Sidney Powell Reacts to Outside Prosecutor Reviewing Flynn Case….

It was reported today that Attorney General William P. Barr assigned an outside prosecutor to review the criminal case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.   Tonight, Fox News’ Sean Hannity invites Flynn’s lawyer Sidney Powell on to his television show so that she can listen to him talk about it.

When we see that justice is measured, not by due process, but by compulsion; when we see that in order to invoke our right to due process, we need to obtain permission from those who rebuke the constitution; when we see that justice is determined by those who leverage, not in law, but in politics; when we see that representatives get power over individual liberty by graft and by scheme, and our representatives don’t protect us against them, but protect them against us; when we see corruption holding influence and individual liberty so easily dispatched and nullified; we may well know that our freedom too is soon to perish….

This entry was posted in 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, FBI, IG Report Comey, IG Report FISA Abuse, IG Report McCabe, media bias, Notorious Liars, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Spygate, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

361 Responses to Sidney Powell Reacts to Outside Prosecutor Reviewing Flynn Case….

  1. soldiersmom2 says:

    “Hannity invites Flynn’s lawyer Sidney Powell on to his television show so that she can listen to him talk about it.” This is why I never listen to Hannity, even though I agree with him most of the time. I don’t want him to go away. I want him to shut up and listen more.

    Liked by 43 people

  2. arsumbris says:

    “…when we see corruption holding influence and individual liberty so easily dispatched and nullified; we may well know that our freedom too is soon to perish….”

    The tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to time.

    Liked by 7 people

  3. Casandra says:

    God, he does love the sound of his own voice


  4. glissmeister says:

    Given what we know so far, it seems rather self-evident.

    They originally approached Flynn in bad faith.

    They cryptically interrogated Flynn in bad faith, doing so with an apparent intent to frame him.

    They apparently did frame him doing so in part to suborn his perjury in re his guilty plea which that also knew or should have known was false, in furtherance of bad faith already directed at Flynn and his family members.

    What about this have I got wrong?

    Liked by 9 people

    • Julia Adams says:

      “What about this have I got wrong?”
      Because no reasonable prosecutor would try the case stating the FBI agents did not have nefarious intent?

      Liked by 2 people

      • doohmax says:

        Trump was smart enough not to sit for any type of “interview” by anyone remotely associated with the so-called Justice Department. It was a Flynn type set-up with 302 written interview notes that could be altered and construed to say anything necessary for a perjury trap.

        Liked by 3 people

    • glissmeister says:

      Oh. Did I miss something?

      Will the record ultimately show they willfully conspired to commit bad faith acts against citizen Flynn and his family, personally, and also in Flynn’s capacity as a senior official of the Executive Branch?

      More importantly, will the record ultimately show these bad faith acts were also crimes committed under color of law?

      If these bad faith actions are indeed contaminated with collaboration, support or loyalties to an incorporated political party or its candidates for which bad faith actors exploited their office to seek, preserve or earn favor which results in personal or professional rewards, future promotion, lucrative post government employment by sycophant corporations, campaigns or other monetizations of their federal employment, what then?

      What have we got wrong?

      Liked by 6 people

    • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

      They threatened FARA charges for him and his son……
      to get him to plea to the lesser “lying” charge.

      Liked by 6 people

    • guest4ever says:

      Nothing. ABSOLUTELY nothing! THAT’s the problem!

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Pat says:

    Hannity thinks he’s dazzling her with his brilliant insights. I tuned in JUST to get her take on things and instead got ANOTHER monologue from Mr Judo the carpenter with parents in law enforcement. That “interview” sent me over to subscribe to OANN. To my surprise, Liz Wheeler is on opposite him. That’s where I will be from now on.

    Liked by 11 people

  6. Minuteman says:

    This not a disagreement with those (on this site and others) who find Hannity’s verbose style tiresome, but he’s so bad at interviewing I’m beginning to find the complaints about it tiresome.

    He’s reached a second degree of tiresome. Quite an accomplishment.

    Liked by 8 people

  7. TradeBait says:

    Sean thinks he is the smartest guy in the room. A conservative Soetoro. So I don’t watch even if somebody such as Sidney is on. I wait until she appears on a different show. Lou Dobbs is great, but he tends to be the same way. He has been listening a bit more lately.

    If there is no obvious, crushing sweeping justice from all of this Americans are going to tune out the government period and take things into their own hands. B2 and Durham have one shot to get this right and if they don’t it’s going to go bad.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. kleen says:

    Yeah… this should have been done a year ago.

    After SP does all the dirty work and is close to expose the scheme hero Barr jumps in to take all the credit.

    Geeeee, what could be his motivation? Taking too much heat from us and POTUS?

    To keep POTUS and us calm and thinking he is doing something?

    After all, freeing Flynn is a small price to pay to keep the rest hidden but it would calm us down and keep us trusting the plan. Run the clock made easy, November will be here before we know it. Dems can easily steal the election. Bloomberg is buying it. And Soros is buying DA positions all over the country.

    They will get their( it was never ours) power back then kiss justice goodbye.

    Liked by 1 person

    • DJ Snyder says:

      Spoken like a man who has no faith in God.

      I’m now convinced that we have to re-elect POTUS Trump in November to see any hope of justice. At least he got rid of some of the dead weight (Vindman bros, Solland, Jessie Liu, one corrupt DOJ prosecutor) and Avenatti is on his way to prison.

      Liked by 2 people

  9. sDee says:

    So how is the corruption in Michael Flynn’s case being handled differently from the other case of DoJ and FBI corruption and political prosecution which Judge Sullivan exposed? He overturned Senator Steven’s conviction and assigned a special prosecutor to investigate the DoJ/FBI.

    That one did not end well in any shape for fashion for Senator Stevens. Sullivan overturned Steven’s conviction but that was after his life was destroyed and his Senate seat handed to a Democrat. Stevens was later killed in a single engine plane crash.

    “A seething federal judge dismissed the corruption conviction of former Alaska senator Ted Stevens on Tuesday and took the rare and serious step of ordering a criminal investigation into prosecutors who he said poisoned the case.

    “In nearly 25 years on the bench, I’ve never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I’ve seen in this case,” U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said.

    Sullivan appointed a special prosecutor to investigate Justice Department lawyers who repeatedly withheld evidence from defense lawyers and the judge during the month-long trial. Stevens was convicted in October of lying on Senate forms about home renovations and gifts he received from wealthy friends.

    The case cost Stevens, 85, a Senate seat he had held for 40 years. Once the Senate’s longest-serving Republican, he narrowly lost to Democrat Mark Begich soon after the verdict.””

    Liked by 4 people

    • Robert Smith says:

      Sullivan has showed no desire to stop the DOJ/FBI/Government from doing their worst on Flynn. For Sullivan it’s …no reasonable judge, would ascribe bad intentions or deeds to the hard-working career men and women of the DOJ and FBI.

      If Sullivan does anything, if HE does anything to stop the case, it seems after the political need has passed for the government. As it’s going he is giving the government the choice on how to end the case.

      Liked by 2 people

    • unconqueredone says:

      “Stevens was later killed in a single engine plane crash.”
      Dead men tell no tales. After 40 years in the Senate, I’m sure he had some to tell.

      Liked by 7 people

      • amanda4321 says:

        Wellstone was also killed in a small plane crash–apparently he didn’t want to go along with the war on Iraq, Cheney threatened him, and he ends up dead. They just take out anyone who is a threat to them (six ways from Sunday of getting back at you).

        Liked by 2 people

        • unconqueredone says:

          I lived in MN at the time. Wellstone was disliked by many, many people and corporations. If there was foul play, which based on the information available at the time there wasn’t, there would be too many enemies to count. The pilot had questionable skills, was flying to northern MN where the weather is constantly changing that time of year, and it would appear he just messed up.


    • randyinrocklin says:

      The corrupted RINO that was a part of the bridge to nowhere fiasco.


  10. I change the station after Tucker. Maybe go back to watch Laura. Great time to catch up on the DVR.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. zekness says:

    Sundance, can you please extend an invitation to Sidney Powell (and others) for a skype interview so we can actually have something else other than the hannity circus pony show and all of the other “DEAD” media outlets.

    seriously….Given your expertise and terrific style of collecting, analysing and doing what no one else seems capable of doing, don’t you think it’s TIME for YOU to start leaning hard and getting more involved at the top tier level?

    I say this and recommend it, because there is a higher priority….excellence in journalism.

    Liked by 8 people

  12. Reserved55 says:

    Tick Tock painted three houses in 3 mins and 30 seconds. The Bionic Man gets it done!!

    Liked by 1 person

  13. After all that we’ve learned in just the past few days, why would anyone think that Barr appointing another one of their thugs with a badge to investigate Gen. Flynn is a good thing?

    What worries me is that Barr wants to somehow shut down Sidney Powell and get Flynn put away in prison for the rest of his life.

    Never forget that they control the judges too.

    Liked by 6 people

  14. Cavt says:

    Sorry all. Based on what we’ve seen, I believe this to be more ‘chaff and countermeasure.’ Figure a John Huber redux–

    Liked by 6 people

  15. jenncarp2013 says:

    Sundance this is a perfect description. Hannity just simply does not shut up. Why even ask her on? He literally asked her on so she could listen to him talk and agree with him. Pathetic!

    Liked by 5 people

  16. Will Hunt says:

    My sincere hope is the mr. sullivan looks at this appointment as a humiliating slap in the face and he richly deserves it. His obvious deep state bias and enmity toward LG Flynn is finally and formally being addressed.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Perot Conservative says:

    Someone should produce a website:

    Liked by 4 people

  18. martyb59 says:

    While I agree that Hannity should have allowed Sidney more speaking time, I also believe Sean’s heart is in the right place and he has done some good investigative reporting over the years. My biggest problem with him is the fact that he harps on the same topic over and over again, just rehashing the same talking points. I do a lot of driving, so I listen to a lot of talk radio, I much prefer Levin and Rush…

    Liked by 3 people

    • WSB says:

      Bad radio training.

      Liked by 2 people

      • ann says:

        I think Hannity’s verbose repetitive buildups are at least partially explained by a justiable concern: his audience is exposed to a pervasive, relentless disinformation campaign validated by the DoJ itself, mass media and the Uniparty.

        Keep in mind much of his TV audience is unfamiliar with the content and implications revealed in primary source documents (Collyer DoJ Compliance Review, Page/strouck texts, etc) . I cannot recall the DOJ delivering fact based clarity to resolve disputes on legality or legitimacy of conduct by scandal clouded politicians, .

        We see OBVIOUS criminal conduct unaddressed. The Bureau & DoJ reacts with incurious passivity rather than vigorous timely & effective delivery of justice. The predictable result is what we see: governance degenerates into lawless opportunism & clan politics. Analogous to referees who fail to impartially & consistently enforce the rules, sports degenerates into mayhem.

        Many younger people never experienced a healthy sociopolitical climate or responsive governance responsive. They, and hitherto casual voters lack a basic level of nonpartisan knowledge about recent history.
        One could argue executive branch opacity, hyperagressive Progressivism and Judicial/ executive policy overreach has led to an intellectually impoverished public forum.

        In my opinion, that is why Hannity attracts audiences, because he tries to explain the “Mess”. and it’s complex contradictions to people who discern & care.

        His recitement of the basic fact line is tedious to US, but reassuring to many.

        To bash Hannity is rather like being somewhat snobbish about his audience, in my opinion. If televisised news is your cup of tea, choose Lou Dobbs .


        • WSB says:

          I happen to like Lou a lot, and I put up with Hannity. My only point is that Hannity started in radio…and therefore talks a lot.

          Liked by 2 people

          • ann says:

            Indeed, WSB. Quite pertinent to the topic.
            I give Hannity a pass, his heart is in a good place, and he’s obviously able to connect with many viewers .

            Resist@DoJ refusal to admit malicious intent & investigative/prosecutorial wrong-doing has created an attenuated & rather complex narrative.
            My take: Hannity’s intent is to refresh memory & counteract the avalanche of anti POTUS propaganda.,

            Liked by 1 person

  19. wwwrobotC says:

    We need Ms.Sidney Powell to be AG to clean up DOJ.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. AnotherView says:

    Haha Sundance… on! Mr Vanity has an irritating way of always interjecting himself and his opinion into a question with guests. Always making predictions or asking guests if he’s “right” or “over the target.” His inferiority complex around attorneys is rather obvious. Pity Ms Powell didn’t get to speak more but hopefully she will skip Mr Vanity from now on and go to Lou Dobbs where she can at least get a few sentences out.


  21. Mr. T. says:

    The trouble with Sean Hannity is that he tries to squeeze 10 pounds of potatoes into a sack made to hold 5 pounds. He would do better to not schedule so many guests on each show, which would allow more time to hear what his guests have to say.

    Also. Sean Hannity needs to STOP with the “Breaking News” crap on his show. It’s hardly ever breaking news, but rather something we’ve already heard about elsewhere, or in Hannity’s case, something he continues to try to sensationalize over and over again ad nauseum.

    Liked by 4 people

  22. Zephyrbreeze says:

    People aren’t putting up with Hannity anymore. The long form interviews by Joe Rogan, David Rubin and others with great guests like Jordan Peterson, Rand Paul, are the way people appreciate hearing an in depth discussion.

    Tucker, if you’re listening, get Sydney on, so at least we have more than 60 seconds of her speaking.

    Liked by 3 people

    • zekness says:

      I appreciate you including Joe Rogan in your recommendations.

      Joe is a very good host. He has a special talent that goes well beyond the octagon.

      I’ve watched him evolve over the years and it’s pretty amazing what this guy has done with his career. He’s about as honest and relatable as they come. And he is always an open mind even to ideas he does not embrace. Most importantly, he will allow his guests to guide HIM through the show…with just some slight nudges to keep things moving and on track. His sense of humor is pretty good too so that makes the entertainment value solid.

      he is not a “fuddy duddy” (dating myself)…and that is highly prized by the younger generation that follows his show….and arguably, even the old dogs like me.

      I would definitely be expecting Joe to become a serious contender as a great host and show to cover some of this material.

      Liked by 1 person

  23. Skidroe says:

    I watch 1 hour of Hanity in about 6 mins. I tivo it and fast forward through all of Hanity and ONLY listen to the guest.

    Liked by 2 people

  24. Occasional Commenter says:

    Sydney Powell for SCOTUS! It’s time the Supreme Court had somone with experience as a defender, not a prosecutor.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. chuckyschmucky says:

    Thought this was an interview of Sidney Powell, not the 98,656th rereading of Hannity’s stale script?

    Liked by 2 people

  26. WSB says:

    Sidney Powell,

    Please tell us if you believe a special prosecutor snuffs your client’s case into silence beyond the November election.

    Or is this a rhetorical question?

    Liked by 2 people

  27. ann says:

    Thanks for highlighting that aspect . I hadn’t applied that lens to SCOTUS . The problem with “Insider” bias is covered well in Sidney’s book. Great point, OC.


  28. Big Jake says:

    Hannity, Ingraham, and (Alex) Jones all attended the same “interview” school. Awful. All of them.


  29. Retired IG says:

    Was so excited that I was going to hear from Sidney Powell’s views on the new development in the Flynn case. Dang. After this “interview” I have more questions than answers. Did Sidney Powell tell Hannity in advance she was prohibited from giving her view? Or what? So sorry Sidney that Hannity ran you over/under with his BIG blabbermouth BUS.


  30. jello333 says:

    Ode to Sean Hannity
    by John Cleese

    Aping urbanity,
    Oozing with vanity,
    Plump as a manatee,
    Faking humanity,
    Journalistic calamity,
    Intellectual inanity,
    Fox Noise insanity,
    You’re a profanity,


  31. Grant Hodges says:

    I can’t think of a single reason to agree with Hannity’s assertion that something big is about to happen. Unless you call sweeping the FISA/Spying on U.S. Citizens/Russia Hoax/Ukraine hoax deftly under the rug a big thing. Barr has said a few things that were encouraging and the usual sources broke out the hundred year old champagne . . . but what has Barr done. About as much as Wray has done, which is to say, nothing at all. Let’s be honest here.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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