent, and they run into two flaws. Rosenstein's statement, and the lack of a charging offense related to conspiracy. Add to the almost closing down of Razor and Gleeson's argument is a plea, a plea that will probably go unheard.

(And I haven't even addressed that they have ZERO evidence of influence, and tweets don't count.) This is a weak case before the appeals court.