Bizarre Status of Flynn Partner Trial – FARA Prosecution in Tenuous Disposition…

The status of the Eastern District of Virginia case against former partner of Michael Flynn, Bijan Rafiekian is bizarre.

Apparently U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr has not engaged into this case, and the current status is a mess.

The head-scratching FARA case was tenuous from the outset as the prosecution was arguing a rather odd legal interpretation of FARA statutes; and now the DOJ could be handed a dismissal, even if the jury returns a guilty verdict.

Yes, when you stretch legal interpretation beyond evidence, it’s a mess.

The current arguments surround jury instructions where the DOJ is requesting their earlier claims of Rafiekian as an “agent of a foreign government” be dropped (because there is no evidence); and simultaneously arguing that Rafiekian didn’t have to break the law surrounding FARA in order to be found guilty of breaking the DOJ interpretation of the law surrounding FARA.   Confused?  You should be. The judge is too:…

(Source legal motion h/t Techno Fog)

Despite an earlier filing, the DOJ prosecutor never did call Michael Flynn Jr as a witness, nor Michael Flynn himself.  Additionally, after the prosecution finished their presentation, the defense informed Judge Anthony Trenga (in oral arguments) they also have no intention of calling Michael Flynn.

While the case is ongoing, in oral arguments about how to instruct the jury, the entire sketchy construct is being debated by the judge, prosecution and defense.  Like I said, it’s a hot mess; and unfortunately while I have read the oral argument transcript, I can’t share the information (it’s embargoed).

Suffice to say the DOJ is arguing the Flynn Intel Group (FIG) is guilty of doing something even though the DOJ can’t prove the FIG intended to do something unlawful.

The argument around “mens rea” is intent. “Mens rea” is the mental element of a person’s intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one’s action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. 

In oral arguments (about jury instructions) the DOJ says they don’t need to prove the Flynn Intel Group was guilty of intent.

Indeed, the DOJ position is that Rafiekian did something wrong, without intending to do something wrong, in filing information about their Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) compliance forms.

The DOJ also admits the government took no action as an outcome of the accidentally wrong information; simply that the information itself was accidentally false – and therefore unlawful.

So the judge (“The Court”) is asking questions:

The government’s position is is tenable at best.

Here’s how Techno Fog sees it:

The DOJ’s position on Section 951(d)(4) is that the “legal commercial transaction” exception does not include (1) illegal activities; and (2) activities that are prohibited but technically not illegal.

Under this theory there is potential 951 criminal culpability for a minor FARA violation, such as late registration or the omission of facts.

Now consider the 2016 OIG report on the NSD’s enforcement of FARA, and how many lobbyists would have been exposed to Section 951 due to their sloppy registrations. (For example, 57% of the new registered agent contracts reviewed by OIG were not registered timely.)

My biggest takeaway is the DOJ’s position that the conduct need only be “prohibited.”

I’m assuming this is consistent with how they’ve applied Section 951 in the past. (If the 951/FARA/FISA theory is correct.) That would have included all the lobbyists doing work on behalf of foreign countries, foreign individuals, or foreign corporations who didn’t have airtight FARA paperwork. Not just the material omissions/lies alleged in the Rafiekian case.

The DOJ prosecutor basically admits this: “any conduct that was in violation of the FARA statute, whether or not prosecuted or prosecutable, renders that conduct not a legal commercial transaction.” [Key point being “whether or not… prosecutable”]

In my opinion the government’s DOJ-NSD position is specific and purposeful because they are trying to avoid later scrutiny about their use of FARA violations to gain FISA surveillance warrants.

That is to say….  the DOJ National Security Division, intentionally never prosecuted for FARA violations because they used the appearance of FARA violations to get FISA electronic surveillance warrants against any DC entity they wanted to watch.  To get a FISA they have to assert evidence of “working as an agent of a foreign power.”

The Obama-era DOJ, applying the Lawfare ideology, used any/all technical FARA violations as the predicate to make claims to the FISA court.  This allowed them to get surveillance authority over any target they identified.  This is how the Obama DOJ and FBI assembled the files on their political opponents.  This prior activity is what the collective “small group”, with the assistance of the Lawfare team, are now trying to justify.

In the event that any internal investigation calls their activity into question, the DOJ is positioning their justification strategy within this Rafiekian case.   Does that make sense?

Now…. You might remember the promoted Special Counsel announcement that started the case against Flynn’s former Flynn Intel Group (FIG) partner Bijan Rafiekian, see below:

Well, on Friday, the day after the prosecution finished delivering all their evidence, the prosecution began arguing to remove that predicate claim.

The DOJ no longer wants any language in the jury instructions that mentions being an “agent of the government of Turkey”?

The reason the DOJ wants to strike the “agent of a foreign power” language is because they presented no evidence to prove it.  Nor did the DOJ present any evidence to prove a conspiracy.

Nothing.

Zippo.

Zilch.

The prosecution is left arguing that any foreign engagement by the Flynn Intel Group, specifically Bijan Rafiekian, would constitute a FARA violation under their interpretation of law.

….”any conduct that was in violation of the FARA statute, whether or not prosecuted or prosecutable, renders that conduct not a legal commercial transaction.”

The action need not be prosecutable in order to define that action as not legal.  Rafiekian didn’t have to break the law surrounding FARA in order to be found guilty of breaking the DOJ interpretation of the law surrounding FARA 951 statute.

Confused?

You should be.

This is Lawfare.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, Election 2016, FBI, IG Report FISA Abuse, media bias, Notorious Liars, Occupy Type Moonbats, President Trump, Spygate, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

181 Responses to Bizarre Status of Flynn Partner Trial – FARA Prosecution in Tenuous Disposition…

  1. L4grasshopper says:

    Intent?

    Where have we heard that before 🙂

    Liked by 20 people

    • Marygrace Powers says:

      Here it is L4g/travesty of justice courtesy of DIRTY COP COMEY.

      “When Comey announced the decision to not bring charges against Clinton in July 2016 — shortly after Clinton had secured the Democratic nomination to run for president against Donald Trump — he said agents decided not to pursue criminal charges under the statute because they could not prove she INTENDED to violate laws like the Espionage Act.”

      “But he harshly criticized Clinton for setting up a personal email server outside the State Department’s security apparatus and then using it to transmit classified information.”

      “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues INTENDED to violate laws governing the handling of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” Comey said at the time.”

      Liked by 16 people

      • Burnt Toast says:

        There are a number of parts to the Espionage Act.
        Intent is not a factor in most of them.

        Liked by 4 people

        • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

          Nah….intent is a factor in ALL of them……
          https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

          EXCEPT THE ONE THAT SPECIFICALLY COVERS THE LACK OF INTENT:
          “Gross negligence” (f)

          Seems Congress wanted to cover all the bases when they wrote the law…….
          even the “I didn’t mean to” excuse.

          and that’s why they put it there.

          Like

      • Peoria Jones says:

        Yeah, that little thing. And also on the question of citizenship on the census (per Justice Roberts).

        Liked by 1 person

      • dd_sc says:

        From the same press conference:

        To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.

        Admission by then FBI Directory Comey of a two-tiered justice system.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Dee Paul Deje says:

        Roosterhead makes mincemeat out of Comey’s ‘intent’ scam:

        Like

      • Here’s something I copied from a legal dictionary about mens rea:

        Overview. Mens Rea refers to criminal intent. … Establishing the mens rea of an offender is usually necessary to prove guilt in a criminal trial. The prosecution typically must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense with a culpable state of mind.

        Based on what Sundance and Techno Fog have written, it really doesn’t look like they can prove anything close to Flynn having a “criminal intent” or “culpable state of mind.”

        Liked by 1 person

        • Linda K. says:

          I am wondering why they didn’t call Flynn or Flynn Jr. as they threatened to do, wasn’t that Jessie Liu going to open some nasty case against Flynn Jr.?
          How does this effect the case against Flynn?

          Like

          • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

            The GOV will accept Sidney Powell’s assertion that Flynn did cooperate and they will recommend what they did in Dec…….no jail time.

            It’s the only play they got to make this go away.

            Now…..
            Sidney could still withdraw the guilty plea……..

            Like

    • Dutchman says:

      “Its a CANDY mint”
      “Its a breathe mint”

      “Its 2,2,….2 mints in ONE!”

      Musta been weinbergs favotite commercial, growing up.
      In this case its INTENT; Crucial to trying to prosecute the,POTUS, yet totally irrelevant to prosecuting this (and presumably other) FARA violations.

      Really got to wonder about these judges.
      Are they aware of what this ‘gang that can’t shoot straight’ prosecutors are doing in the other related cases, or is each viewing their rediculous contortions of the law of the Prosecutors only through the perspective of the case in front of them?

      I know about the proscription against “ex part”, where one legal team isn’t SUPPOSED to communicate with the Judge, without the other present, but I don’t know of anything prohibiting Sullivan from calling the Judge in EDVA case, and comparing notes.

      Are they giving the prosecution more rope to hang themselves, allowing this to play out? Are they just plain MORONS, too stupid to see when they are being ‘played’, overeducated idiots that can’t see whats so obvious the village idiot sees it?
      Or, are they complicit or compromised?

      How long before one of these Judges says; “ENOUGH! You have ruined peoples lives, wasted mountains of the courts time on what are not simply ‘novel’ interpretations of the Law, but absolutely rediculous, untenable, illogical and indefensible DISTORTIONS of the law that turn 2000 years of jurisprudence on its head.

      “Gross and deliberate misinterpretations of the law, disregarding or (if possible worse) INSERTING statutory intent as you see fit.
      Case dismissed, and I am reccomending your law licences be revoked, permanently. You have NO buusiness anywhere near a courtroom, except as a Criminal Defendant!”

      Liked by 6 people

      • Rhoda R says:

        Talk about a wet dream!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

        Are they aware of what this ‘gang that can’t shoot straight’ prosecutors are doing in the other related cases, or is each viewing their ridiculous contortions of the law of the Prosecutors only through the perspective of the case in front of them?

        Well Sullivan SPECIFICALLY asked Powell and Van Crack-head how the EDVA case was going to affect the Flynn case proper—2 responsive motions filed.

        Sullivan sure knows and Sidney’s threatening to make sure he knows about others

        “counsel has identified crucial and troubling issues that should concern any court.”

        Like

        • Dutchman says:

          Yeah, thanks. That question was a little rhetorical. Thst is, if they DO know, if they ARE communicating, its hard for me to undetstand why these judges haven’t said “ENOUGH”!

          Judges have a phenominal amount of power over a case, if they just USE it. At this point one would think they would have realised what is really going on, and called a halt to it.

          Special prayers for Sidney, and for Justice to prevail!

          Liked by 1 person

    • CHAOS_ACTUAL says:

      Intent.

      It comes from the title of that classic play “A Street Car Named Intent” by James Comey.

      I like Robert Mueller in the movie version:

      Mueller: “MENSREAAA!… MENSREEEAAA!… Don’t ever leave me, baby.”

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Cowboy79 says:

    Apparently, FBI/DOJ excused felony violations for Hilary Clinton’s improper handling of classified information BECAUSE they could not prove “intent”. But for Lt. Gen. Flynn, they now say that “intent isn’t relevant” to a violation of law or statute.
    Methinks they need to decide what the Law and Statute actually require instead of making it up as they choose.

    Liked by 18 people

    • David Vicknair says:

      “Methinks…” I like that. Methinks their operative rule is simple, if not inconsistent: If the target is a Democrat, then the standard is “What? Intent? Who? Naw!” otherwise, “We don’t need no stinking intent!”

      Liked by 10 people

    • John55 says:

      Don’t forget that Mueller and Weissmann were unable to find any evidence that Trump committed any crimes … but they are still claiming that he had the “intent” to commit crimes!

      They are Thought Police, literally. They will decide what they think you are thinking, and punish you for it.

      Liked by 20 people

      • john says:

        Minority Report was prophetic on many levels

        Like

      • bertdilbert says:

        It is what you call 3D FUBAR at many levels. Very complicated FUBAR. Gordian knot of FUBAR with a Catch 22 element..

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dutchman says:

        THIS is the road you start down, when you allow the Legislature to pass “Hate crimes legislation”.
        It was the camels nose under the tent, easiest to pass. Continue down this road, and we end up as GB is right now,
        and other EU countries.

        And the EU is just CCP lite, for now.
        Social scores, anyone. Next step after monitoring thoughts is CONTROLLING thoughts, using strong, ingrained social acceptance in order to control behavior.

        Dystopia, here we come!

        Liked by 4 people

      • littleanniefannie says:

        Put them on the stand and ask them to give us Hilliary’s intent, Barack’s intent, Brennan’s intent, McCabe’s intent, and so on right down the list. Bet the deer gets in the headlights again and the “intent” goes all Fuzzy Wuzzy on us!!

        Like

      • kp says:

        John55,

        It’s easy to be confused about what we should think…for a while I was a thinkin’ this is 2019. Then I remembered it’s 1984. Flush “intent” down the memory hole.

        Like

    • Rhoda R says:

      This is where the judges need to step in and start slapping the prosecutors down when they start pulling this kind of nonsense. But too often they seem just to go along with it. Sounds to me that, in this case at least, the defendants have plenty of grounds to appeal.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. lolli says:

    Hmmm. So, if you break the law but someone decides you didn’t intend to, you are fine.
    If you didn’t break a law, but someone decides maybe you intended to, you need to go to jail.
    Got it.

    Liked by 28 people

  4. You may rest assured if I were to blow thru a stoplight the cop isn’t going to ask me if I mean to do that?

    Liked by 5 people

    • GB Bari says:

      The police usually DO first ask you if you know why they pulled you over.

      Like

      • Linda K. says:

        A cop pulled me over once and asked me if I could read. I was five months pregnant, a child seat in the backseat and on my way to work the night shift at the grocery store. I admire and respect the police but he declined to give me a ticket after I went after him for asking me that question. In fact, he just wanted me to calm down and relax and actually was a very nice man.

        Like

  5. CHAOS_ACTUAL says:

    FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT AMENDMENTS

    HEARINGS
    before the
    COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

    EIGHTY EIGHTH CONGRESS
    FIRST SESSION
    ON
    S. 2136

    TO AMEND THE FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT
    OF 1938, AS AMENDED

    NOVEMBER 19, 20, AND 21, 1963

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    WASHINGTON : 1963

    Remember what happened the last time they caught a big fish in the FARA net and tried to haul him in.

    Didn’t turn out to well then.

    Flynn, guilty or not, will set the precedent… and very powerful people do not want a precedent.

    “Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it”

    Liked by 3 people

    • CHAOS_ACTUAL says:

      I’ll see your Rumsfeld letter and raise you a Holborn Memorandum.

      Part 1 of 5

      THE WHITE HOUSE
      WASHINGTON

      September 27, 1962

      CONFIDENTIAL

      MEMORANDUM FOR

      THE PRESIDENT

      SUBJECT: The Julius Klein Matter

      In accordance with your instructions I have examined all available evidence regarding the activities of Mr. Julius Klein and his Public Relations Firm, as well as the status of the Senate Foreign Relations investigation.

      1. Status of Foreign Relations Committee Investigation

      The material which tHe Committee has accumulated is based in large part of the defection of two Klein employees – Mr. Julius Epstein (author of the “Rheinische Merkur” story) and Mr. Harry Blake, Manager of the Klein office in new York. Though the sources, especially Epstein’s are thus tainted, there is sufficient documentary support to make the substantial parts of their revelations probable. It should be understood however, that Mr. Epstein is a more extreme and more free-swinging character than Mr. Klein.

      On the basis of the material which the Foreign Relations Committee has obtained, Senator Fulbright has decided to go ahead on a more formal investigation of Mr. Klein and his firm. Several days ago, he obtained the permission of a sub-committee (himself, Sparkman, Hickenlooper and Aiken) to serve subpoenas for the files of Mr. Klein’s three U.S. offices in Chicago, New York and Washington. The same sub-committee agreed, however, that this would not occur until after election.

      The full scope of the information gathered by the Committee is known only to Fulbright, Carl Marcy and Walter Pincus. They have had to proceed with extreme caution, both because of foreign policy repercussions and because of the latticework of friendships which Mr. Klein enjoys on and off the Committee.

      Over the past few years Mr. Klein has worked most directly with Senators Dodd, Javits, Scott, Keating, Dirkson, and Hruska, He has also had some association with Senators Humphrey, Kefauver, and Morse, in part because of his work on behalf of the Jewish War Veterans. He is quite close with Speaker McCormack and Congressman Cellar in the House. Prior to his death, Senator Bridges was almost the leading member of Klein’s stable. In all his public activities, Klein is at pains to elaborate the bipartisan nature of his support and his is described in much of his literature as “a frequent consultant on Foreign Affairs to Members of Congress.” The White House files also reveal that he has support from several Senators for appointment to the President’s Advisory Committee on Information.

      Like

    • CHAOS_ACTUAL says:

      Part 2 of 5

      Holborn Memorandum / September 27, 2019

      2. Klein’s sources of Financial Support

      There is no way of determining the exact amount or proportion of subsidy which Mr. klein receives from German sources. What is clear is that an increasing proportion of his total income comes from Germany. How much of this is from the Government cannot be determined since he is paid from so-called Title 400 funds, which are secret, discretionary, and not subject to parliamentary scrutiny in Germany. He also has separate German industrial accounts including perhaps eight to ten large firms. In addition, he has provided services for individuals such as for Dr. von Brentano during his visit to the United States in May. He also received at least small payment for Mr. Mende’s visit, though this was managed largely by a competing firm. Over the years he has received a large cumulative sum for his work for Mr. Abs and other is connection with the assets in question. Much of this payment was funneled through a group described as the “Cologne Group.” Under prodding by the Justice Department he now maintains that most of his payments from Germany are made to an account in the Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt.

      Mr. Klein in his registrations with the Justice Department has refused to offer any further breakdown of his income and describes his work for the German government only in the vaguest generalities. recently he began the publication in German and English of a weekly newsletter called “Overseas Report.” This newsletter was not properly labeled or identified until about a month ago. On an occasional basis he also sends to his clients cifidential special reports, including, for example, one this summer on the so called Rostow Reprot to the story in the Chicago Tribune

      Like

    • CHAOS_ACTUAL says:

      Part 3 of 5

      Holborn Memorandum – September 27, 1962

      3. Klein’s Principal German Contacts

      There is no question that Klein’s longevity as a German publicist derives from the personal support he has from the Chancellor and from State Secretary, Mr Globke. He has relatively few direct links in the Foreign Office, and the German Embassy in Washington, under Grewe, did not look upon him with much favor. Indeed, the German Embassy has used another public relations firm, headed by Mr. Roy Bernard, to handle the more normal type of advertising and information work. There is no question, however, that Klein has been close to the new Ambassador, Mr. Knappstein, ever since he was consul in Chicago. He is also close to the present German Consul, Federer, in New York and is well acquainted with all the principle CDU leaders, especially Mr. von Brentano. He does not enjoy close ties in other German parties, though his relation with Mr. Mende is ambiguous. This makes it all the more likely that the SPD will exploit whatever revelations come to light about the most recent or previous episodes involving Mr. Klein. On balance, Mr. Klein’s associations in Germany are heavily weighted to the Right. This is in turn reinforced by the associations he has with the German Language Press in America (mostly conservative) and with papers such as the Brooklyn Tablet and the Chicago Tribune.

      Like

    • CHAOS_ACTUAL says:

      Part 4 of 5

      Holborn Memorandum – September 27, 1962

      4. Klein’s Activities

      Apart from the publications of his newsletters and confidential reports and the management of visits by Germans to this country, Mr. Klein, from the materials which have been acquired, appears to indulge in three further types of activities:

      (1) One type is the enlistment of Senators in the sponsorship of resolutions. This year he has worked reasonably hard with Senators Dodd and Scott to obtain Congressional pressure for a United Nations resolution calling for free elections in East Germany. In one of the letters which Scott sent to Klein on this matter he declares, “I can assure you of my continuing interest in the problems brought about by the Administration on Berlin and its awkward handling of relations with West Germany.” In this he also had consultations with the then German observer at the United Nations, Mr. Knappstein. Although nothing much has come of this in the United States, Klein employees then wrote articles in German publications praising this initiative and much was made of it in their discussions with officials in Bonn.

      (2) A second recent example was attempts by Mr. Klein to obtain from President Eisenhower a repudiation of the paragraph in the Soviet note to the German Government of December 27, 1961, which referred to a supposed statement by President Eisenhower at Camp David that “if the Federal Republic had not been included in the armament race, she would have undoubtedly have increased her economic potential and would have gained even more profitable positions in world trade, to the disadvantage of her NATO allies.” Despite two requests, President Eisenhower could not be baited into making a personal statement, but Mr. Klein attempted to make the most in Germany, of a relatively innocuous reply which was signed by Ms. Whitman.

      Like

    • CHAOS_ACTUAL says:

      Part 5 of 5

      Holborn Memorandum – September 27, 1962

      A third example was the “debate” on the Senate floor in May, staged by Senator Javits, Keating, and Dodd. This whole affair was orchestrated by and largely composed by the Klein firm to harmonize with von Bretano’s visit. Also, in recent weeks Mr. Klein got quite deeply involved in the Rostow report affair, though here the events show that his employees were rasher than himself. Klein tried to put some restraint on Mr. Epstein and others.

      Finally, there is the more serious recent episode on which you have been fully briefed by Under Secretary Ball and Mr. Kaysen.

      What is apparent throughout all these episodes – and what most properly concerns this government – is the fact that almost all of the Klein activities are carried out under half disguise. If his employees and sources of income, governmental and private – were clearly known and on the record, some of his activities would be more benign. Instead, he trades on his friendships and political associations, and perpetuates the notion that he is everyone’s friend.

      One example of the manner in which he operates was a telegram which he sent to you three days prior to the German elections in September 1961, in which he suggested “as an American citizen” that you had an obligation to express more open support for Chancellor Adenauer personally before election day because of the “twisted” interpretations being placed on the mission of Vice President Johnson. Unless you did so he suggested, Adenauer might well lose the election and Khrushchev would earn an easy victory. Nothing was done about this, of course, and Mr. Klein has been obviously uneasy at the difficulty he has had in establishing clear association with you or with the White House. This has lead him to strained attempts, such as his transmittal only last week to reporters of a statement placed in the record on his behalf by Senator Edward Long of Missouri, whom his firm calls in the covering letter “a leading Democrat and a close associate of President Kennedy.”

      [signed]
      Frederick L. Holborn

      Like

    • CHAOS_ACTUAL says:

      And, if you are can’t see the forest for the trees…

      Read the transcripts of the Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate of the Eighty Eighth Congress on S. 2136.

      Read pages 43 to 90 especially carefully from November 20, 1963.

      In general, note which Senators on the Committee are not present and note why they are not present, and which Senators conveniently absent themselves prior to Klein’s testimony.

      There was one more day of hearings…

      And then…

      And then there was no follow up.

      “… We are all sea-swallowed, though some cast again,
      And by that destiny to perform an act
      Whereof what’s past is prologue, what to come
      In yours and my discharge.”

      Like

  6. FL_GUY says:

    It’s about time for these Federal judges to step up to the plate and start applying consequences for prosecution misconduct. The Mueller/Weissman clown act always eventually gets overturned but the victims are already ruined by that time. It needs to be shut down NOW!

    The judge in the Manafort Case and the Roger Stone case has demonstrated so much judicial bias and abuse of her position, she not only needs to be removed from the case but also from the bench.

    It was no accident that an Obama bot got appointed to these cases. Apparently, she was the go to judge whenever anyone challenged any of Obama’s edicts or conduct and she always made sure it went away. As I understand the problem, the person who assigns the judges in this district is also an Obama bot. Of course, CJ Roberts could intervene but he’s a spineless stooge.JMHO

    Liked by 12 people

    • Riskographer2 says:

      Still don’t get why Barr wanted her on his team so badly? Apparently, he made a scene when he couldn’t get her.

      Like

      • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

        Barr wanted the judge on his team??

        Judge Amy Berman Jackson-Federal Judge
        OR
        Jessie K Liu-US Attorney?

        Not sure what you mean by scene.
        Liu was slated to be AAG (#3) but then “withdrew”
        (Did Barr want to keep enemies close-er? Did she “withdraw” because the DS needed her flushing cases in DC District?)

        She went on to become Chairwoman of Attorney General’s Advisory Committee of United States Attorneys (AGAC).
        But IIRC SD revealed the US Attorney from DC MUST be on that committee.

        Like

    • littleanniefannie says:

      Roberts isn’t a spineless stooge. They have him by his snarglies since the paragon of legal justice broke the law and the O’Failure Group have shown him what they can do to bring him down. If he had an honorable bone in his body, he would resign today, admit to his and his wife’s misdeed and let PDJT put a real conservative in his place. If he thinks he can heal his broken image, he needs a reality check. He was compromised on the Obamacare “tax” decision and he can NEVER overcome that mistake. EVER.

      Like

  7. Ausonius says:

    Welcome to Cloud KafkaLand! General Flynn and the others are now officially equal to Josef K. in The Trial. If you do not know this novel, it is high time to read it! The totalitarians are following it very closely!

    If the Left-Wing Communists have their way, Life in America will resemble Kafka’s nightmares ever more!

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Brant says:

    This reach around sounds a lot like how they are trying to get Trump. Obstruction for something (collusion) that was never done.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Susan Bolle says:

      They’re guilty as hell with their illegal FISA warrants and they’re attempting to set some sort of precedence before the dam bursts. If Trump ends up somewhere in the mayhem, all the better.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. jnr2d2 says:

    It’s intent if they say so, or not if they say so. They are prosecutor, judge and jury instructor. Bring on the show trials Mr Stalin. Off with their head said the queen.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. Jennifer Verner says:

    after reading this, I am trying to figure out why the judge didn’t dismiss this case in the spot.

    Liked by 13 people

    • LafnH20 says:

      We’ve thought it over in a couple of back rooms, your Honor, and we’ve come to a “Simultaneous Group Epifany” that while it is unknown if it fact it hasn’t – it nonetheless “theoretically” may have – crossed his mind… therefore leaving us no alternative but to submit that the defendent is guilty of a “Possible Thought Crime”; whether he knows it or not.
      The Prosecution rests.

      This is insane.

      Liked by 7 people

    • Susan Bolle says:

      Yes…in a sense they are re-writing the law and usurping the powers of the other branches.

      Like

  11. sarasotosfan says:

    I am surprised the DOJ hasn’t conducted street sweeps in the Swamp using this logic.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. The Boss says:

    Is anyone keeping a roster of the Lawfare scum?
    (Maybe Jeff Epstein can help?)
    Seriously though, do we know who all of them are?

    Liked by 3 people

    • ms doodlebug says:

      Maybe not, but enough of them are known to scare the hell out of the ones who aren’t known. I’m thinking we should keep eyes on those who were previously running their mouths but who have gone silent now – almost as if they don’t want to call attention to themselves.

      Like

  13. Comrade Mope says:

    Just so I can wrap my mind around this, you don’t need intent where the statute requires it and when a statute specifically states intent is not required, like signing a Standard Form 312, a person can be declined prosecution because intent is not there. OK. Gotcha.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Burnt Toast says:

    I certainly understand that there are cases that a prosecutor KNOWS that a suspect is guilty, but w/o evidence they also know that they are out of a case. It is also likely as not that most of the time the prosecutor is just plain wrong in what they ‘know’, hence no evidence, and our rights to confront that evidence (if any) in court.

    I think that a prosecutor / investigator taking testimony from multiple witnesses in an event often find statements that conflict, are mutually exclusive, are just plain, or outright lies. Also that they have many cases that is there is no evidence so perhaps there was no crime.

    The prosecutors here all now that but want to be that first novel case that a conviction is made based upon their opinion, however politically motivated, that the accused did ‘something’.

    To go godwin… who are the real fascists?

    Liked by 2 people

  15. TomA says:

    At it’s root, this case is a test of Barr’s integrity as Attorney General. The facts clearly reveal that the Obama Administration weaponized the DOJ/FBI/CIA as agents of politically motivated surveillance and, later, proactive interdiction in a presidential election, and, finally, an attempted coup intended to remove a duly elected president by any means necessary. These are not minor or trivial crimes.

    In order to conceal the true nature of these ongoing crimes, the DOJ is now engaged in a revisionist legal tactic intended to retroactively justify illegal conduct that transpired over many years. If Barr allows this travesty to continue (and succeed), then he will de facto become a co-conspirator in these crimes. That is not a legacy he should aspire to acquire.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Donovans Trigger says:

      Agree Tommie my man. See chaos legal theory below

      Like

    • Not necessarily-

      If AG Barr wants to clean up the FARA/FISA abuse, then an actual Court decision saying that DOJ was wrong to use FARA as a pretext for FISA is BETTER than AG Barr just telling the DOJ to behave. The Court ruling will set a precedent that has to be followed, whereas AG Barr’s decision could be reversed by a future AG.

      Liked by 6 people

      • TPW says:

        What if Barr is not paying attention….letting underlings handle minutia ……..then its up to us to be loud…..right….

        Like

      • TomA says:

        And you know this judge is honest and will do the right thing how?

        Like

      • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

        BINGO Hal!

        Why would Barr intervene at this point……when “Flynn’s” and Concord cases are going down in flames on their own AND a judge (or judges) may give JUDICIAL BRANCH rulings

        What is needed are these 3rd branch rulings as so far everything about “Russia collusion” has lived in the other 2.

        Barr should stay away as long as possible.
        (See Nadler’s interview on FOX calling AG Barr a “liar” for example why)

        In fact I’m wondering if the real target of Mueller’s testimony IS BARR.

        Like

  16. JBTX says:

    So, if I buy an electroni item, marked made in China, and to activate it requires me to register the product with the manufacturer…I am acting as an agent of a foreign power by following those Instructions…therefore in violation of FARA and subject to a FISA order being executed on my communications? Stupid and irrelevant, but isn’t it just about as big a stretch as this?

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Skidroe says:

    There are so many people that know EVERYTHING about how crooked the Oskama administration was, why hasn’t just one came forward to spill the beans. It is amazing to me that this has not happened. Plus how much other legal crap did they do That we don’t know about??

    Liked by 2 people

    • lumoc1 says:

      “Plus how much other legal crap did they do That we don’t know about??”

      Based on what we already know it would be a safe bet that practically EVERYTHING they did is crap! ;(

      Liked by 2 people

    • snellvillebob says:

      I may be that corruption was so rampant in those agencies for so long that everyone has dirt on everyone else so they are locked into protecting each other. We just need to listen to those who wanted to talk a year and a half ago if Rosenstein did not permanently silence them.

      Liked by 1 person

  18. ALEX says:

    So, as Sundance noted, if any FARA activity can be twisted and used to obtain a FISA, which itself is twisted play that proves all those who opposed the Patriot Act and the abuse that would follow correct……I would be interested to find out if only Obama Administration did this and there would be some ironclad intent….

    Liked by 3 people

    • 🍺Gunny66 says:

      I believe all of this will be on “full display” during the Mueller testimony this week.

      “The President did not break any laws and did not perform any obstruction, but I believe he could have intended to………so…….Impeach”

      Wait for it…..

      Liked by 1 person

  19. Merkin Muffley says:

    “In other words, your honor, Bijan Rafiekian broke the law because we say he did.”

    Liked by 4 people

    • Pew-Anon says:

      “Yep. It’s a crime. We aren’t able to explain exactly why. You just have to trust us.”

      Kinda like we just have to trust the Chicomms to keep their word.

      Liked by 2 people

  20. Perot Conservative says:

    Too tough to process it all.

    FUBAR clusterF–k. Swamp Games.

    Coming attractions this week:

    – Epstein docs released. BLOCKBUSTER.
    – And Joe D on WMAL.

    Liked by 3 people

  21. That’s why the Mueller team loved leaks to CNN, NYT an WaPo, convicting people in the court of public opinion allows you to be Judge and Jury. However they’re finding it doesn’t work so well when you have to show actual evidence to an ACTUAL Judge and Jury.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Dutchman says:

      Said before, say again;
      YES, you CAN indict a ham sandwich.
      CONVICTING one, however is FAR more difficult, ESPECIALLY if the plead innocent and force you to PROVE it.

      This is why Muellers team tried to go fir guilty pleas, without trial, as much as possible. Avoids not only those messy things like brady and giggio, but tricky things like presenting evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, with that pesky burden of proof thingy.

      But, when forced to trial, twist statutory intent into a pretzel, f the Constitution, and dazzle the Judge with B.S.

      MAYBE it will ‘fly’, and if the case,is tossed, no biggie. Sure, ruined OTHER peoples lives, but,as,a prosecutor, your exempt, EVEN IF YOU BROKE THE LAW, RULES AND REGS AND POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, your held harmless.

      So, have at it, hacks.

      Liked by 1 person

      • littleanniefannie says:

        But drawing a jury from a Lo-Fo gene pool (those who get their “noos” from DCNN and MSLSD) means they could cast their vote in the jury room before the first witness takes the stand. How many of those people have a clue about the “Intel” agencies little legal faux pas’? That cabal loving crew has no desire for the truth. DCNN and MSLSD could run stories Tuesday about what Mueller revealed in NoNad’s circus and these idiots would bite—hook, line, and stinker, er sinker. Proudly, no less!

        Liked by 1 person

        • Dutchman says:

          Yeah, there is that. Look at the verdict for the murderer of kate stinle(?) in San Fran.
          The founders expressed the concept that our Democratic Republic could only function with an informed educated public.

          “WE, the people meant people capable of discerning the truth, and with access to the information necesary to making informed judgements, not sheeple.

          So, in Nov 2020, we find out if Abe was right.

          Like

  22. dallasdan says:

    One thing is clear from SD’s good effort to explain the mess; the case is a farce.

    Moreover, that the FBI and DOJ are shoulders-deep in the muck and Barr will do nothing to clean it up casts additional doubt upon the AG’s political and judicial cleanliness. SD made that point for a reason, IMO.

    I see Judge Trenga as having a lot of reputational skin in this game. Surely, he feels the weight of judicial credibility on his shoulders.

    Liked by 2 people

    • 1970novass396 says:

      That weight might have the Judge trying to decide whether Trump will win in 2020 or not. Making a decision against the Elite at this point could prove the end of his career.

      Liked by 1 person

    • ms doodlebug says:

      There are two judges involved in this case and Flynn’s. The prosecution in both cases is dicey. My guess is Judge Trenga and Judge Sullivan are discussing how to coordinate their decisions to avoid conflict.

      Liked by 2 people

  23. 1970novass396 says:

    Play stupid games and win stupid prizes.
    As of 7/21/2019 there still is no rule of law in DC. The Donald better be holding The Rook or he is in big trouble.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. livefreeordieguy says:

    “If the government can’t articulate it (any sort of standard) now, how is the defendant supposed to figure that out on his own back in 2016?”

    How indeed, Mr. Murphy… how indeed…

    Liked by 9 people

  25. Pew-Anon says:

    So the prosecutorial legerdemain on display here is all about covering up the government’s leveraging of FARA technicalities to obtain FISA surveillance on almost everyone. I would think something like that is probaly common knowledge in DC, a la Hoover, at least enough to make covering it up a pointless exercise. My guess is there is more to it than that, and it perhaps leads back to Obama’s private, rogue surveillance apparatus, HAMR. When it comes to private servers, I don’t think Hillary had anything on Obama.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. lemontree says:

    Wasn’t the Podesta Group allowed to amend FARA because they “thought” the ECMU was a European Think Tank? He didn’t “intend” to lie?

    Liked by 4 people

  27. All Too Much says:

    “didn’t have to break the law surrounding FARA in order to be found guilty of breaking the DOJ interpretation of the law surrounding FARA. ”

    The court will find that statement abhorrent disrespect for the rule of law.
    Guilty of breaking the law makes you a law breaker.
    Guilty of behavior inconsistent with an agency’s interpretation of the law has exactly what to do with the former? Probably overlapping evidence, but jury instructions are based on the law, not interpretation of law made by nonjudicial elected and non elected officials.
    DOJ’s opposition to plaintiff’s proposed jury instructions is a near admission that the government’s prosecution is smoke and mirror. No one thought the case would get this far.

    Liked by 4 people

  28. beaujest says:

    Only the Outlaw Josey Wales could clean this mess up !

    Liked by 1 person

  29. beaujest says:

    Only the Outlaw Josey Wales could clean this mess up !

    Like

  30. Donovans Trigger says:

    This case is not confusing. It’s a part of the left’s plan to break the back of American legal order.
    Here’s how:
    In America, law and order break down in the courts first, and outside the courts second. If one wants to destroy civil order one does not do so outside the courts by riots , for the state will bring forth criminal charges and in most cases (not all) a just Judge or Jury will convict the guilty and not convict those that the state can not prove are guilty. To break the rule of law one would break the justice system first and once it is broke, move to the streets knowing the state will be able to convict the not guilty and free the guilty. This was the pattern in the Third Reich. This is the model the communists in the DOJ and their sympathetic Judges in the Federal Courts are working.
    Think Roe. To abort 75 million babes one has to first corrupt the law. Roe is the best example of the lefts model of chaos theory of law.
    This case Sundance lays out shows the model. The basis of criminal law in English common law and American jurisprudence has alway been mens rea.
    The model of legal chaos rules that an accused that supports the Communist State does not have to prove intent because by their political loyalty they always support the deep state and there by prove they are pure in thought and motive. American patriots however , once charged are presumed to have the required mens rea to intend a crime. The charge proves guilt. Here, the elements of mens rea are lacking. No problem. The Government now actually has the crust to ask a court to suspend the requirement.
    This is why , under their chaos model, Trump is guilty of obstruction. It’s irrelevant that Trump did not intend to obstruct. It’s irrelevant that he did not obstruct. It’s irrelevant that their was no proof of collusion. Under the model, he has to be exonerated, not charged and convicted. Yet, exoneration under their chaos of law model is impossible. Same thing in this case. Unlike in the past, where their intent to subvert justice was hidden, the DOJ is now openly showing the chaos model of the law. From indictment to jury instruction, mens rea is not a requirement for enemies of the deep state.
    Creating legal chaos and separate standards of justice is exactly the model they want to implement.
    It’s designed to precisely break the morale of lawyers and judges that support the constitution, and reward the enemies of natural law and civic order. This why they are now willing to reveal the model.
    Once the courts are compromised, the real anarchy can start in the streets. It must, however, begin in the courts.
    Too bad for them. The Turtle went hard on judicial appointments and if Trump wins in 2020 the model will be set back at least a decade.

    Liked by 9 people

    • Liberty Forge says:

      Amazingly, I understood your explanation completely — and that is scary stuff indeed.

      It really turns our legal system ‘on its head’ — up is now down; and wrong is now right.

      “Yes, your Honor & members of the jury, my client did indeed rob the bank — only he didn’t “intend to”.” “Therefore, you must find him ‘not guilty as charged’.” And so it is done — with a corrupted legal system.

      Thank you, Donovans Trigger, for your explanation.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Boots says:

      “…Once the courts are compromised, the real anarchy can start in the streets.”
      ——
      100 million gun owners are waiting for it.

      I’m beyond sick and tired of the crap DOJ, FBI, CIA etc is pulling out in the open, in our faces and saying FU, whatcha gonna do ’bout it?

      But there’s someone who’ll put those b@st@rds in their place. “Woe unto them who call good evil, and evil good…..”

      Liked by 1 person

    • Comrade Mope says:

      ^^^ This^^^

      Like

  31. Dan Patterson says:

    Very good article on a very important but unlit portion of the ongoing Swamp Deception War.
    And what is it again that Barr is doing besides protecting the creatures? Has there been a move by his office to do…anything but bluster?
    I will be glad to be mistaken if someone will point to actions that are resonant with PDJT.

    Like

  32. Quint says:

    Goodness gracious me.
    In any other English speaking democracy the very idea that this is any more than legal trivia is risible. The US legal system sounds more like Tammany Hall every day.
    Next, low rent bench judges will be deciding govt policy…..nah, couldn’t happen 😉

    Liked by 2 people

  33. Bogeyfree says:

    What is amazing to me is that Barr sits over all of this and seems to do nothing!

    He seems to allow these DOJ folks to just roll along doing their thing even if it may skirt the gray area of the law or policy.

    I am dumbfounded why AG Barr who professes and projects so much integrity and support for the rule of law why he allows these farces to continue?

    Liked by 3 people

  34. jackphatz says:

    Tell me again who Barr came on board for?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Doogiesblog says:

      I think Barr is letting these prosecutors hang themselves. This started BEFORE he came on board and to intervene would make it look like he is trying to change the outcome in favor of Flynn. He may know this case is a dud and staying far away from it so he has no fingerprints in its failure.

      Liked by 6 people

      • fabrabbit says:

        Doogie: I am thinking that, too. I have faith in AG Barr, I feel he has integrity. This started long before he got his current role& he may have known the DOJ couldn’t make the case for prosecution and trusts the judge sees that as well. It’s better he stay hands off because if he tried to shut this prosecution down, theDems would have more fuel for their “handpicked by Trump” fire. The DOJ messes up plenty of cases. Most recently the foolhardy case they made for the citizenship question.

        Like

  35. warspite2 says:

    The DOJ position is idiotic and the Court should have had the cojones to dismiss the case. The DOJ essentially asking for time to figure out the law at the jury instruction stage should have elicited nothing but pure, unadulterated anger from the bench. At best the gov’t is engaged in patently absurd and offensive gobbledygook. However, don’t hold your breath. Even a lifetime appointment won’t get you the right invitations if you anger the wrong ideologues. Judges are people, with spouses and families. They like perks, they like to be liked.

    Like

    • Dutchman says:

      Theres a basic concept; the PROSECUTION makes the decision to charge, and because simply bringing the charge can be hurtful, they musn’t bring the charge, until they have confidence A) a crime was committed and they have identified applicable statutes B) they have identified the perpetrator of the crime and C) they have enough admissable evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

      And here have the prosecution admitying that,at this late stage in the trial (jury instruction) that they don’t even have a valid explanation for A) what crime was committed.

      At this point, “Uh, we’re working on it, Judge. We’ll get you an answer, just as soon as we figure one out!” is NOT an acceptable answer!

      Liked by 2 people

  36. evergreen says:

    The law must function such that the citizen may choose the correct path. If the correct path is not knowable to the citizen, there is NO CHOICE before the law; therefore, he has not violated the law.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dutchman says:

      DOES this uncover and refute the premise for using ALLEGED FARA violations, as a pretext for FISA applications?
      As I understand it, what they are saying is; anyone who operates ‘as a foreign agent’ is supposed to declare themselves as such, to the DOJ in a filing.
      And, anyone working as a foriegn agent, who files such a form, but fills it out improperly, COULD be engaged in ESPIONAGE against the,U.S.

      Therefore, we can get a FISA warrant on them, based on either not registering as foriegn agent, or registering but making errors.

      Seems to me if you were engaged in espionage you wouldn’t file as an foreign agent, but if you did, (so ‘cover’ is that you are merely lobbying instead of spying) you would make damn sure you had,all eyes dotted and t’s crossed.

      D.C. truly is an insane asylum, a place for the criminally insane.

      Liked by 2 people

  37. grumpyqs says:

    Business Opportunity: Australian partner for import/export business; USA Deep State Court System needing steady supply of kangaroos for many positions.

    Liked by 2 people

  38. convert says:

    Just wow. Wow. That’s all I got. And to belabor a point:. Someone has to be truly punished for this whole lawless debacle, not just fired. Held accountable, or it’s Mad Max-ville for the ol’ USA. WE cannot, will not, have 2 justice systems in this country.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Rhoda R says:

      Unfortunately, being fired is just about he only way that these prosecutors CAN be held accountable. In my dreams I’d like to see the sovereign immunity protections lifted for misconduct on the part of govt employees. At ALL levels.

      Like

  39. Kleen says:

    I think I can narrow down what Sundance just said;

    Selective prosecution for political enemies.

    Liked by 4 people

  40. Kleen says:

    Paul Sperry
    @paulsperry_
    ·
    3h
    BREAKING: Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment has until Thursday to turn over to the Senate all records related to CIA/FBI spy Stef Halper’s suspicious $1 mil contracts, which include 3 trips to London in 2016 & interviews with “former Russian diplomats and intelligence officers”

    Liked by 2 people

  41. k4jjj says:

    Do we want to live in a country where this nonsense is used to put political enemies in prison?

    Does the U.S. Department of Justice have any time to actually prosecute REAL criminals?

    Liked by 1 person

    • MustangBlues says:

      “”Do we want to live in a country where this nonsense is used to put political enemies in prison?””

      If they and their ideological cohorts have their way and seize control of state power, what we want and whether we live at all, will be in the hands of the communist democrat cult of true believers, which begats

      Massacres, genocides, enslavement, serfdom and gulags.

      So wax philosophical in thought, but be aware that the enemy is acting resolutely in political reality.

      Like

  42. Bacall says:

    This sounds like the chapters from Sydney Powell’s Licensed to Lie on the DOJ efforts to hang Merrill Lynch persons for a transaction that never took place. Sleight of hand is the play. For ethical lawyers it means your opponent is lying or “making it up as they go along.” It is the Andy Weissman way.

    Liked by 3 people

  43. Zorro says:

    Isn’t this just another example of the current state of Demosocialist elitism?We are your betters, we know what you were thinking, and we will tell you what you should be thinking.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. citizen817 says:

    Liked by 8 people

  45. Somebody says:

    Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive.

    Like

  46. montanamel says:

    Can someone indicate a source for Judge’s names/court assigned AND who appointed them or the year of appointment?
    Come the SHTF day(s)…..we need to be one step ahead of these commie POS’s…..
    Cleaning out a portion of the chicken coop has to be easier than just wholesale removal…
    God has other things to do, besides sort our “sweep the place clean” efforts! Check-6

    Liked by 1 person

  47. mtk says:

    The best I’ve been able to figure out, the DOJ are the ones with a ‘mens rea’ problem.

    Govt. – Mr. Flynn lied, and it is not the FISC warrent info that proves the lie.

    So what is the evidence?

    Govt – Well, for National Security reasons that can not revealed, just trust the evidence is there.

    Yes it is a hot mess, because I believe the evidence is built around the issue of the FARA compliance filings Mr Flynn was required to make to join the incoming administration.

    An issue that Mr. Flynn’s defense team is now likely making use of that his FARA govt team of DOJ connected lawyers withheld or provided false info in the filing’s legal process.
    i.e. Once Mr. Flynn signed the FARA documents, the DOJ seized on the readied made false filings that he lied to carry out the so called ‘insurance plan’.

    Yet, in the same breath took this FARA affidavit as the gospel truth to charge a business partner.
    So basically, if Mr. Flynn lied in his FARA filings, how is it the same evidence that he is not lyning is being used as evidence against another.

    Here is how? You leak a narrative story line to the MSM and the whirlwind created around ‘muh russia’ conflates and moves the goal posts from what actually took place and hopefully no one ever gets close to unraveling the truth.

    It is not just a catch-22 issue for the defendants, it is a hot ‘mens rea’ mess for the Government.

    Hence, the bizarre legal turn of events and the increasingly possibility the government case against the defendants is being driven into the ground.

    The goal is to wrap up both cases without the government having admit wrong doing.

    How you might ask? The same way it started by going to the MSM. Except this time, the request will be to provide silence on the outcome.

    No Collusion, No Obstruction could not be buried hence the MSM roll was to malign. Here the MSM can not do that since basically the MSM would be engaged in the very activity the government is seeking to walk away from, hence expect silence.

    Like

  48. ozymandiasssss says:

    It will be dismissed.

    Like

    • Rhoda R says:

      With prejudice, I hope. As well as a thorough tongue lashing from the judge over the unethical standards exhibited by the govt. team.

      Like

  49. … and “the Lawfare Group” of lawyers does appear to be flying apart at the seams, in every situation where their very strange flavor of legal interpretation has yet been put to the test by anyone “else.” The upcoming attempt by the House of Representatives to make a case for impeachment will be the worst implosion of all. But, the flame is there, and so the moths are coming.

    Like

  50. amwick says:

    Heads up… Sidney Powell retweeted this..

    So, as usual SD is on target… and Ms. Powell has been lurking(maybe)… So glad she is on Flynn’s side..

    Liked by 3 people

    • amwick says:

      I think I got the gist of this. It is pretty disgusting.

      I would give my right arm to have a beer with AG Barr, just the two of us and say to him,,, what do you expect the regular people in this nation to think, when there is clear evidence of all this bad behavior? How can anyone, Mr. AG, trust the DOJ?? I really don’t care if he answers, but he should know that we are pissed.

      I would like to play tennis with our President, but he is too busy.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a 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