The Official Michael Flynn Watch Thread ⏰ UPDATE!

montecresto1 · May 16, 2020, 5:32am

Really, you wanted to dispute the fact that lying to the FBI is a crime?

montecresto1 · May 16, 2020, 5:34am

Lol, poor Flynn was tricked into lying…

Dr_Manhattan · May 16, 2020, 11:30am

DollarInflation · May 16, 2020, 6:55pm

Answer me one thing monte, why was an outgoing Vice President unmasking anyone a week before leaving office?

There will be plenty of time to discuss Hunter during the debates. And four more years after November for the anvil to drop on obama era IRS, DOJ, and FBI deep state figures.

Dr_Manhattan · May 17, 2020, 9:20am

Just in case people missed it, I thought to repost it here. Partisan Hacks like Monte and David can’t seen to accept the fact that what happened to Michael Flynn is something we as Americans should all be concerned about and the issue shouldn’t be made into an ideological talking point to be used to fuel their own passive aggressive behaviors so they can feel better about themselves.

I think this is a stark reminder of what Americans should do to stand up to losers who subvert not only their constituents but the rule of law as well.

My big middle finger to ideological scum like Monte and David! They offer zero value!

Why this video is relevant because she mentions Amash’s silence on what happened to Flynn and the rest of the spying issues.

https://youtu.be/l3HLqRp2xg4

FiredUpDem · May 17, 2020, 11:28am

Fine, go after the most popular politician in America.

And then release the transcript of Flynn’s phone call, and get Obama officials on the record about their concerns about Russian interference into our elections, Flynn’s financial conflicts.

We will see black voter turnout reach 2008 levels.

David · May 17, 2020, 11:39am

Obama should claim executive privilege over this; go scorched earth. Not that I think there was anything wrong with the unmasking. Everything I have read about Flynn suggests he was a real national security risk and it was totally appropriate that his name be made known to the appropriate authorities.

montecresto1 · May 17, 2020, 12:51pm

Unmasking is routine and there’s nothing wrong with it…

And there will be nothing happening to the FBI, IRS or Obama…

DollarInflation · May 17, 2020, 1:30pm

Jus sayin monte, yer the VP, yer levin in a few days, yer did a spectacular job for eight years,

Why yer concern over Flynn?

LouMan · May 17, 2020, 1:47pm

It seems you are incorrect and it isn’t normal at all.

USSID 18 provides the legal process for handling signals intercepts that inadvertently scoop up information on American citizens and ensures their constitutional rights are protected. Normal procedure calls for any American’s name to be redacted. Yet, there are certain circumstances that the names of Americans should NOT be redacted from certain intelligence reports (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/1118/CLEANEDFinal%20USSID%20SP0018.pdf) (see Section 7.2 and 7.3).

A prosecutor would have to prove that Rice requested the unmasking solely for political purposes and Moss says that would be nearly impossible.

LouMan · May 17, 2020, 1:48pm

Obama can no longer claim executive privilege as he is no longer the president.

He could claim the 5th,

Dr_Manhattan · May 17, 2020, 1:57pm

The outlandish claims he makes is proof positive he regularly talks out of his butt hole and hasn’t the slightest idea on what he is talking about! Ever!

montecresto1 · May 17, 2020, 2:07pm

Flynn was considered a national security risk and Obama told Trump so…

Dr_Manhattan · May 17, 2020, 2:25pm

Comedy break!

Of course the resident clown announces his return by citing MSNBC as a credible source! rofl:

LouMan · May 17, 2020, 4:13pm

appointment, clinton, 1998 was a lifetime ago.

Dr_Manhattan · May 17, 2020, 11:29pm

Even their leftist Writers don’t agree!

Dr_Manhattan · May 18, 2020, 12:08am

Here is another example! Matt Taibbi who writes for Rolling Stone just wrote a scathing piece on Obama and the Flynn spying scandal. Taibbi is no Trump supporter Nor a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, so if he is admitting as much in terms of what happened to Flynn as being a violation on civil liberties , then you really know that this is pretty bad!

Dr_Manhattan · May 18, 2020, 2:23am

Dr_Manhattan · May 19, 2020, 3:48am

Vawter · May 19, 2020, 4:34am

On Lawfare this evening, a group including a counsel for Protect Democracy, representing over 960 former federal prosecutors and Justice Department officials, presented an essay reviewing the administration’s position that Judge Emmet Sullivan must accept the Justice Department’s request to dismiss the Michael Flynn lying-under-oath felony case.

… Historically, prosecutors had unfettered authority to dismiss criminal charges on their own initiative, at any time and for any reason, or for no reason at all. But that changed in late 1944, when the Supreme Court adopted Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48. The modern rule, which has remained virtually the same since its inception, states that: “The government may, with leave of court , dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint” (emphasis added).

This language expressly envisions a role for the court. It is most commonly associated with the doctrine of prosecutorial harassment, which protects defendants from abuse by preventing the government from manipulating the timing of a case or forum shopping—that is, moving a case from court to court—by “charging, dismissing, and recharging” a case. But that is not the only evil Rule 48 addresses. As Thomas Frampton recently explained in the most thorough scholarly treatment of the rule’s history to date, Rule 48’s principal object was not to protect “individual defendants, but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants.” In other words, Frampton writes, Rule 48 “was drafted and enacted precisely to deal with the situation that has arisen in United States v. Flynn .”

Frampton’s conclusion is supported by the history of Rule 48’s adoption. When the rule was first submitted to the Supreme Court for approval, it codified the prosecutor’s unchecked common law power to dismiss a case. But the Supreme Court sent that proposed draft back to the drafting committee, with a citation to the high court’s own recent opinion in Young v. United States . In that case, the court declared that the judiciary—in conjunction with the executive branch—assumes a special role in ensuring that the criminal law is justly administered. The court wrote:

The public interest that a result be reached which promotes a well-ordered society is foremost in every criminal proceeding. That interest is entrusted to our consideration and protection as well as that of the enforcing officers. . . . [T]he proper administration of the criminal law cannot be left merely to the stipulation of parties. (emphases added)

Subsequently,the Supreme Court inserted the phrase “by leave of court” when it issued the final version of Rule 48. As one of the leading decisions interpreting Rule 48 observes, this drafting history makes it “manifestly clear that the Supreme Court intended to clothe the federal courts with a discretion broad enough to protect the public interest in the fair administration of criminal justice.”

Lots of links to references there. Read and judge for yourself, or alternatively, let William Barr tell you what the law is.