Heinous crime

On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 12:55:33 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/23/2021 9:49 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 5:37:32 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/22/2021 7:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 2:43:59 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/22/2021 3:59 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 1:13:19 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/22/2021 2:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/22/2021 2:07 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:


Filing a FOIA for information that is supposed to be
public record and then making it public is exactly HOW
discriminatory? If this information wasn't incriminating
why would Pelosi refuse to give up her records? She could
always do the same for Republicans except they obey the
laws and release all of the expenses.

"Republicans obey the laws..."

Right.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHu...ce_or_parties/



Yes the left does weaponize lawfare much better.

Really? The Watergate Seven were indicted in 1974. Now if I recall correctly, hmmmm let me see here [checking Google], we had a Republican president, Gerald Ford. Agnew pleaded guilty to tax evasion while Nixon was still president. I don't recall any prosecutions of Nixon era officials during the Carter administration.

Same goes with the Reagan indictments. Ollie North was convicted and sentenced during the Bush administration -- as were the list of other malefactors from the Reagan administration. It was the Bush pardon-mill for the Iran-Contra convicts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan...ation_scandals

All or most of the Trump indictments were obtained by the administration's own Special Counsel, a Republican. In fact, could you point me to any of the indictments of Republican officials shown in Frank's post that were obtained during a Democratic administration? I haven't looked at all the G.W. Bush indictments, maybe one of those was handed-down during a Democratic administration.

Don't tell me -- notwithstanding the DOJ being led by a Republican AG during all these administrations and indictments being returned by apolitical grand juries, the prosecutions were part of a giant Democratic conspiracy -- to get true bills and convict people of crimes . . . in front of juries. Were the juries in on it?



-- Jay Beattie.


[sigh] Scooter Libby was prosecuted and wrongly convicted
even though prosecution knew at the time it was actually Mr
Armitage. I could go on. And on.

p.s. Ms Clinton's uranium deal? Nothing to see here, just
move along.

Keep sighing. Libby was indicted by a special prosecutor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Fitzgerald He was convicted after a three week trial in front of a Bush appointed USDC judge. You can get all riled up at Fitzgerald for being too gung-ho, but that's a personal fault and not the evil hand of the Left.

-- Jay Beattie.

I'm not sure this is a discussion or a burning of heretics,
real or imagined. Makes me, as a heretic, uncomfortable.

James Comey, who already knew the 'leaker' of Ms Plame's
employer was Armitage, appointed Fitzgerald as SP. Worse, Ms
Plame had made no secret of her desk-jockey CIA job. So
there was no actual 'security leak' and it wasn't Libby.

We need not even get as far as the Brady Rule, but there's
also that.

Mr Plausible Deniability, a.k.a., 'Reinhold Niebuhr' on
twitter, would deny that Fitzgerald knew. A distinction
without a difference because Comey did. Comey believed that
Libby would rat out[1] Mr Cheney for something, anything, if
given the usual Justice Department deal ('99 years or sign
this'). Mr Libby was made of sterner stuff, to their chagrin.

[1]As they say about testimony in court, 'recite or compose'

He was convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury -- and not for disclosing Plame's role in the CIA. Nobody was even charged for disclosing that, IIRC. You can blame an over zealous special prosecutor for pursuing perjury/obstruction charges, but this is hardly evidence of the evil Left "weaponizing lawfare."

The outcome suggests a bad defense and not a liberal conspiracy. If there were Brady violations, the case should have been overturned on appeal, and there must have been enough admissible evidence to get twelve jurors to a unanimous verdict, which is no easy thing. Witnesses may lie, but that's what cross-examination is about -- and successful lying is the exception not the rule. Most in-court liars come off like Tommy Flanagan.

-- Jay Beattie.






I don't know a Tommy Flanagan but I am very familiar with
Gen. Michael Flynn who suffered similarly and unjustly.

This is the first search result:
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/19/a...ead-at-71.html

Couldn't find 'unjust conviction' or 'process crime' there.

Flynn pleaded guilty. He was guilty. He was not the witless lookout for the crack dealer who got coerced into pleading guilty to murder by some lazy PD. From the docket, this was his lawyer line-up:

represented by Jesse R Binnall
HARVEY & BINNALL, PLLC
717 King Street
Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-888-1943
Email:
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Retained

Robert K. Kelner
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
850 Tenth Street, NW
One City Center
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 662-5503
Fax: (202) 778-5503
Email:
LEAD ATTORNEY
Designation: Retained

Stephen Pierce Anthony
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
850 Tenth Street, NW
One City Center
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 662-5105
Fax: (202) 778-5105
Email:
TERMINATED: 06/07/2019
LEAD ATTORNEY
Designation: Retained

W. William Hodes
THE WILLIAM HODES LAW FIRM
3658 Conservation Trail
The Villages, FL 32163
(352) 399-0531
Fax: (352) 240-3489
Email:
TERMINATED: 09/25/2020
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Pro Hac Vice

Abigail Frye
HARVEY & BINNALL, PLLC
717 King Street
Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-888-1943
Fax: 703-888-1930
Email:
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Pro Hac Vice

Lindsay R. McKasson
HARVEY & BINNALL, PLLC
717 King Street
717 King Street
Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-888-1943
Email:
TERMINATED: 09/25/2020
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Pro Hac Vice

Molly McCann
SIDNEY POWELL, PC
2911 Turtle Creek Boulevard
Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75219
(214)707-1775
Email:
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Pro Hac Vice

Sidney Powell
SIDNEY POWELL, P.C.
2911 Turtle Creek Blvd
Ste 300
Dallas, TX 75219
214-707-1775
Email:
PRO HAC VICE
Designation: Pro Hac Vice

So, with a stable of attorneys (who came and went, the line-up varied), he was coerced and just hoodwinked. Okey-Dokey.

Moving through the docket, a ten-page plea agreement -- signed by Flynn and approved by his counsel. Six page signed statement of the offense, signed by Flynn and approved by his counsel. The allocation is f******* 34 transcript pages long -- a small snippet:

THE COURT: Please listen closely. Be patient
because it is going to take a little bit of time. And again,
let me know if you do not understand anything. And finally,
again, at any point in time, if you need to consult with your
attorneys, please take the time to do that.
Do you understand that the charge against you is a
felony charge?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: Because it is a felony charge, you have a
constitutional right to have the members of a grand jury
indict and charge you with that felony. A federal grand jury
is composed of at least 16 and not more than 23 citizens of
the District of Columbia. In order to charge you, at least
12 of them must find that there is probable cause to believe
that a crime has been committed and that you were the person
that committed that crime. And if they charged you, they
would list the charges in a written indictment. If you do
not give up your right to be charged by grand jury
indictment, the government cannot file felony charges against
you on its own.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: In this case, the felony charges against
you have been brought by the Special Counsel's Office by the
filing of an Information.

If you do not give up your right to be charged by
grand jury indictment, the government may present the case to
the grand jury and ask them to indict you, and a grand jury
might indict you, but then there is always the possibility
that they won't.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: Okay. If you do give up your right to be
charged by a grand jury in an indictment, the case will
proceed against you on the Special Counsel's Office
Information, just as though you had been indicted. Do you
understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn, do you understand your right
to indictment by a grand jury?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you discussed giving up your right
to indictment by the grand jury with your attorneys?
THE DEFENDANT: I have.
THE COURT: Have any threats or promises other than
the promises made in the plea agreement been made to you to
induce you to give up your right to the indictment?
THE DEFENDANT: No.

THE COURT: Mr. Flynn, are you now ready to make a
decision about whether you wish to enter a plea of guilty or
whether you, instead, wish to go to trial?
THE DEFENDANT: I am.
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn, how do you plead to the charge
in Count One of the Information, making false statements, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001; do you plead guilty or not
guilty?
THE DEFENDANT: Guilty, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Are you entering this plea of guilty
voluntarily and of your own free will?
THE DEFENDANT: I am.
THE COURT: Are you entering this plea of guilty
because you are guilty and for no other reason?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Defense counsel, do you know of any
reason why the defendant should not plead guilty to the
charge?
MR. KELNER: No, Your Honor.

Alrighty. Sounds totally innocent to me. And epilog, the guy's a f****** lunatic. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...b1765467..html

Oh, about the Brady violation, in a 43 page opinion, Judge Emmet Sullivan -- a Reagan appointee -- rips Flynn a new one, and states, among many, many things:

In December 2019, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and separate Order
denying Mr. Flynn’s Brady motions, finding that Mr. Flynn failed
to establish a single Brady violation, and holding that Mr.
Flynn’s false statements to the FBI were material within the
meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) for the purpose of resolving
those motions. See Order, ECF No. 143; Mem. Op., ECF No. 144 at
53, 92

He was railroaded! Civilians can get the opinion he https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/08/polit...ion/index.html Good thing he got some Trump supporter to pay his legal bills.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:35:16 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:05:27 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

https://michaeljlindell.com/ Why don't you tell us that this has been debunked.

That's easy. I don't want to tell you why it has been debunked
because arguing with you has proven to be a complete waste of my time.
I don't want to tell you because it might cause your head to explode.
I don't want to tell you because I would also need to explain to you
how to use Google search and how to interpret the results. I don't
want to tell you because your one line reply is likely to be useless,
ambiguous, difficult to decode, a change of topic, or some combination
of the aforementioned. However, I am a merciful Usenet influencer,
and will provide you with evidence of debunking, so that you will not
feel abandoned by those who can differentiate between propaganda and
the truth.

Fact check: Claim of Chinese investment in Dominion Voting Systems
confuses UBS subsidiaries
https://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-claim-chinese-investment-144905735.html

Fact check: Claim of Chinese investment in Dominion Voting Systems
confuses UBS subsidiaries
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/23/fact-check-dominion-voting-systems-foreign-investment-claim-false/4038654001/

Too bad with all of your vast knowledge you don't know that actual Internet
records can't be debunked. The actual manuals of the Dominion voting system
cannot be debunked. The actual owners being identified as Chinese cannot be
debunked.

I prefer to disregard anything that claims to be irrefutable, absolute
truth, devinely inspired, undeniable, undebatable or obviously true.

But you're a True Believer so you wouldn't believe it if Joe Biden personally
ordered to be assassinated. To your final breath you could claim that it was Trump.

Since you can't quite prove your point, you seem to think that
insulting your critics is a valid method of argumentation. Methinks
otherwise.

Goodness Gracious! You seem to be intent on defaming out resident
pundit. Aren't you aware that he knows all, sees all and prevaricates
all? And is the world renown expert in quite literally everything
imaginable?

And who, it might be noted is extremely adapt at changing the subject
and/or insulting his audience when they fail to show the proper
adoration for him and refuse to bow down him and display the proper
respect for gems of truth that dribble from his lips?

And, rather then attempting to destroy the "golden calf", as it were,
it is better to simple disregard it. Or perhaps it can be said that
while you may sweat and struggle to carry your tablets of stone down
from the mountain a calf, whether golden or smelling of ****, can't
read.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2/23/2021 5:07 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 12:55:33 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/23/2021 9:49 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 5:37:32 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/22/2021 7:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 2:43:59 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/22/2021 3:59 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 1:13:19 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/22/2021 2:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/22/2021 2:07 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:


Filing a FOIA for information that is supposed to be
public record and then making it public is exactly HOW
discriminatory? If this information wasn't incriminating
why would Pelosi refuse to give up her records? She could
always do the same for Republicans except they obey the
laws and release all of the expenses.

"Republicans obey the laws..."

Right.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHu...ce_or_parties/



Yes the left does weaponize lawfare much better.

Really? The Watergate Seven were indicted in 1974. Now if I recall correctly, hmmmm let me see here [checking Google], we had a Republican president, Gerald Ford. Agnew pleaded guilty to tax evasion while Nixon was still president. I don't recall any prosecutions of Nixon era officials during the Carter administration.

Same goes with the Reagan indictments. Ollie North was convicted and sentenced during the Bush administration -- as were the list of other malefactors from the Reagan administration. It was the Bush pardon-mill for the Iran-Contra convicts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan...ation_scandals

All or most of the Trump indictments were obtained by the administration's own Special Counsel, a Republican. In fact, could you point me to any of the indictments of Republican officials shown in Frank's post that were obtained during a Democratic administration? I haven't looked at all the G.W. Bush indictments, maybe one of those was handed-down during a Democratic administration.

Don't tell me -- notwithstanding the DOJ being led by a Republican AG during all these administrations and indictments being returned by apolitical grand juries, the prosecutions were part of a giant Democratic conspiracy -- to get true bills and convict people of crimes . . . in front of juries. Were the juries in on it?



-- Jay Beattie.


[sigh] Scooter Libby was prosecuted and wrongly convicted
even though prosecution knew at the time it was actually Mr
Armitage. I could go on. And on.

p.s. Ms Clinton's uranium deal? Nothing to see here, just
move along.

Keep sighing. Libby was indicted by a special prosecutor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Fitzgerald He was convicted after a three week trial in front of a Bush appointed USDC judge. You can get all riled up at Fitzgerald for being too gung-ho, but that's a personal fault and not the evil hand of the Left.

-- Jay Beattie.

I'm not sure this is a discussion or a burning of heretics,
real or imagined. Makes me, as a heretic, uncomfortable.

James Comey, who already knew the 'leaker' of Ms Plame's
employer was Armitage, appointed Fitzgerald as SP. Worse, Ms
Plame had made no secret of her desk-jockey CIA job. So
there was no actual 'security leak' and it wasn't Libby.

We need not even get as far as the Brady Rule, but there's
also that.

Mr Plausible Deniability, a.k.a., 'Reinhold Niebuhr' on
twitter, would deny that Fitzgerald knew. A distinction
without a difference because Comey did. Comey believed that
Libby would rat out[1] Mr Cheney for something, anything, if
given the usual Justice Department deal ('99 years or sign
this'). Mr Libby was made of sterner stuff, to their chagrin.

[1]As they say about testimony in court, 'recite or compose'

He was convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury -- and not for disclosing Plame's role in the CIA. Nobody was even charged for disclosing that, IIRC. You can blame an over zealous special prosecutor for pursuing perjury/obstruction charges, but this is hardly evidence of the evil Left "weaponizing lawfare."

The outcome suggests a bad defense and not a liberal conspiracy. If there were Brady violations, the case should have been overturned on appeal, and there must have been enough admissible evidence to get twelve jurors to a unanimous verdict, which is no easy thing. Witnesses may lie, but that's what cross-examination is about -- and successful lying is the exception not the rule. Most in-court liars come off like Tommy Flanagan.

-- Jay Beattie.






I don't know a Tommy Flanagan but I am very familiar with
Gen. Michael Flynn who suffered similarly and unjustly.

This is the first search result:
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/19/a...ead-at-71.html

Couldn't find 'unjust conviction' or 'process crime' there.

Flynn pleaded guilty. He was guilty. He was not the witless lookout for the crack dealer who got coerced into pleading guilty to murder by some lazy PD. From the docket, this was his lawyer line-up:

represented by Jesse R Binnall
HARVEY & BINNALL, PLLC
717 King Street
Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-888-1943
Email:
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Retained

Robert K. Kelner
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
850 Tenth Street, NW
One City Center
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 662-5503
Fax: (202) 778-5503
Email:
LEAD ATTORNEY
Designation: Retained

Stephen Pierce Anthony
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
850 Tenth Street, NW
One City Center
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 662-5105
Fax: (202) 778-5105
Email:
TERMINATED: 06/07/2019
LEAD ATTORNEY
Designation: Retained

W. William Hodes
THE WILLIAM HODES LAW FIRM
3658 Conservation Trail
The Villages, FL 32163
(352) 399-0531
Fax: (352) 240-3489
Email:
TERMINATED: 09/25/2020
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Pro Hac Vice

Abigail Frye
HARVEY & BINNALL, PLLC
717 King Street
Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-888-1943
Fax: 703-888-1930
Email:
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Pro Hac Vice

Lindsay R. McKasson
HARVEY & BINNALL, PLLC
717 King Street
717 King Street
Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-888-1943
Email:
TERMINATED: 09/25/2020
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Pro Hac Vice

Molly McCann
SIDNEY POWELL, PC
2911 Turtle Creek Boulevard
Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75219
(214)707-1775
Email:
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Pro Hac Vice

Sidney Powell
SIDNEY POWELL, P.C.
2911 Turtle Creek Blvd
Ste 300
Dallas, TX 75219
214-707-1775
Email:
PRO HAC VICE
Designation: Pro Hac Vice

So, with a stable of attorneys (who came and went, the line-up varied), he was coerced and just hoodwinked. Okey-Dokey.

Moving through the docket, a ten-page plea agreement -- signed by Flynn and approved by his counsel. Six page signed statement of the offense, signed by Flynn and approved by his counsel. The allocation is f******* 34 transcript pages long -- a small snippet:

THE COURT: Please listen closely. Be patient
because it is going to take a little bit of time. And again,
let me know if you do not understand anything. And finally,
again, at any point in time, if you need to consult with your
attorneys, please take the time to do that.
Do you understand that the charge against you is a
felony charge?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: Because it is a felony charge, you have a
constitutional right to have the members of a grand jury
indict and charge you with that felony. A federal grand jury
is composed of at least 16 and not more than 23 citizens of
the District of Columbia. In order to charge you, at least
12 of them must find that there is probable cause to believe
that a crime has been committed and that you were the person
that committed that crime. And if they charged you, they
would list the charges in a written indictment. If you do
not give up your right to be charged by grand jury
indictment, the government cannot file felony charges against
you on its own.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: In this case, the felony charges against
you have been brought by the Special Counsel's Office by the
filing of an Information.

If you do not give up your right to be charged by
grand jury indictment, the government may present the case to
the grand jury and ask them to indict you, and a grand jury
might indict you, but then there is always the possibility
that they won't.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: Okay. If you do give up your right to be
charged by a grand jury in an indictment, the case will
proceed against you on the Special Counsel's Office
Information, just as though you had been indicted. Do you
understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn, do you understand your right
to indictment by a grand jury?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you discussed giving up your right
to indictment by the grand jury with your attorneys?
THE DEFENDANT: I have.
THE COURT: Have any threats or promises other than
the promises made in the plea agreement been made to you to
induce you to give up your right to the indictment?
THE DEFENDANT: No.

THE COURT: Mr. Flynn, are you now ready to make a
decision about whether you wish to enter a plea of guilty or
whether you, instead, wish to go to trial?
THE DEFENDANT: I am.
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn, how do you plead to the charge
in Count One of the Information, making false statements, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001; do you plead guilty or not
guilty?
THE DEFENDANT: Guilty, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Are you entering this plea of guilty
voluntarily and of your own free will?
THE DEFENDANT: I am.
THE COURT: Are you entering this plea of guilty
because you are guilty and for no other reason?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Defense counsel, do you know of any
reason why the defendant should not plead guilty to the
charge?
MR. KELNER: No, Your Honor.

Alrighty. Sounds totally innocent to me. And epilog, the guy's a f****** lunatic. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1765467.html

Oh, about the Brady violation, in a 43 page opinion, Judge Emmet Sullivan -- a Reagan appointee -- rips Flynn a new one, and states, among many, many things:

In December 2019, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and separate Order
denying Mr. Flynn’s Brady motions, finding that Mr. Flynn failed
to establish a single Brady violation, and holding that Mr.
Flynn’s false statements to the FBI were material within the
meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) for the purpose of resolving
those motions. See Order, ECF No. 143; Mem. Op., ECF No. 144 at
53, 92

He was railroaded! Civilians can get the opinion he https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/08/polit...ion/index.html Good thing he got some Trump supporter to pay his legal bills.

-- Jay Beattie.









'A supporter' ?
I was one of several thousand people who contributed.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/23/2021 5:07 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 12:55:33 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/23/2021 9:49 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 5:37:32 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/22/2021 7:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 2:43:59 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/22/2021 3:59 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 1:13:19 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/22/2021 2:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/22/2021 2:07 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:


Filing a FOIA for information that is supposed to be
public record and then making it public is exactly HOW
discriminatory? If this information wasn't incriminating
why would Pelosi refuse to give up her records? She could
always do the same for Republicans except they obey the
laws and release all of the expenses.

"Republicans obey the laws..."

Right.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHu...ce_or_parties/



Yes the left does weaponize lawfare much better.

Really? The Watergate Seven were indicted in 1974. Now if I recall correctly, hmmmm let me see here [checking Google], we had a Republican president, Gerald Ford. Agnew pleaded guilty to tax evasion while Nixon was still president. I don't recall any prosecutions of Nixon era officials during the Carter administration.

Same goes with the Reagan indictments. Ollie North was convicted and sentenced during the Bush administration -- as were the list of other malefactors from the Reagan administration. It was the Bush pardon-mill for the Iran-Contra convicts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan...ation_scandals

All or most of the Trump indictments were obtained by the administration's own Special Counsel, a Republican. In fact, could you point me to any of the indictments of Republican officials shown in Frank's post that were obtained during a Democratic administration? I haven't looked at all the G.W. Bush indictments, maybe one of those was handed-down during a Democratic administration.

Don't tell me -- notwithstanding the DOJ being led by a Republican AG during all these administrations and indictments being returned by apolitical grand juries, the prosecutions were part of a giant Democratic conspiracy -- to get true bills and convict people of crimes . . . in front of juries. Were the juries in on it?



-- Jay Beattie.


[sigh] Scooter Libby was prosecuted and wrongly convicted
even though prosecution knew at the time it was actually Mr
Armitage. I could go on. And on.

p.s. Ms Clinton's uranium deal? Nothing to see here, just
move along.

Keep sighing. Libby was indicted by a special prosecutor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Fitzgerald He was convicted after a three week trial in front of a Bush appointed USDC judge. You can get all riled up at Fitzgerald for being too gung-ho, but that's a personal fault and not the evil hand of the Left.

-- Jay Beattie.

I'm not sure this is a discussion or a burning of heretics,
real or imagined. Makes me, as a heretic, uncomfortable.

James Comey, who already knew the 'leaker' of Ms Plame's
employer was Armitage, appointed Fitzgerald as SP. Worse, Ms
Plame had made no secret of her desk-jockey CIA job. So
there was no actual 'security leak' and it wasn't Libby.

We need not even get as far as the Brady Rule, but there's
also that.

Mr Plausible Deniability, a.k.a., 'Reinhold Niebuhr' on
twitter, would deny that Fitzgerald knew. A distinction
without a difference because Comey did. Comey believed that
Libby would rat out[1] Mr Cheney for something, anything, if
given the usual Justice Department deal ('99 years or sign
this'). Mr Libby was made of sterner stuff, to their chagrin.

[1]As they say about testimony in court, 'recite or compose'

He was convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury -- and not for disclosing Plame's role in the CIA. Nobody was even charged for disclosing that, IIRC. You can blame an over zealous special prosecutor for pursuing perjury/obstruction charges, but this is hardly evidence of the evil Left "weaponizing lawfare."

The outcome suggests a bad defense and not a liberal conspiracy. If there were Brady violations, the case should have been overturned on appeal, and there must have been enough admissible evidence to get twelve jurors to a unanimous verdict, which is no easy thing. Witnesses may lie, but that's what cross-examination is about -- and successful lying is the exception not the rule. Most in-court liars come off like Tommy Flanagan.

-- Jay Beattie.






I don't know a Tommy Flanagan but I am very familiar with
Gen. Michael Flynn who suffered similarly and unjustly.

This is the first search result:
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/19/a...ead-at-71.html

Couldn't find 'unjust conviction' or 'process crime' there.

Flynn pleaded guilty. He was guilty. He was not the witless lookout for the crack dealer who got coerced into pleading guilty to murder by some lazy PD. From the docket, this was his lawyer line-up:

represented by Jesse R Binnall
HARVEY & BINNALL, PLLC
717 King Street
Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-888-1943
Email:
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Retained

Robert K. Kelner
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
850 Tenth Street, NW
One City Center
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 662-5503
Fax: (202) 778-5503
Email:
LEAD ATTORNEY
Designation: Retained

Stephen Pierce Anthony
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
850 Tenth Street, NW
One City Center
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 662-5105
Fax: (202) 778-5105
Email:
TERMINATED: 06/07/2019
LEAD ATTORNEY
Designation: Retained

W. William Hodes
THE WILLIAM HODES LAW FIRM
3658 Conservation Trail
The Villages, FL 32163
(352) 399-0531
Fax: (352) 240-3489
Email:
TERMINATED: 09/25/2020
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Pro Hac Vice

Abigail Frye
HARVEY & BINNALL, PLLC
717 King Street
Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-888-1943
Fax: 703-888-1930
Email:
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Pro Hac Vice

Lindsay R. McKasson
HARVEY & BINNALL, PLLC
717 King Street
717 King Street
Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-888-1943
Email:
TERMINATED: 09/25/2020
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Pro Hac Vice

Molly McCann
SIDNEY POWELL, PC
2911 Turtle Creek Boulevard
Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75219
(214)707-1775
Email:
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Pro Hac Vice

Sidney Powell
SIDNEY POWELL, P.C.
2911 Turtle Creek Blvd
Ste 300
Dallas, TX 75219
214-707-1775
Email:
PRO HAC VICE
Designation: Pro Hac Vice

So, with a stable of attorneys (who came and went, the line-up varied), he was coerced and just hoodwinked. Okey-Dokey.

Moving through the docket, a ten-page plea agreement -- signed by Flynn and approved by his counsel. Six page signed statement of the offense, signed by Flynn and approved by his counsel. The allocation is f******* 34 transcript pages long -- a small snippet:

THE COURT: Please listen closely. Be patient
because it is going to take a little bit of time. And again,
let me know if you do not understand anything. And finally,
again, at any point in time, if you need to consult with your
attorneys, please take the time to do that.
Do you understand that the charge against you is a
felony charge?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: Because it is a felony charge, you have a
constitutional right to have the members of a grand jury
indict and charge you with that felony. A federal grand jury
is composed of at least 16 and not more than 23 citizens of
the District of Columbia. In order to charge you, at least
12 of them must find that there is probable cause to believe
that a crime has been committed and that you were the person
that committed that crime. And if they charged you, they
would list the charges in a written indictment. If you do
not give up your right to be charged by grand jury
indictment, the government cannot file felony charges against
you on its own.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: In this case, the felony charges against
you have been brought by the Special Counsel's Office by the
filing of an Information.

If you do not give up your right to be charged by
grand jury indictment, the government may present the case to
the grand jury and ask them to indict you, and a grand jury
might indict you, but then there is always the possibility
that they won't.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: Okay. If you do give up your right to be
charged by a grand jury in an indictment, the case will
proceed against you on the Special Counsel's Office
Information, just as though you had been indicted. Do you
understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn, do you understand your right
to indictment by a grand jury?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you discussed giving up your right
to indictment by the grand jury with your attorneys?
THE DEFENDANT: I have.
THE COURT: Have any threats or promises other than
the promises made in the plea agreement been made to you to
induce you to give up your right to the indictment?
THE DEFENDANT: No.

THE COURT: Mr. Flynn, are you now ready to make a
decision about whether you wish to enter a plea of guilty or
whether you, instead, wish to go to trial?
THE DEFENDANT: I am.
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn, how do you plead to the charge
in Count One of the Information, making false statements, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001; do you plead guilty or not
guilty?
THE DEFENDANT: Guilty, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Are you entering this plea of guilty
voluntarily and of your own free will?
THE DEFENDANT: I am.
THE COURT: Are you entering this plea of guilty
because you are guilty and for no other reason?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Defense counsel, do you know of any
reason why the defendant should not plead guilty to the
charge?
MR. KELNER: No, Your Honor.

Alrighty. Sounds totally innocent to me. And epilog, the guy's a f****** lunatic. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1765467.html

Oh, about the Brady violation, in a 43 page opinion, Judge Emmet Sullivan -- a Reagan appointee -- rips Flynn a new one, and states, among many, many things:

In December 2019, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and separate Order
denying Mr. Flynn’s Brady motions, finding that Mr. Flynn failed
to establish a single Brady violation, and holding that Mr.
Flynn’s false statements to the FBI were material within the
meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) for the purpose of resolving
those motions. See Order, ECF No. 143; Mem. Op., ECF No. 144 at
53, 92

He was railroaded! Civilians can get the opinion he https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/08/polit...ion/index.html Good thing he got some Trump supporter to pay his legal bills.

-- Jay Beattie.









The original accusation was a Logan Act violation. The
charges were for a process crime of making conflicting
statements to FBI agents without attorney present. One might
see that as entrapment. You may not.

As with Martha Stewart who was first accused of securities
fraud but actually convicted of process crimes (she served a
half year as I recall) the process is indeed the punishment.

As regards Logan Act, I note here that Mr Kerry was never
charged, while advising the Persians on strategy against The
United States. Which takes us back to the subtheme subject
again.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/23/2021 2:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 11:10:05 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/23/2021 1:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 4:17:04 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/22/2021 5:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/22/2021 3:59 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 1:13:19 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/22/2021 2:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHu...ce_or_parties/

Yes the left does weaponize lawfare much better.

Really? The Watergate Seven were indicted in 1974. Now if I recall
correctly, hmmmm let me see here [checking Google], we had a
Republican president, Gerald Ford. Agnew pleaded guilty to tax
evasion while Nixon was still president. I don't recall any
prosecutions of Nixon era officials during the Carter administration.

Same goes with the Reagan indictments. Ollie North was convicted and
sentenced during the Bush administration -- as were the list of other
malefactors from the Reagan administration. It was the Bush
pardon-mill for the Iran-Contra convicts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan...ation_scandals

All or most of the Trump indictments were obtained by the
administration's own Special Counsel, a Republican. In fact, could
you point me to any of the indictments of Republican officials shown
in Frank's post that were obtained during a Democratic
administration? I haven't looked at all the G.W. Bush indictments,
maybe one of those was handed-down during a Democratic administration.

Don't tell me -- notwithstanding the DOJ being led by a Republican AG
during all these administrations and indictments being returned by
apolitical grand juries, the prosecutions were part of a giant
Democratic conspiracy -- to get true bills and convict people of
crimes . . . in front of juries. Were the juries in on it?


[sigh] Scooter Libby was prosecuted and wrongly convicted even though
prosecution knew at the time it was actually Mr Armitage. I could go
on. And on.
If you can go on and on, please do. One rather dubious "yeah but"
doesn't amount to much given totals like these:

https://rantt.com/gop-admins-had-38-...rats-1961-2016

https://sakai.unc.edu/access/content...al%20officials
p.s. Ms Clinton's uranium deal? Nothing to see here, just move along.
And you didn't even mention that she barbecues children! You guys are
slipping.

https://michaeljlindell.com/ Why don't you tell us that this has been debunked.
Omigosh, I didn't know there was a video titled "Absolute Proof"! And
it's on the internet! And it's by a guy who sells pillows! That's _so_
much more impressive than, say, over 50 rulings by courts across the land.

If there's a video called "Absolute Proof," that settles it. I'm all in!
Pass me the Kool-Aid!

Oops - damn, there's no Kool-Aid left. Tom drank it all.


--
- Frank Krygowski
The Internet trace records CANNOT be wrong. The entire idea of the FISA courts giving permission to ACCESS this already saved data is proof of that. The MANUAL for the Dominion election system clearly explains how to put it on the Internet and we know that these votes are saved on a server in Sweden. It would appear that you're the one incapable of thinking. "For right-wing commentators and conspiracy theorists challenging the 2020 election, it looked like the perfect get: a Princeton University professor who can hack a voting machine in seven minutes flat and flip an election without leaving a trace." But according to the highly trained software specialist Krygowski, China can't do it. https://www.njspotlight.com/2020/12/...piracy-trolls/

According to the article, Dr. Appel did his demo on a machine that had
no paper backup, which means it was different than (say) the machines
used in Georgia, Pennsylvania, etc. And he did his demo by opening up
the machine and physically trading chips.

Sure, China could do that - by sending in thousands of Chinese secret
agents to undetectably open and tinker with hundreds of voting machines,
THEN sneak over to the corresponding paper ballots and use White-Out on
them.

Tom, if this happened, then once again you're the only one brilliant
enough to notice. Sadly, it wasn't mentioned in any of the over 60
post-election lawsuits filed by Trumpers and rejected by the courts.

So yet again, your amazing cleverness is going to waste, languishing
here on this bicycle discussion group. How foolish of Trump's lawyers to
not check here for the real story!

You've got to get your wisdom out where it will make a real difference!
The free world is depending on you! Get going, you slacker!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 4:32:16 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/23/2021 5:07 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 12:55:33 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/23/2021 9:49 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 5:37:32 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/22/2021 7:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 2:43:59 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/22/2021 3:59 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 1:13:19 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/22/2021 2:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/22/2021 2:07 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:


Filing a FOIA for information that is supposed to be
public record and then making it public is exactly HOW
discriminatory? If this information wasn't incriminating
why would Pelosi refuse to give up her records? She could
always do the same for Republicans except they obey the
laws and release all of the expenses.

"Republicans obey the laws..."

Right.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHu...ce_or_parties/



Yes the left does weaponize lawfare much better.

Really? The Watergate Seven were indicted in 1974. Now if I recall correctly, hmmmm let me see here [checking Google], we had a Republican president, Gerald Ford. Agnew pleaded guilty to tax evasion while Nixon was still president. I don't recall any prosecutions of Nixon era officials during the Carter administration.

Same goes with the Reagan indictments. Ollie North was convicted and sentenced during the Bush administration -- as were the list of other malefactors from the Reagan administration. It was the Bush pardon-mill for the Iran-Contra convicts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan...ation_scandals

All or most of the Trump indictments were obtained by the administration's own Special Counsel, a Republican. In fact, could you point me to any of the indictments of Republican officials shown in Frank's post that were obtained during a Democratic administration? I haven't looked at all the G.W. Bush indictments, maybe one of those was handed-down during a Democratic administration.

Don't tell me -- notwithstanding the DOJ being led by a Republican AG during all these administrations and indictments being returned by apolitical grand juries, the prosecutions were part of a giant Democratic conspiracy -- to get true bills and convict people of crimes . . . in front of juries. Were the juries in on it?



-- Jay Beattie.


[sigh] Scooter Libby was prosecuted and wrongly convicted
even though prosecution knew at the time it was actually Mr
Armitage. I could go on. And on.

p.s. Ms Clinton's uranium deal? Nothing to see here, just
move along.

Keep sighing. Libby was indicted by a special prosecutor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Fitzgerald He was convicted after a three week trial in front of a Bush appointed USDC judge. You can get all riled up at Fitzgerald for being too gung-ho, but that's a personal fault and not the evil hand of the Left.

-- Jay Beattie.

I'm not sure this is a discussion or a burning of heretics,
real or imagined. Makes me, as a heretic, uncomfortable.

James Comey, who already knew the 'leaker' of Ms Plame's
employer was Armitage, appointed Fitzgerald as SP. Worse, Ms
Plame had made no secret of her desk-jockey CIA job. So
there was no actual 'security leak' and it wasn't Libby.

We need not even get as far as the Brady Rule, but there's
also that.

Mr Plausible Deniability, a.k.a., 'Reinhold Niebuhr' on
twitter, would deny that Fitzgerald knew. A distinction
without a difference because Comey did. Comey believed that
Libby would rat out[1] Mr Cheney for something, anything, if
given the usual Justice Department deal ('99 years or sign
this'). Mr Libby was made of sterner stuff, to their chagrin.

[1]As they say about testimony in court, 'recite or compose'

He was convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury -- and not for disclosing Plame's role in the CIA. Nobody was even charged for disclosing that, IIRC. You can blame an over zealous special prosecutor for pursuing perjury/obstruction charges, but this is hardly evidence of the evil Left "weaponizing lawfare."

The outcome suggests a bad defense and not a liberal conspiracy. If there were Brady violations, the case should have been overturned on appeal, and there must have been enough admissible evidence to get twelve jurors to a unanimous verdict, which is no easy thing. Witnesses may lie, but that's what cross-examination is about -- and successful lying is the exception not the rule. Most in-court liars come off like Tommy Flanagan.

-- Jay Beattie.






I don't know a Tommy Flanagan but I am very familiar with
Gen. Michael Flynn who suffered similarly and unjustly.

This is the first search result:
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/19/a...ead-at-71.html

Couldn't find 'unjust conviction' or 'process crime' there.

Flynn pleaded guilty. He was guilty. He was not the witless lookout for the crack dealer who got coerced into pleading guilty to murder by some lazy PD. From the docket, this was his lawyer line-up:

represented by Jesse R Binnall
HARVEY & BINNALL, PLLC
717 King Street
Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-888-1943
Email:
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Retained

Robert K. Kelner
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
850 Tenth Street, NW
One City Center
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 662-5503
Fax: (202) 778-5503
Email:
LEAD ATTORNEY
Designation: Retained

Stephen Pierce Anthony
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
850 Tenth Street, NW
One City Center
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 662-5105
Fax: (202) 778-5105
Email:
TERMINATED: 06/07/2019
LEAD ATTORNEY
Designation: Retained

W. William Hodes
THE WILLIAM HODES LAW FIRM
3658 Conservation Trail
The Villages, FL 32163
(352) 399-0531
Fax: (352) 240-3489
Email:
TERMINATED: 09/25/2020
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Pro Hac Vice

Abigail Frye
HARVEY & BINNALL, PLLC
717 King Street
Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-888-1943
Fax: 703-888-1930
Email:
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Pro Hac Vice

Lindsay R. McKasson
HARVEY & BINNALL, PLLC
717 King Street
717 King Street
Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-888-1943
Email:
TERMINATED: 09/25/2020
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Pro Hac Vice

Molly McCann
SIDNEY POWELL, PC
2911 Turtle Creek Boulevard
Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75219
(214)707-1775
Email:
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Pro Hac Vice

Sidney Powell
SIDNEY POWELL, P.C.
2911 Turtle Creek Blvd
Ste 300
Dallas, TX 75219
214-707-1775
Email:
PRO HAC VICE
Designation: Pro Hac Vice

So, with a stable of attorneys (who came and went, the line-up varied), he was coerced and just hoodwinked. Okey-Dokey.

Moving through the docket, a ten-page plea agreement -- signed by Flynn and approved by his counsel. Six page signed statement of the offense, signed by Flynn and approved by his counsel. The allocation is f******* 34 transcript pages long -- a small snippet:

THE COURT: Please listen closely. Be patient
because it is going to take a little bit of time. And again,
let me know if you do not understand anything. And finally,
again, at any point in time, if you need to consult with your
attorneys, please take the time to do that.
Do you understand that the charge against you is a
felony charge?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: Because it is a felony charge, you have a
constitutional right to have the members of a grand jury
indict and charge you with that felony. A federal grand jury
is composed of at least 16 and not more than 23 citizens of
the District of Columbia. In order to charge you, at least
12 of them must find that there is probable cause to believe
that a crime has been committed and that you were the person
that committed that crime. And if they charged you, they
would list the charges in a written indictment. If you do
not give up your right to be charged by grand jury
indictment, the government cannot file felony charges against
you on its own.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: In this case, the felony charges against
you have been brought by the Special Counsel's Office by the
filing of an Information.

If you do not give up your right to be charged by
grand jury indictment, the government may present the case to
the grand jury and ask them to indict you, and a grand jury
might indict you, but then there is always the possibility
that they won't.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: Okay. If you do give up your right to be
charged by a grand jury in an indictment, the case will
proceed against you on the Special Counsel's Office
Information, just as though you had been indicted. Do you
understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn, do you understand your right
to indictment by a grand jury?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you discussed giving up your right
to indictment by the grand jury with your attorneys?
THE DEFENDANT: I have.
THE COURT: Have any threats or promises other than
the promises made in the plea agreement been made to you to
induce you to give up your right to the indictment?
THE DEFENDANT: No.

THE COURT: Mr. Flynn, are you now ready to make a
decision about whether you wish to enter a plea of guilty or
whether you, instead, wish to go to trial?
THE DEFENDANT: I am.
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn, how do you plead to the charge
in Count One of the Information, making false statements, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001; do you plead guilty or not
guilty?
THE DEFENDANT: Guilty, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Are you entering this plea of guilty
voluntarily and of your own free will?
THE DEFENDANT: I am.
THE COURT: Are you entering this plea of guilty
because you are guilty and for no other reason?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Defense counsel, do you know of any
reason why the defendant should not plead guilty to the
charge?
MR. KELNER: No, Your Honor.

Alrighty. Sounds totally innocent to me. And epilog, the guy's a f****** lunatic. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...b1765467..html

Oh, about the Brady violation, in a 43 page opinion, Judge Emmet Sullivan -- a Reagan appointee -- rips Flynn a new one, and states, among many, many things:

In December 2019, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and separate Order
denying Mr. Flynn’s Brady motions, finding that Mr. Flynn failed
to establish a single Brady violation, and holding that Mr.
Flynn’s false statements to the FBI were material within the
meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) for the purpose of resolving
those motions. See Order, ECF No. 143; Mem. Op., ECF No. 144 at
53, 92

He was railroaded! Civilians can get the opinion he https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/08/polit...ion/index.html Good thing he got some Trump supporter to pay his legal bills.

-- Jay Beattie.








'A supporter' ?
I was one of several thousand people who contributed.
--

You're kidding. These are players not martyrs. They don't need your money. Give it to the food bank.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 21:35:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/23/2021 2:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 11:10:05 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/23/2021 1:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 4:17:04 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/22/2021 5:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/22/2021 3:59 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 1:13:19 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/22/2021 2:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHu...ce_or_parties/

Yes the left does weaponize lawfare much better.

Really? The Watergate Seven were indicted in 1974. Now if I recall
correctly, hmmmm let me see here [checking Google], we had a
Republican president, Gerald Ford. Agnew pleaded guilty to tax
evasion while Nixon was still president. I don't recall any
prosecutions of Nixon era officials during the Carter administration.

Same goes with the Reagan indictments. Ollie North was convicted and
sentenced during the Bush administration -- as were the list of other
malefactors from the Reagan administration. It was the Bush
pardon-mill for the Iran-Contra convicts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan...ation_scandals

All or most of the Trump indictments were obtained by the
administration's own Special Counsel, a Republican. In fact, could
you point me to any of the indictments of Republican officials shown
in Frank's post that were obtained during a Democratic
administration? I haven't looked at all the G.W. Bush indictments,
maybe one of those was handed-down during a Democratic administration.

Don't tell me -- notwithstanding the DOJ being led by a Republican AG
during all these administrations and indictments being returned by
apolitical grand juries, the prosecutions were part of a giant
Democratic conspiracy -- to get true bills and convict people of
crimes . . . in front of juries. Were the juries in on it?


[sigh] Scooter Libby was prosecuted and wrongly convicted even though
prosecution knew at the time it was actually Mr Armitage. I could go
on. And on.
If you can go on and on, please do. One rather dubious "yeah but"
doesn't amount to much given totals like these:

https://rantt.com/gop-admins-had-38-...rats-1961-2016

https://sakai.unc.edu/access/content...al%20officials
p.s. Ms Clinton's uranium deal? Nothing to see here, just move along.
And you didn't even mention that she barbecues children! You guys are
slipping.

https://michaeljlindell.com/ Why don't you tell us that this has been debunked.
Omigosh, I didn't know there was a video titled "Absolute Proof"! And
it's on the internet! And it's by a guy who sells pillows! That's _so_
much more impressive than, say, over 50 rulings by courts across the land.

If there's a video called "Absolute Proof," that settles it. I'm all in!
Pass me the Kool-Aid!

Oops - damn, there's no Kool-Aid left. Tom drank it all.


--
- Frank Krygowski
The Internet trace records CANNOT be wrong. The entire idea of the FISA courts giving permission to ACCESS this already saved data is proof of that. The MANUAL for the Dominion election system clearly explains how to put it on the Internet and we know that these votes are saved on a server in Sweden. It would appear that you're the one incapable of thinking. "For right-wing commentators and conspiracy theorists challenging the 2020 election, it looked like the perfect get: a Princeton University professor who can hack a voting machine in seven minutes flat and flip an election without leaving a trace." But according to the highly trained software specialist Krygowski, China can't do it. https://www.njspotlight.com/2020/12/...piracy-trolls/

According to the article, Dr. Appel did his demo on a machine that had
no paper backup, which means it was different than (say) the machines
used in Georgia, Pennsylvania, etc. And he did his demo by opening up
the machine and physically trading chips.

Sure, China could do that - by sending in thousands of Chinese secret
agents to undetectably open and tinker with hundreds of voting machines,
THEN sneak over to the corresponding paper ballots and use White-Out on
them.

Tom, if this happened, then once again you're the only one brilliant
enough to notice. Sadly, it wasn't mentioned in any of the over 60
post-election lawsuits filed by Trumpers and rejected by the courts.

So yet again, your amazing cleverness is going to waste, languishing
here on this bicycle discussion group. How foolish of Trump's lawyers to
not check here for the real story!

You've got to get your wisdom out where it will make a real difference!
The free world is depending on you! Get going, you slacker!


Thank the Lord! Someone, at long last, admits the superior knowledge
and mental brilliance of our very own Tommy Boy who, to be honest, is
obviously doing humanity a disfavor by not publishing his findings.
His fumbling around on "the web" is, in essence, simply cheating the
world of his, so obvious, vast knowledge and experience. Why! A book
would not be a far better vehicle to demonstrate his brilliance. "The
World According To Tommy". Just think of it!
--
Cheers,

John B.