Flynn Prosecutors Will “Reassess” Sentencing After Partner Trial Concludes…

Some updates in the Michael Flynn case.  As requested the DOJ has filed a response to Judge Sullivan’s order.   The DC judge wanted to know what the status of the prosecution position was now that Michael Flynn is no longer a cooperating witness for the DOJ in the EDVA case, against his former business partner.

The prosecution responds:

(Source Link)

Strange position considering the backstory.  The government wants to delay sentencing until after a case where Flynn is no longer involved is completed?

Additionally, Jessie K Liu added yet another lawyer to the Flynn prosecution today. SEE HERE. Suspicious cat is suspicious.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Conspiracy ?, Deep State, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, FBI, IG Report FISA Abuse, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Spygate, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Uncategorized, USA. Bookmark the permalink.

275 Responses to Flynn Prosecutors Will “Reassess” Sentencing After Partner Trial Concludes…

  1. islandpalmtrees says:

    General Observation:

    You know, the CIA, is not the only wheel in this story, but it sure has the most tire wear. Everywhere I look, it keeps showing up. You know for a group said to be clandestine, I am concerned about them.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Kleen says:

    Declassify all docs related to spygate that can be declassified at the moment. Sundance listed them over and over and that will send this cabal running.

    Done! Let the discredited thugs keep this up after being exposed. We will see how far they go.

    What happened to Nunes’ criminal referrals?

    Liked by 8 people

  3. Kleen says:

    By the way, so many criminal referrals submitted to the DOJ and so far nothing.

    Nunes said he gathered evidence for 2 years and submitted all to the DOJ.

    Why the foot dragging? We are running out of time.

    Liked by 5 people

    • boomerbeth says:

      Because nothing ever happens. They run out the clock either by statute of limitations or a new chief in the WHITE HOUSE.

      NON-ELECTED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HAVE TENURE & lifetime immunity from punishment.
      Hence, their arrogance.

      Like

  4. redthunder238 says:

    What’s the consensus on Emmet Sullivan? Is he deep state?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Steve says:

    Is it weird writing this today knowing full well that Q posted expecting there would be news related to Gen. Michael Flynn? I get not blindly trusting the plan but aren’t we well past that?

    Evidence indicates we’re well past speculation and on to prosecution.

    PS Bill Clinton is a rapist. L

    Liked by 2 people

    • Conservative_302 says:

      I like this site a lot, but your post puts us on the level of a lot is sites I do not like. You may not care for Bill Clinton; none of us do, but to call him a rapist is going too far. He hasn’t been successfully prosecuted as one to my knowledge, and unless you have evidence and can prosecute, I’d rather not read this type of accusation.

      Like

    • covfefe999 says:

      Court schedules are published. Anyone can look at them. Q didn’t know anything that any of the rest of us would have known had we looked. Please stop ascribing his use of publicly-available resources to insider knowledge or prescience.

      Like

      • Greg says:

        “Please stop ascribing his use of publicly-available resources to insider knowledge or prescience.”
        I don’t see where posting Q info is “ascribing to insider knowledge or prescience” , Q is just another information source, insider or not. Sundance looks stuff up that is available to us, right?
        Just for the sake of argument, why is the MSM afraid of Q?? The bash Q, they have seen POTUS at rally’s point out Q, but the MSM does not ask POTUS about Q when given the opportunity, why?
        “Please stop” you are beginning to sound like Twitter….

        Like

  6. The judge ordered the defendant’s attorney to have filed a response brief by now. Looking forward to seeing this posted here – preferably as a new topic with Sundance’s analysis.

    Like

  7. Midnite says:

    I have a question for the legal beagles on here concerning the doctrine of “Fruit of the poison tree”. If we look back to the origins of the investigation and eventual prosecution of Flynn, Papadopolous and Manafort it seems certain that there’s evidence of entrapment and misconduct all along the way. To the point that I often wonder if the phrase shouldn’t be amended to to something along the lines of “Planting the seed that sprouted the poison tree that produced the poison fruit”. It seems clear to me that Weismann was involved in these cases early and often and may indeed have planted that fateful seed. So, my question is if it could be proven that the government ie Weismann was indeed the architect of these false charges how would the accepted doctrine of fruit of the poison tree apply?

    Like

    • rgr769 says:

      Fruit of the Poisonous Tree is a legal doctrine of search and seizure law. It is used to suppress evidence obtained by violating a criminal defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unlawful searches and seizures. First you have to prove an unlawful search/seizure. Second, that such search yielded evidence that was “fruit” of that search/seizure, i.e., that the evidence would not have been obtained absent the unlawful search/seizure. There are many exceptions to prove the rule. In the case of Gen. Flynn, his charges he plead to were based upon what he voluntarily told those FBI agents.

      Like

      • Midnite says:

        Thank you for the explanation. I’ve heard the termed used here and in other discussions and wondered if it could also be applied to evidence gathered during an illegal surveillance operation, or if it might also apply to entrapment situations. I’m thinking specifically of Flynn’s setup by Stefan Halper with a so called “Russian Agent” which might then have been used as a predicate for the surveillance, which was then used as a pretext for his interview by the FBI, which eventually led to charges being filed. The same goes for Papa D…setup, interview and then charged with a process crime.

        Like

        • rgr769 says:

          That doctrine does not per se apply to entrapment claims, which is an entirely different defense. If it could be proven that Flynn’s phone calls were illegally surveilled and that such surveillance led to them proving his allegedly false statements to the FBI, the doctrine might have some application. But Flynn’s phone conversation with Kylsiak was subject to an NSL which allowed the FBI to listen to all Kysiak’s phone calls, as he is a Russian agent. So, I don’t see a Fourth Amendment violation. Plus, Flynn had to know the FBI was listening to every phone conversation he had with the Ruskie.

          Like

      • Oscar Torres says:

        But didn’t the FBI already know the answers to their own question? They where listening in to his conversations and had all the transcripts…isn’t that some form of entrapment?

        Like

  8. nuthinmuffin says:

    deborah curtiss and brandon von grack were both members of mueller’s team

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Mr e-man says:

    So is that a threat from the prosecution that Flynn better not even think about testifying for the defense?

    Like

  10. boomerbeth says:

    Politics of Personal Destruction = Malignant Psychopathy( a pre-requisite to be hired by the DOJ.

    Like

Leave a Reply to covfefe999 Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s