Judge Told He Should Sentence Flynn, Deny Request To Dismiss Case

Feel free to dispute Gleeson's meticulous dismantling of Barr's garbage any time.

From Gleeson's filing............available using this link.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/10/gleeson-flynn-sullivan-barr-justice-department-311018

"First, “the requirement of judicial approval entitles the judge to obtain and evaluate the prosecutor’s reasons.” United States v. Ammidown, 497 F.2d 615, 620 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Here, the Government’s statement of reasons for seeking dismissal is pretextual. The Government claims there is insufficient evidence to prove materiality and falsity, but even giving it the benefit of every doubt—and recognizing its prerogative to assess the strength of its own case—this contention “taxes the credulity of the credulous.” Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435, 466 (2013) (Scalia, J., dissenting). The Government’s ostensible grounds for seeking dismissal are conclusively disproven by its own briefs filed earlier in this very proceeding. They contradict and ignore this Court’s prior orders, which constitute law of the case. They are riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact. And they depart from positions that the Government has taken in other cases. While Rule 48(a) does not require the Government to bare its innermost secrets, it does require a statement of its reasons for dismissal. See Ammidown, 497 F.2d at 620 (explaining that this requirement “prevent abuse of the uncontrolled power of dismissal previously enjoyed by prosecutors”). Leave of court should not be granted when the explanations the Government puts forth are not credible as the real reasons for its dismissal of a criminal charge."

 

It does matter when the agents didn’t believe he lied, that we now know they knew what he said because he was recorded, advised him he didn’t need representation or that he was under investigation and that he had exhausted large amounts of money defending himself against a government with endless taxpayers dollars to keep it going with a complicit press to destroy his and his family’s life. It’s called “crying uncle”. Sad our government works like that. Knowing those agents discussed motive for catching him in a lie should disgust you.

 

I don't really care to understand Gleeson's thinking and would not waste the time.

 

There is no credible evidence that Flynn actually lied per the legal definition of lying. Everything else you cite has not evidentiary whatsoever to Flynn's guilt or non-guilt.

 

No, the FBI did not say Michael Flynn did not lie, as Donald Trump said

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...-did-not-say-michael-flynn-did-not-lie-donal/

 

Thanks for being honest enough to admit you have no interest in the facts.

 

OMG, WTF are you taking about?

 

Have the wrong father.

 

Why did Hunter Biden take $50,000 per month from Russians?

 

As an aside, relying on Politifact is akin to building a foundation on Jell-O.

 

I never said I have no interest in the facts. I said I have no interest in Gleeson's thinking or opinion.

 

Can you cite Flynn's actual lies?

 

You do????

 

Can you construct a valid argument instead of playing passive/aggressive?

 

How can one construct an argument that someone did not lie? The onus or proof of a lie can only be with the accuser. Many are saying that Flynn lied. I am simply asking what is the lie or lies. Very strange that nobody can answer that question. They can only cite what Mueller maybe accused him of or what Flynn admitted to in court, neither of which is citing an actual lie.

 

Amen to that one.

 

What were the alleged lies?

 

Your judge has written on how he hates Trump. He should recuse himself.

 

Judges are not prosecutors and do not make prosecutoral decisions.

 

Wrong these judges are doing so. Judges do not make prosecutoral decisions and especially for their own political reasons.

 

IOW, you can't refute the facts they present.

 

"Russia was a geopolitical adversary that had just interfered with the American electoral process, yet Flynn was quietly making conciliatory overtures that undercut the just announced measures intended to convey the seriousness with which the United States regarded that incursion. Flynn himself recognized that his request to the Russians “could be perceived as getting in the way of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy,” and he therefore purposefully omitted reference to the request when he later documented the call in a text message to McFarland. ECF No. 79-3 at 29. FBI investigators considered how to respond to the new intelligence in the recordings, see ECF No. 198-8 at 2–3, including through discussions with experienced DOJ and intelligence officials, see, e.g., ECF No. 198-4 at 3–4. The primary focus of those discussions was resolving the counterintelligence concerns at the core of the FBI’s Crossfire investigations.

Flynn Lies to White House Officials

Further developments increased the concerns arising from the Flynn-Kislyak calls. On January 12, 2017, a Washington Post columnist reported that Flynn had “phoned” Kislyak “several times” the day the sanctions were announced.20 That news report upset President-Elect Trump, who expressed anger to incoming Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. See ECF No. 79-6 at 15. Priebus then contacted Flynn, who “felt a lot of pressure” because Priebus “had spoken to the ‘boss’,” and conveyed to Flynn that he “needed to ‘kill the story’.” Id. In response, Flynn said to McFarland “words to the effect of, ‘I want to kill the story’,” and directed her to deny to the Post that he had discussed sanctions with Kislyak, which she did."
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.223.2.pdf
So............Flynn knew his conversations with Kislyak broke with protocol if not the Logan Act. Add to that he had pissed off Big Fat Don over the calls. That explains, partially, why Flynn lied to the FBI about them.

 

"Other incoming officials repeated that denial in the ensuing days. In a January 13, 2017 briefing, incoming Press Secretary Sean Spicer publicly stated that the post-Christmas call between Flynn and Kislyak “centered around the logistics” of setting up a “call” between Putin and Trump and “[t]hat was it, plain and simple.”21 On January 15, Priebus and Vice President Elect Mike Pence were asked about the calls during national television interviews. Both vouched that they had talked to General Flynn, who had assured them that the sanctions never came up in his conversation with Kislyak. 22 These developments added new dimensions, as well as newfound urgency, to the FBI’s ongoing investigations and the intelligence community’s counterintelligence concerns. See ECF No. 198-4 at 4-5, 8; ECF No. 198-5 at 3–4, 7–9; ECF No. 198-6 at 5–6. Flynn had lied to multiple incoming White House officials and concealed the true nature of his contacts with the Russian government. See id. In addition to that obvious concern, the Russians would likely have evidence of those lies—and as a result could have secret leverage over the incoming National Security Advisor."

 

We've had a number of threads, and I've gone over it at a few times.

You are not bringing anything new to the table, just more crap.

 

That, btw, violates the Logan Act.