Jump to content

DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Of course he knew. He asked to be kept informed on everything they were doing. 

Fitton paraphrased... 'i expect judge Sullivan to pursue criminal contempt proceedings against the prosecutors'... '(Sullivan should ask) who knew what and when did they know it?'

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Foxx said:

Fitton paraphrased... 'i expect judge Sullivan to pursue criminal contempt proceedings against the prosecutors'... '(Sullivan should ask) who knew what and when did they know it?'


I will be very interested in seeing what Sullivan does. Does he sign the Flynn order? Does he open a can of whoop-ass on the prosecutors? Flynn's "defense" attorneys... what happens with them? Besides Flynn suing them for malpractice, who goes after them on a licensing level? Can they (will they) be charged with anything? If so, what?

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Jim Jordan's opt-ed on The Federalist:
 

Rep. Jim Jordan: A Look Back On The Russia, Mueller, And Flynn Investigations
May 8, 2020 By Jim Jordan

 

We were right about everything.

 

:lol: Well, that is to the point.


 

Nunes, Hannity, Jordan, Jarrett, Solomon and crew have earned the right to dance on their graves.

 

Trump is right, if anyone deserves a Pulitzer it’s some of those guys.

  • Like (+1) 6
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


I will be very interested in seeing what Sullivan does. Does he sign the Flynn order? Does he open a can of whoop-ass on the prosecutors? Flynn's "defense" attorneys... what happens with them? Besides Flynn suing them for malpractice, who goes after them on a licensing level? Can they (will they) be charged with anything? If so, what?

 

i would think that he should be very upset with Van Grack's misrepresentations. as Techo Frog pointed out, those, 'misrepresentations' (some might call them 'lies'), caused him to issue an inaccurate opinion. i don't imagine any judge wants to be lied to and thus have it reflect badly back upon them. @Koko78 might have some insight on this.

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Foxx said:

i would think that he should be very upset with Van Grack's misrepresentations. as Techo Frog pointed out, those, 'misrepresentations' (some might call them 'lies'), caused him to issue an inaccurate opinion. i don't imagine any judge wants to be lied to and thus have it reflect badly back upon them. @Koko78 might have some insight on this.

 

I'm not sure the judge can actually do anything to him for the misrepresentations, other than report his unethical conduct to whatever the appropriate attorney discipline agency is in that jurisdiction. Nothing I saw in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure addresses attorney misconduct (unlike Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), and I am not interested enough to try to find any applicable Federal statutes.

 

However, I wouldn't suggest that Mr. Van Grack appear in front of Judge Sullivan - for any reason - in the near future.

  • Thank you (+1) 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...