Deranged Rhino Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 1 hour ago, snafu said: Flynn’s prior counsel didn’t do him any favors. Yup. It's an interesting turn in Sullivan though. Just based off his indulgence over the past several months and his own history on the bench. We'll see what shakes out next, but the one thing I've learned about this case is just when you think you're about to get a breakthrough -- another maze pops up. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Yup. It's an interesting turn in Sullivan though. Just based off his indulgence over the past several months and his own history on the bench. We'll see what shakes out next, but the one thing I've learned about this case is just when you think you're about to get a breakthrough -- another maze pops up. I think it goes back to when Sullivan took the plea from Flynn and pretty much tried to talk him out of it. And you’re right, it is curious that Sullivan seemed to let this play out when maybe he didn’t need to lead Flynn down that road. Now Sullivan seems to be saying : “sorry, you plead guilty”. Sullivan did go to lengths to explain the denial of (or justify not allowing) the document requests, which would probably have been handled a lot differently if Flynn hadn’t entered his plea a year ago with his (*^*&%^$^#lawyers standing at his elbows. 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I think he was just calling out Flynn’s lawyers for being lazy. They quoted language without attributing its source. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 She's retweeted a bit, but this is the first "statement" post the decision: 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 24 minutes ago, snafu said: I think he was just calling out Flynn’s lawyers for being lazy. They quoted language without attributing its source. Apparently, it was sourced with an added hyphen. I was reading some legal eagles (as I am not one) who all found the plagiarism accusation to be odd (that is putting it mildly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 He was one of the key people who intentionally broke the law and committed fraud on the FISC, not just the top lawyer. He was in the Comey/McCabe inner circle, and involved from the ground floor on the backdoor coup. He was also responsible for looking the other way on many of the 702 abuses which were allowed to go on unchecked for the last several years (at least) of 44's administration. Baker is up to his eyeballs in SpyGate -- which is why he took the job in the media when immediately after he "retired". I'm real curious to see how that gambit is going to turn out for all of the one's running it. Not just Baker, but McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, and a few others who became media consultants as soon as they left their positions in the IC. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 Tucker Carlson: James Comey pitches himself as 'America's moral martyr' By Charles Creitz | Fox News Tucker Carlson reacted Monday to former FBI Director James Comey's rare interview that aired on "Fox News Sunday." "For two long years James Comey played the role of America's moral martyr -- and for two years it had worked for him," said the "Tucker Carlson Tonight" host of Comey's public life since Trump dismissed him as the head of the FBI. Carlson noted Comey became a celebrity after his July 2016 press conference, during which he recommended against charging Hillary Clinton in connection with her email scandal. https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-carlson-james-comey-sunday-wallace-interview-fisa 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 7 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Apparently, it was sourced with an added hyphen. I was reading some legal eagles (as I am not one) who all found the plagiarism accusation to be odd (that is putting it mildly). I don’t think the inclusion was any more than Sullivan smacking down Powell for coming in late and trying to take over the spotlight. I’d guess that District Court judges get prickly over things like that. I doubt he’s going to refer her for disciplinary action. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 8 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Apparently, it was sourced with an added hyphen. I was reading some legal eagles (as I am not one) who all found the plagiarism accusation to be odd (that is putting it mildly). There is very little in the legal world that isn't plagiarized, at least in part. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 1 hour ago, snafu said: I don’t think the inclusion was any more than Sullivan smacking down Powell for coming in late and trying to take over the spotlight. I’d guess that District Court judges get prickly over things like that. I doubt he’s going to refer her for disciplinary action. This is Margot Cleveland's take: 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 So, just exactly how IS Jerome Corsi doing these days. Anything ever come up with his refusal to cop a plea to Mueller's rogue bastards? Asking for a friend. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 No shocker on Flynn - the clown plead GUILTY On 11/26/2019 at 1:19 PM, Deranged Rhino said: lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 12 minutes ago, Gary Busey said: No shocker on Flynn - the clown plead GUILTY lol i believe he can retract his plea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 20 minutes ago, Foxx said: i believe he can retract his plea. Yes but there was some chitchat that it would be "bad" for him. Anyone know why it would be bad? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 23 minutes ago, Foxx said: i believe he can retract his plea. Of course. He certainly has had some time to think that over and hasn't changed it yet. 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: 45 days? Someone phone Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 "THIS TIME WE GOT HIM!" Three years of being wrong, about every facet of this story, has left some people down here salty. Too bad for them they were too stupid to think for themselves. And still are. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 42 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Yes but there was some chitchat that it would be "bad" for him. Anyone know why it would be bad? i'm not sure. however, i think if/when you submit a plea of guilt, you forfeit (or are severely limited in scope) any ability you otherwise would normally possess to appeal the conviction and sentence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Yes but there was some chitchat that it would be "bad" for him. Anyone know why it would be bad? The negative is that the full indictment would be reinstated, and he would likely have to go through a lengthy trial on all charges. This would be: 1.) Expensive; and 2.) Really bad if any of the original charges are provable. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Koko78 said: The negative is that the full indictment would be reinstated, and he would likely have to go through a lengthy trial on all charges. This would be: 1.) Expensive; and 2.) Really bad if any of the original charges are provable. So, even though the charges were fabricated, the FBI admitted there was no crime, and this man has been used and abused by a punitive system for years, he is hosed? And, because he pleads guilty, he cannot sue the government for any reason, correct? So, he is broke, had his reputation shredded, and there is nothing this poor man can do about it? I wonder when Trump will pardon him? Edited December 17, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 20 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: So, even though the charges were fabricated, the FBI admitted there was no crime, and this man has been used and abused by a punitive system for years, he is hosed? And, because he pleads guilty, he cannot sue the government for any reason, correct? So, he is broke, had his reputation shredded, and there is nothing this poor man can do about it? I wonder when Trump will pardon him? I never bothered to look at the original indictment, so I don't know whether or not all of the charges were fabricated, or if most were with some minor technical charge having a minimal amount of teeth. However, pleading guilty does tend to hinder a civil suit against the government for wrongfully/maliciously prosecuting you. You can't admit guilt, then later try to sue that they fabricated everything. Defense Exhibit A would quite literally be the transcript of him admitting guilt in open court. He would have to have the charges dismissed (or at least vacate his guilty plea) before he can go after the government. I would suspect he has a damned good argument for vacating the guilty plea, but I have no idea if he will pull the trigger. I agree with the previous assertion that his former attorneys did not represent him well. 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) FISA court slams FBI over surveillance applications, in rare public order Quote In a rare public order Tuesday, the chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court strongly criticized the FBI over its surveillance-application process, giving the bureau until Jan. 10 to come up with solutions, in the wake of findings from Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz. There is nothing else at the link (except a video that is not related) I haven't found the rebuke itself, yet. EDIT: The page has been updated and now contains an article. Edited December 17, 2019 by Hedge 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 Just now, Hedge said: FISA court slams FBI over surveillance applications, in rare public order There is nothing else at the link (except a video that is not related) I haven't found the rebuke itself, yet. Here it is: https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/MIsc 19 02 191217.pdf (Note who wrote the memo... and then remember this -- https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf More: 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Here it is: https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/MIsc 19 02 191217.pdf (Note who wrote the memo... and then remember this -- https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf More: <.snip>THEREFORE, the Court ORDERS that the government shall, no later than January 10, 2020, inform the Court in a sworn written submission of what it has done, and plans to do, to ensure that the statement of facts in each FBI application accurately and completely reflects ... </snip>IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to FISC Rule of Procedure 62(a), that the government shall, no later than December 20, 2019, complete a declassification review of the above-referenced order of December 5, 2019, in anticipation of the FISC' s publishing that order. In view of the information released to the public in the OIG Report, the Court expects that such re view will entail minimal if any redactions. Rosemary Collyer is done playin', apparently. Tough to find out you were in on a soft-coup you didn't even know about. I do wonder what exactly Congress plans to do about all of this? 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Rosemary Collyer is done playin', apparently. Tough to find out you were in on a soft-coup you didn't even know about. I do wonder what exactly Congress plans to do about all of this? Maybe they should have thought about this when they were just acting as a rubber stamp for the FBI. These judges should all be fired from FISC, and the court ended. 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 Just now, Koko78 said: Maybe they should have thought about this when they were just acting as a rubber stamp for the FBI. These judges should all be fired from FISC, and the court ended. Maybe this is simply a response to ensure the court continues (the Senate was making some rumblings, but haha, unlikely it goes away), and that the current members still are sitting on the FISC? (Note: I do not disagree with you, simply playing devil's advocate.) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Maybe they should have thought about this when they were just acting as a rubber stamp for the FBI. These judges should all be fired from FISC, and the court ended. Or how about simply putting James Comey in prison for a REALLY LONG time! That should send the appropriate message. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 Techno weighing in. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Maybe this is simply a response to ensure the court continues (the Senate was making some rumblings, but haha, unlikely it goes away), and that the current members still are sitting on the FISC? (Note: I do not disagree with you, simply playing devil's advocate.) Oh, I've no doubt that this is total CYA move from the judges who want to keep whatever extra pay/power they get from being on the FISC. It will work, too. Then they'll get right back to the business of trampling on civil rights from the cozy confines of a secret court. 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, Koko78 said: Oh, I've no doubt that this is total CYA move from the judges who want to keep whatever extra pay/power they get from being on the FISC. It will work, too. Then they'll get right back to the business of trampling on civil rights from the cozy confines of a secret court. I hope not. I truly hope not. Edited December 17, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 7 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Oh, I've no doubt that this is total CYA move from the judges who want to keep whatever extra pay/power they get from being on the FISC. It will work, too. Then they'll get right back to the business of trampling on civil rights from the cozy confines of a secret court. Could be they were in on it and this is just their temporary cover or maybe they were had by their Chief Roberts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 1 minute ago, keepthefaith said: Could be they were in on it and this is just their temporary cover or maybe they were had by their Chief Roberts. I don't think they were in on it. I just think they were rubber-stamping applications due to inherent laziness and indifference to the inherent problems with a secret court that has broad powers to destroy civil liberties. There is no other reason for 97-99%ish of all applications being approved. Judges almost always want more money and more power, at all levels of government. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 14 minutes ago, Koko78 said: I don't think they were in on it. I just think they were rubber-stamping applications due to inherent laziness and indifference to the inherent problems with a secret court that has broad powers to destroy civil liberties. There is no other reason for 97-99%ish of all applications being approved. Judges almost always want more money and more power, at all levels of government. 99.97% to be exact. That number would be closer to 100% if not for the Carter Page requests that were originally turned down. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 22 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: 99.97% to be exact. That number would be closer to 100% if not for the Carter Page requests that were originally turned down. ....BIGGER percentage than a rubber stamp Grand Jury indictment.....Judge Wapner presiding....SMH........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts