It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Michael Flynn Judge EMMET SULLIVAN - Was He Suckered by -or- In Collusion With Trump Coup Plotters?.

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2020 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Interestingly, under our Constitution, the judiciary is a independent branch of government.

The case has been filed, the evidence presented, the pleas made. This isn't a matter for AG Barr to decide.

The rule of law is at stake.

If the Executive Branch won't continue the prosecution, they should be cited with contempt, and the judge should rule as he sees fit based on the evidence at hand ... you know, the evidence of Flynn's CONFESSION.

Trump fired Flynn for lying. Was he wrong for doing that? Or was he under control of the alleged Obama conspirators?

Do you guys even try to use logic any longer?




posted on May, 13 2020 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

"The rule of law is at stake" if Flynn doesn't get off scot free.

"The rule of law is at stake" if the Obama Administration goons who orchestrated the coup aren't jailed or put to death.



posted on May, 13 2020 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: SKEPTEK
a reply to: Gryphon66

"The rule of law is at stake" if Flynn doesn't get off scot free.

"The rule of law is at stake" if the Obama Administration goons who orchestrated the coup aren't jailed or put to death.


We disagree.

The facts here are clear. Flynn broke the law. He admitted to breaking the law. There is evidence before the court that he broke the law. Those are facts.

You are merely spouting nonsense fed to you by your chosen media outlets. #sowhat



posted on May, 13 2020 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Last week the Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision against the 9th Circuit over amicus briefs in 'United States v. Sineneng-Smith'.
Specifically, the 9th circuit had solicited amicus briefs (just like Emmet Sullivan) AND used issues presented in the third party briefs to formulate their decision in the case - highlighting issues that neither party had mentioned in the suit. Supreme Court says "WRONG!" - RBG wrote the decision.
What is Sidney Powell going to do with this?

ganjoa



posted on May, 13 2020 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

care to link the evidence here?

Cause the vast majority of it seems to center around he plead guilty, ignoring everything else that was going on and that there are some papers out there that say the FBI planned to drop the case before old crazy eyes strozk got involved.



posted on May, 13 2020 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: SKEPTEK
a reply to: Gryphon66

"The rule of law is at stake" if Flynn doesn't get off scot free.

"The rule of law is at stake" if the Obama Administration goons who orchestrated the coup aren't jailed or put to death.


We disagree.

The facts here are clear. Flynn broke the law. He admitted to breaking the law. There is evidence before the court that he broke the law. Those are facts.

You are merely spouting nonsense fed to you by your chosen media outlets. #sowhat



Says the parrot spouting off "The rule of law is at stake" like a good Obama youth.



posted on May, 13 2020 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I disagree. The DoJ or AG have an obligation to step in and drop the prosecution if, as in this case, they believe there's evidence of misconduct by the prosecution or if a wrongful conviction has occurred. The judge certainly can't compel the DoJ to continue any prosecution, given the constitutional principle of separation of powers. The Obama/Holder DoJ, for instance, dropped charges under similar circumstances in the Ted Stevens case.

As for the case of Flynn lying...maybe he actually did, but it would hardly be the first case in US history where someone pleaded guilty and were later found to be innocent. This is a well-known problem in the legal system.

I'd also point out that Obama pardoned James Cartwright in 2017 for pleading guilty to the same crime as Flynn.



posted on May, 13 2020 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: ganjoa

I was going to mention that Supreme Court case in the earlier post that I deleted, but was unsure if I had interpreted the situation correctly and wasn't sure I could defend that position. But on the surface, yes, it appears to be a similar situation where the court used information not argued in the case itself to formulate its decision.



posted on May, 13 2020 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

From what I understand, the prosecutor on this case resigned from this case, and others, just minutes before the "dismissal" was filed. Additionally, the document used the now ex-prosecutor's ID number in the filing, but it was signed by a political appointee, not associated with the case.

The Judge is allowing for amicus brief's because of a lack of representation of "a party" to the case. I suppose that gives the ex-prosecutor, and others a chance to provide input to the judge, on information he is otherwise unable to discern. Then, of course, there's that letter signed by almost 2000 former federal prosecutors protesting the DOJ's move for dismissal.

ETA: Just saw this:


Sixteen former Watergate prosecutors this week asked to file a friend-of-the-court brief weighing in on the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

"The Watergate Prosecutors ... are uniquely suited to help ensure a fair presentation of the issues raised by the government’s motion" to dismiss the case, the group's request states.

Flynn's attorneys oppose the request.


thehill.com...
edit on 13-5-2020 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2020 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Judge Sullivan is now FOR what he was AGAINST, on 12/20/2017.

In response to Judge Emmet Sullivan announcing a delay in Flynn ruling to allow third party amicus briefs to be filed with the court, Michael Flynn’s defense counsel files a motion in opposition.

In opposition to the delay, Attorney Sidney Powell notes Judge Sullivan’s earlier ruling of December 20, 2017, disallowing amicus briefs in this case.

Source: theconservativetreehouse.com...



posted on May, 13 2020 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

That scum back judge is a Clinton era appointee, an idiot and a fuktard.

The DOJ even said there's no case, the judge is a second rate judge who don't even have authorization to allow a Micah's brief which doesn't even apply. Not applicable.

The general was set up and the FBI files even said he never lied. There's no F'n case said so by the horses mouth.

Any one who says otherwise is apart of the conspiracy.

Facts over feeling.

I don't care about your political disposition or opinions.



posted on May, 13 2020 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

The judge also stated in that order that Federal rules don't allow for intervention by third parties in criminal cases. He certainly appears to be contradicting himself to Flynn's detriment.

And before some dumbass chimes in, no, the DoJ/AG is not a third party to the case.



posted on May, 13 2020 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

That same judge, also dismissed a case exactly like this one same circumstances and everything. So why is he going against his own previous ruling, which is on the record.

Bias and agenda's, that's why.

Political appointees are always biased.

Remember that.



posted on May, 13 2020 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: carewemust

The judge also stated in that order that Federal rules don't allow for intervention by third parties in criminal cases. He certainly appears to be contradicting himself to Flynn's detriment.

And before some dumbass chimes in, no, the DoJ/AG is not a third party to the case.


THIS!!!

The motion from the judge specifically states; "THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DO NOT PROVIDE FOR INTERVENTION BY THIRD PARTIES IN CRIMINAL CASES".


How can the judge allow this?

Why is he not abiding to his own 'rule of law'?



posted on May, 13 2020 @ 11:55 AM
link   
So, if the judge allows for the dismissal of Gen Flynn's plea deal guilty plea, will the DOJ go after his son again, sometime down the line?



posted on May, 13 2020 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Its hard to say whether a future DoJ would be interested in it, but there doesn't seem to be anything preventing them from doing so.



posted on May, 13 2020 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I found this article in the twitter thread..
www.redstate.com...
Excellent and a must read...great twitter thread you recommended.

originally posted by: Brit-Tex
This twitter thread is very insightful
twitter.com...



posted on May, 13 2020 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The rule of law is at stake.

Yes. It is.


If the Executive Branch won't continue the prosecution, they should be cited with contempt,

That depends on whether or not there is ample justification to continue the prosecution or not.

There isn't. In fact, the opposite is the case. There is overwhelming evidence of malfeasance and malicious prosecution.

So, the rule of law requires that Flynn's motion to withdraw his extorted 'guilty plea' be immediately granted, and the case dismissed with prejudice, as the prosecution has now requested.


and the judge should rule as he sees fit based on the evidence at hand ... you know, the evidence of Flynn's CONFESSION.

Which was EXTORTED, and subsequently WITHDRAWN.


Trump fired Flynn for lying.

Hi fired Flynn for the appearance] of lying to Pence, and because Flynn plead guilty to it to save his son from the same persecution he had been maliciously subjected to, and that had financially ruined him.


Was he wrong for doing that?

Not based on the information he had at the time.

Now that we know what really happened, and that he didn't lie to anyone, both Trump and Pence have made statements that he would be welcome back into the Administration, and I look forward to the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the radical left-wingnut TDS morons when he is reappointed Trumps NS.


Or was he under control of the alleged Obama conspirators?

He was doing what he has always done... played them for the fools that they are.


Do you guys even try to use logic any longer?

Much more often than you obviously.
edit on 13-5-2020 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2020 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
So, if the judge allows for the dismissal of Gen Flynn's plea deal guilty plea, will the DOJ go after his son again, sometime down the line?


For what exactly?
Fara violation?
Will he be fined like other offenders?



posted on May, 13 2020 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Did you see that judge Emmet Sullivan was involved in the push to have Hillary's name cleared in 2016?



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join