The Trump Card...

[RLENT]

You forgot to mention a few little pesky facts: There was an internal investigation and they found exculpatory evidence about Flynn and malfeasance towards the FBI.

By little Billy Barr's corrupt DOJ ... probably with a similar amount of veracity and factual validity as Sen. Jon Rohnson's "discovery" of a "secret society" within the FBI.

Remember that one ... and how quickly he backtracked on it ?

A little stunt on his part that got him made into a complete laughingstock ... yet again.

Busted.

Not even close.

Meanwhile in an actual case of "pesky facts" and "busted for real":

Justice Department Calls Its Evidence Mishap in Flynn Case Inadvertent

The Justice Department admitted on Wednesday to “inadvertently” altering evidence in the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn ...

And they did it not only with Strozk but with Andrew McCabe as well.

Judge Sullivan was not happy.

I think Durham actually prosecuted someone for something similar.

 

[RLENT]

I guess if the person was organizing a bricklayers house raising party there wouldn’t be an issue.

He was prosecuted and sentenced:

Champaign Man Sentenced for Inciting Riot

Where/what is your beef with it ?

High rate of dismissal cases.

Dismissals happen legitimately for all sorts of reasons.

I notice that you are not whining about all the Jan 6th folks that haven't been charged but could be.

 

[muttly]

By little Billy Barr's corrupt DOJ ... probably with a similar amount of veracity and factual validity as Sen. Jon Rohnson's "discovery" of a "secret society" within the FBI.

Remember that one ... and how quickly he backtracked on it ?

A little stunt on his part that got him made into a complete laughingstock ... yet again.





Not even close.

Meanwhile in an actual case of "pesky facts" and "busted for real":

Justice Department Calls Its Evidence Mishap in Flynn Case Inadvertent



And they did it not only with Strozk but with Andrew McCabe as well.

Judge Sullivan was not happy.

I think Durham actually prosecuted someone for something similar.

So what? It was inadvertent.
As opposed with other other intentional actions toward Flynn, like conspiring to “get him fired”, Klinsmith knowingly and intentionally altering documents- (Klinesmith “My signature is all over those documents”.) Obama and Biden concocting Logan Act charges, McCabe lying four times to investigators. All that doesn’t bother a judge, but clutches his pearls over inadvertent sticky notes.

 

[muttly]

He was prosecuted and sentenced:

Champaign Man Sentenced for Inciting Riot

Where/what is your beef with it ?



Dismissals happen legitimately for all sorts of reasons.

I notice that you are not whining about all the Jan 6th folks that haven't been charged but could be.

No real problem with that particular case, although he did get probation for burglary. He was the organizer of the riot and specified bringing bricks, because that’s what rioters use. His flyers said riot on them.
Actually I find it curious that Epps hasn’t been charged yet, as well as scaffold dude, and some others.

Just curious how many of those cases have been dismissed?

 

[RLENT]

I see you decided to rethink your initial response.

Probably a wise move ...

So what? It was inadvertent.

That's sure what they are claiming anyways ... right?

Just a little "Whoopsies !"



Probably wouldn't have happened had they chosen to let the career prosecutors handle the case ... as opposed to having political appointees intervene to deliver a political outcome.

As opposed with other other intentional actions toward Flynn, like conspiring to “get him fired”,

Odd that there was no charges for this alleged "conspiracy" ...

... possibly because there was no conspiracy.



Flynn screwed the pooch himself ... seems like that might be habitual with him.

Klinsmith knowingly and intentionally altering documents- (Klinesmith “My signature is all over those documents”.)

I'm familiar with what Klinesmith did - he scribbled a handwritten note (possibly to himself), inserting the words "not a source" on a CIA email and that particular document was ultimately submitted as part of an application to the FISA Court.

Possible (sloppy) oversight on his (or someone else's) part, to remove that notation before it was submitted or a possible misunderstanding on his part of what being "a source" (with the CIA) constituted in that particular instance.

In any event, Klinesmith maintained that he believed the notation was accurate.

The sentencing range that he faced for this transgression was 0 to 6 months.

Judge James Boasberg - the Presiding Judge of the FISA Court - who Klinesmith appeared before, sentenced him to 12 months of probation - which was appropriate under sentencing guidelines - rejecting DOJ's position that this infraction merited something harsher.

"Anybody who's watched what Mr. Clinesmith has suffered is not someone who would readily act in that fashion," Judge James Boasberg of the US District Court in DC said, somewhat rejecting the Justice Department's argument that Clinesmith receiving a harsh sentence would help deter others from crime and that he was akin to Mueller investigation defendants who lied and went to prison.

To claim that Klinesmith was somehow akin Mueller investigation defendants who lied and went to prison is probably exactly where Billy Barr's DOJ screwed the pooch ... although I wouldn't doubt that there could have been other overreaches on the part of that team that showed that they weren't honest brokers.



Further, Judge Boasberg - who originally received his judicial commission from President George W. Bush - found the following:

Boasberg, who is also the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's presiding judge, notably said he believes the warrant still may have been signed for surveillance of Page, who in 2017 was a former Trump foreign policy adviser who was under investigation because of his ties to Russians.

"Even if Mr. Clinesmith had been accurate about Dr. Page's relationship with the other government agency, the warrant may well have been signed and the surveillance authorized," Boasberg said, though he also noted other mistakes in the Page foreign intelligence surveillance applications.

Clinesmith obtained no real personal benefit from his actions and had no active intent to harm, the judge also noted.

"My view of the evidence is that Mr. Clinesmith likely believed that what he said about Dr. Page was true," Boasberg said.
"He was saving himself some work taking an inappropriate shortcut," but didn't intend to give wrong information about Page, the judge added.
Boasberg also noted how the Justice Department inspector general found Clinesmith wasn't acting with political bias -- a point the Trump administration tried to make repeatedly to undermine the Mueller investigation that grew out of the FBI's work on Russia in 2016 and 2017.

So Durham's big first "get" largely fell flat ... and his reasoning was rejected.

And his second case isn't looking like it will fare much better.

Obama and Biden concocting Logan Act charges, McCabe lying four times to investigators. All that doesn’t bother a judge,

I suspect, given that the judge in question isn't some partisan hack, but rather fair arbiter of justice, he sees things a bit different than you.

but clutches his pearls over inadvertent sticky notes.

Given the change in the government's position (which was clearly political) I'd say he didn't buy their argument that it was "inadvertent".

The following outlines some of the stuff that might back up such a conclusion:

Retired Judge Says Flynn’s Guilty Plea Must Stand

 

[RLENT]

No real problem with that particular case, although he did get probation for burglary. He was the organizer of the riot and specified bringing bricks, because that’s what rioters use. His flyers said riot on them.

Did you ever stop to consider that some of these rioters that grew out of the protests may have had their federal charges dropped because they were facing state charges instead ?

It cuts both ways.

Actually I find it curious that Epps hasn’t been charged yet, as well as scaffold dude, and some others.

Yes ... I'm sure everyone here is well aware of that obsession.

Just curious how many of those cases have been dismissed?

None that I'm aware of.

You know different ?

 

[muttly]

I see you decided to rethink your initial response.

Probably a wise move ...





That's sure what they are claiming anyways ... right?

Just a little "Whoopsies !"



Probably wouldn't have happened had they chosen to let the career prosecutors handle the case ... as opposed to having political appointees intervene to deliver a political outcome.





Odd that there was no charges for this alleged "conspiracy" ...

... possibly because there was no conspiracy.



Flynn screwed the pooch himself ... seems like that might be habitual with him.



I'm familiar with what Klinesmith did - he scribbled a handwritten note (possibly to himself), inserting the words "not a source" on a CIA email and that particular document was ultimately submitted as part of an application to the FISA Court.

Possible (sloppy) oversight on his (or someone else's) part, to remove that notation before it was submitted or a possible misunderstanding on his part of what being "a source" (with the CIA) constituted in that particular instance.

In any event, Klinesmith maintained that he believed the notation was accurate.

The sentencing range that he faced for this transgression was 0 to 6 months.

Judge James Boasberg - the Presiding Judge of the FISA Court - who Klinesmith appeared before, sentenced him to 12 months of probation - which was appropriate under sentencing guidelines - rejecting DOJ's position that this infraction merited something harsher.



To claim that Klinesmith was somehow akin Mueller investigation defendants who lied and went to prison is probably exactly where Billy Barr's DOJ screwed the pooch ... although I wouldn't doubt that there could have been other overreaches on the part of that team that showed that they weren't honest brokers.



Further, Judge Boasberg - who originally received his judicial commission from President George W. Bush - found the following:









So Durham's big first "get" largely fell flat ... and his reasoning was rejected.

And his second case isn't looking like it will fare much better.



I suspect, given that the judge in question isn't some partisan hack, but rather fair arbiter of justice, he sees things a bit different than you.



Given the change in the government's position (which was clearly political) I'd say he didn't buy their argument that it was "inadvertent".

The following outlines some of the stuff that might back up such a conclusion:

Retired Judge Says Flynn’s Guilty Plea Must Stand

I see you decided to rethink your initial response.

Probably a wise move ...





That's sure what they are claiming anyways ... right?

Just a little "Whoopsies !"



Probably wouldn't have happened had they chosen to let the career prosecutors handle the case ... as opposed to having political appointees intervene to deliver a political outcome.





Odd that there was no charges for this alleged "conspiracy" ...

... possibly because there was no conspiracy.



Flynn screwed the pooch himself ... seems like that might be habitual with him.



I'm familiar with what Klinesmith did - he scribbled a handwritten note (possibly to himself), inserting the words "not a source" on a CIA email and that particular document was ultimately submitted as part of an application to the FISA Court.

Possible (sloppy) oversight on his (or someone else's) part, to remove that notation before it was submitted or a possible misunderstanding on his part of what being "a source" (with the CIA) constituted in that particular instance.

In any event, Klinesmith maintained that he believed the notation was accurate.

The sentencing range that he faced for this transgression was 0 to 6 months.

Judge James Boasberg - the Presiding Judge of the FISA Court - who Klinesmith appeared before, sentenced him to 12 months of probation - which was appropriate under sentencing guidelines - rejecting DOJ's position that this infraction merited something harsher.



To claim that Klinesmith was somehow akin Mueller investigation defendants who lied and went to prison is probably exactly where Billy Barr's DOJ screwed the pooch ... although I wouldn't doubt that there could have been other overreaches on the part of that team that showed that they weren't honest brokers.



Further, Judge Boasberg - who originally received his judicial commission from President George W. Bush - found the following:









So Durham's big first "get" largely fell flat ... and his reasoning was rejected.

And his second case isn't looking like it will fare much better.



I suspect, given that the judge in question isn't some partisan hack, but rather fair arbiter of justice, he sees things a bit different than you.



Given the change in the government's position (which was clearly political) I'd say he didn't buy their argument that it was "inadvertent".

The following outlines some of the stuff that might back up such a conclusion:

Retired Judge Says Flynn’s Guilty Plea Must Stand

Dude, if they were trying to deceive they wouldn’t be making copies of documents with a sticky note on it. Lol
But about Clinesmith:

And no, he didn’t complete his community service.

 

[muttly]

Did you ever stop to consider that some of these rioters that grew out of the protests may have had their federal charges dropped because they were facing state charges instead ?

It cuts both ways.



Yes ... I'm sure everyone here is well aware of that obsession.





None that I'm aware of.

You know different ?

I’ll take that as zero cases dismissed for many that didn’t assault anyone or destroyed property. Compared with 60 cases dismissed in the Portland riot.

 

[muttly]

Clinesmith continued: DC Bar Restores FBI Russiagate Forger While He’s Still Serving Probation

 

[muttly]

The following outlines some of the stuff that might back up such a conclusion:

Retired Judge Says Flynn’s Guilty Plea Must Stand

Or not:

 

[Pilgrim]

Clinesmith continued: DC Bar Restores FBI Russiagate Forger While He’s Still Serving Probation
View attachment 21052View attachment 21053View attachment 21054View attachment 21055View attachment 21056View attachment 21057

Once upon a time in America, crooked lawyers and government operatives went to prison for criminal conspiracies and illegal activities. It's not hard to see the Trump-Russia Hoax as a flip side to the Watergate scandal in which sleazy lawyers, un-elected govt bureaucrats and FBI officials conspired to bring down a sitting POTUS, with the involvement of no less than the recently defeated presidential candidate's campaign group. As it stands, the Mueller Investigation certainly won't ever be compared to the Watergate Committee after wasting two years and $32M in its hapless and thoroughly debunked effort to discredit Trump and undo an American presidential election. Obviously, ethics and legality were not part of the FBI's lexicon under James Comey and underlings like Kevin Clinesmith.

"...Congress initiated multiple investigations that exposed the involvement of more than 20 of the most powerful lawyers in the United States...

“Good God,” Dean recalled thinking, “we’re all going to prison.”

The Lawyers of Watergate: How a '3rd-Rate Burglary' Provoked New Standards for Lawyer Ethics

The ABA Journal is read by half of the nation's 1 million lawyers every month. It covers the trends, people and finances of the legal profession from Wall Street to Main Street to Pennsylvania Avenue.

www.abajournal.com

 

[RLENT]

I’ll take that as zero cases dismissed for many that didn’t assault anyone or destroyed property.

Prosecutorial discretion isn't the same thing as prosecutorial bias.

I'll provide some additional materials on that very shortly (linked below) so you can educate yourself further on the matter if you'd like.

Compared with 60 cases dismissed in the Portland riot.

Trump-appointed DC Judge Trevor McFadden slaps down Jan 6'er David Lee Judd's claims that he's being unfairly treated and selectively prosecuted as compared to some Portland rioters:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1475965331113975810

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1475967326919053316

Read the entire order for the full beat-down:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2021cr0040-203

Interesting that the Judge found it noteworthy that the Portland attacks occurred at night when it's dark out, also that no threat was posed to civilians and staff since facilities were essentially empty ... as opposed to the US Capitol on January 6th where government officials, staff, and some (duly authorized) civilians were present .

Evidently those differentiating aspects are extremely hard for some folks to grasp.

 

[muttly]

Prosecutorial discretion isn't the same thing as prosecutorial bias.

I'll provide some additional materials on that very shortly (linked below) so you can educate yourself further on the matter if you'd like.



Trump-appointed DC Judge Trevor McFadden slaps down Jan 6'er David Lee Judd's claims that he's being unfairly treated and selectively prosecuted as compared to some Portland rioters:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1475965331113975810

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1475967326919053316

Read the entire order for the full beat-down:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2021cr0040-203

Interesting that the Judge found it noteworthy that the Portland attacks occurred at night when it's dark out, also that no threat was posed to civilians and staff since facilities were essentially empty ... as opposed to the US Capitol on January 6th where government officials, staff, and some (duly authorized) civilians were present .

Evidently those differentiating aspects are extremely hard for some folks to grasp.

Oh, that grainy video in the dark excuse. Got it, The other reasons you listed are just more flimsy excuses. Apparently it’s ok to destroy property and not get any jail time for it if the protest is considered politically acceptable. I specifically was referring to non violent protesters that didn’t destroy anything. NONE of their non violent cases have been dismissed.
It’s 60 to 0 in comparison to charges dismissed.

 

[RLENT]

Oh, that grainy video in the dark excuse. Got it,

Since it's a (conceivably) legitimate reason (not an excuse) - as acknowledged by Judge McFadden - clearly you don't have it.

The other reasons you listed are just more flimsy excuses.

Huh ?

Apparently it’s ok to destroy property and not get any jail time for it if the protest is considered politically acceptable.

Nope, that is incorrect.

I specifically was referring to non violent protesters that didn’t destroy anything.

Ok.

But they weren't merely "non violent protesters" ... they were individuals who participated in a riot.

Riots by their very definition are violent events.

NONE of their non violent cases have been dismissed.

Yeah ... so what ?

It’s 60 to 0 in comparison to charges dismissed.

As noted by Judge McFadden (and Trump-appointed Judge Carl Nichols) comparing the two events is an apples-to-oranges comparison:

McFadden refused Judd's request on Tuesday, explaining that the Portland riots didn't have the same severe consequences as the attempted coup on January 6.

"Although both Portland and January 6 rioters attacked federal buildings, the Portland defendants primarily attacked at night, meaning that they raged against a largely vacant courthouse," McFadden wrote. "In contrast, the January 6 rioters attacked the Capitol in broad daylight. And many entered it. ... Their actions endangered hundreds of federal officials in the Capitol complex. Members of Congress cowered under chairs while staffers blockaded themselves in offices, fearing physical attacks from the rioters."

Judd is charged in a nine-person indictment related to a three-hour battle inside one of the Capitol tunnels. Prosecutors say he threw a firecracker at police while they tried to hold back the mob. He pleaded not guilty.

Nichols, weighing the case against another January 6 defendant, Garrett Miller, said on December 21 that the unrest in the two cities had "obvious differences" and the disruptions put hundreds of government officials at risk.

"The Portland rioters' conduct, while obviously serious, did not target a proceeding prescribed by the Constitution and established to ensure a peaceful transition of power," Nichols wrote. "Nor did the Portland rioters, unlike those who assailed America's Capitol in 2021, make it past the buildings' outer defenses."

Two Trump-appointed judges reject comparisons between January 6 and Portland unrest

 

[RLENT]

Once upon a time in America, crooked lawyers and government operatives went to prison for criminal conspiracies and illegal activities.

Once upon a time in America, treasonous traitors who sought to violently rebel against their government and commit insurrection were given the gallows, a bullet, or were otherwise summarily executed for their crimes against the nation:

​

It's not hard to see the Trump-Russia Hoax as a flip side to the Watergate scandal in which sleazy lawyers, un-elected govt bureaucrats and FBI officials conspired to bring down a sitting POTUS, with the involvement of no less than the recently defeated presidential candidate's campaign group.

No.

It just requires looking at the actual facts contained in the Mueller report (have you read it ?) ... and not attempting to spin them for partisan advantage or otherwise sweep them under the rug.

As it stands, the Mueller Investigation certainly won't ever be compared to the Watergate Committee after wasting two years and $32M in its hapless and thoroughly debunked effort to discredit Trump and undo an American presidential election.

The Mueller Investigation was fully paid for ... until the Criminal in Chief and his minions intervened to grant pardons to (or otherwise intervened to obstruct justice for) two of the most scummiest dirtbags involved in American politics since Roy Cohn or Ol' Joe "Tailgunner" McCarthy ... in order to save his own hide.

That coward didn't even have the guts to testify person in a deposition before Mueller's investigators.

Obviously, ethics and legality were not part of the FBI's lexicon under James Comey and underlings like Kevin Clinesmith.

That's a hoot.

 

[RLENT]

Apparently former AG Barr got served with a summons today:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1476609883755753485

Also apparently he wasn't too happy about it ... but neither was the judge who found Barr's DOJ's actions to be retaliatory:

"I make the finding that the purpose of transferring Mr. Cohen from furlough and home confinement to jail is retaliatory, and it's retaliatory because of his desire to exercise his First Amendment rights to publish the book and to discuss anything about the book or anything else he wants on social media and elsewhere," said US District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein.

Hellerstein said that in his 21 years on the bench, he has "never seen such a clause. How can I take any other inference but that it was retaliatory?”

Michael Cohen had more to say about it ... but did wish our former AG a Happy New Year.

Unfortunately, due to the full nature of those wishes, that tweet isn't suitable for posting here.

Trump, Barr hit with retaliation suit for sending Michael Cohen back to prison

 

[RLENT]

Also House Minority Leader McCarthy apparently got an invite to sit down for an interview with the Jan. 6th Committee.

 

[muttly]

Since it's a (conceivably) legitimate reason (not an excuse) - as acknowledged by Judge McFadden - clearly you don't have it.





Huh ?



Nope, that is incorrect.



Ok.

But they weren't merely "non violent protesters" ... they were individuals who participated in a riot.

Riots by their very definition are violent events.



Yeah ... so what ?



As noted by Judge McFadden (and Trump-appointed Judge Carl Nichols) comparing the two events is an apples-to-oranges comparison:





Two Trump-appointed judges reject comparisons between January 6 and Portland unrest

Incorrect . You do realize that people can be at a large gathering and not participate in a riot and also be in an area or arrive later and not be aware of the earlier riot?Apparently you don’t. That doesn’t make them rioters.

 

[danthewolf00]

Incorrect . You do realize that people can be at a large gathering and not participate in a riot and also be in an area or arrive later and not be aware of the earlier riot?Apparently you you don’t, which is astounding. That doesn’t make them rioters.

They keep saying the blm/antifa riots was peaceful but we know it wasn't.

 

[RLENT]

Incorrect .

Nope, it's correct.

You do realize that people can be at a large gathering and not participate in a riot

Certainly.

Happens all the time.

However, not participating in a riot doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't break other laws while at such a gathering.

and also be in an area or arrive later and not be aware of the earlier riot?

Well, just for everyone's edification, for the event in question, would you care to define the exact time when the "earlier riot" ended ?

Just so we're all aware of your position on that ...

Personally, from examining various timelines, the earliest I make it to be is 5:30 PM.

One could make the argument that it was even later than that ... as somewhere after that law enforcement regained full control of the building and pushed the crowd out onto the streets.

Curfew went into effect at 6 PM ... which is when the crowds started to disperse.