Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

[Garmel]

1 - you can ignore it all you want but this hasn't happened in modern history until Trump. We have had pandemics, all were handled better than this. GWB had 9/11, Katrina, and left the economy melting down. Now we have the Trump crash 36 million unemployed and we are getting 9/11'd daily in terms of death. These Republican Presidents are gigantic failures.


2- how many FBI agents were fired? I think I heard of the one who ****ed up the 302 was fired. Maybe you are counting political firings like Comey?



3- who was caught falsifying FISA warrants? Can you link me to their indictment?


4- Horowitz said a lot of things. Like the investigation was not motivated by political bias. He said the investigation had a factual basis and was initiated for an authorized purpose. You might also want to read his report before his latest where he did find significant bias against Hillary Clinton in the FBI. Your fake news sources probably dont report on that because they are agenda driven.


- Strozk was caught plotting against Trump much in the same way Trump asked Russia for help. We dont have direct evidence Trump personally talked to a Russian agent about cheating in the election. You dont have proof that Strozk took any inappropriate actions in the investigation. He is allowed to have a political opinion. Shouldnt have been saying it on a company phone which if I remember correctly he did. Personally I want Republicans investigating Democrats and vice versa. You can hype up this hoax all you want but the fact of the matter is the FBI deliberately did certain things to hurt Clinton's campaign out of bias against her. You might be new here but law enforcement corruption is what I do. You might notice that 60 page thread of mostly me complaining about the corrupt system and police. Some people know the law better than me here but I know law enforcement corruption. If you want to say the FBI are corrupt I am with you but if you want to go with thethe and say they tried to overthrow Trump you are insane. All the FBI had to do was say Hillary was exonerated and she wins the election. Her lead shrunk by 5 points when Comey publicly announced the reopening of that investigation. Now here we are years later and you want to convince me that the man who handed Trump the win tried to overthrow him. That's bonkers.



- Today I learned conspiracy against the US and threatening a witness are process crimes. The more you know....

1)We've never had a pandemic like this hit the world in many generations. The Spanish flu was worse. If Trump is so incompetent explain to me why Europe is as bad or worse? Was that Trump's fault too?

2) Several. McCabe, Srozk, Page among others. Do some exploring on your own.

3) Did you miss the part where the FISA court chewed the FBI out? Horowitz nailed the FBI on that as well. They were caught falsifying. No indictments yet because there's still an investigation going on. If an indictment does come you'll just blame Barr and Durham for covering for Trump so it really doesn't matter anyway I guess.

4) Both Durham and Barr said Horowitz came to his conclusion based on the fact he wasn't privy to the info they had. Yes, I read the report on Clinton. He felt the sideshow they put on was stupid but Horowitz found no political bias against Clinton. You're wrong.

Strzok deliberately said they would take Trump out. Their behavior shows that they did try. The FBI let Clinton walk after she deleted the e-mail AFTER HER EMAIL WAS SUBPOENAED. That's a felony. However, it looks like Comey and co.tried to scramble after looking so bad and tried to look impartial and pushed a little harder on Clinton. She should have been indicted in the first place so saying the FBI hurt her is not really a defense. What's written in the transcripts shows a clear indication of the FBI wanting to get rid of Trump and company. Time will prove me right and you wrong on this.

Threatening a witness? Did you miss the part where the witness said he didn't feel threatened by Stone? Did your fake news leave that out? Stone's an asshole and has a habit of doing this it seems.

This whole investigation was a sham. Prosecutorial misconduct was abundant against Flynn. Nobody can find the original 302 for crying out loud. Watching Sullivan break the law trying to get Flynn won't do him any good.

[Metaphysicist]

Watching Sullivan break the law

lol

[Garmel]

lol

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!! Sullivan's buffonery won't make it far past the 1st appellate court and maybe not even that. https://www.forbes.com/sites/markche.../#6b79c6356f0a

[thethe]

Rest assured. Sullivan is not a political operative in the slightest.

[thethe]

Criminal organization that needs to be brought down. Obama should have to testify.

[Metaphysicist]

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!! Sullivan's buffonery won't make it far past the 1st appellate court and maybe not even that. https://www.forbes.com/sites/markche.../#6b79c6356f0a

There is nothing in that article indicating Sullivan is "breaking the law." Maybe you are confused about what that phrase means?

[Garmel]

There is nothing in that article indicating Sullivan is "breaking the law." Maybe you are confused about what that phrase means?

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!! Okay, he's breaking and ignoring established precedents. However, overturning a precedent from the SCOTUS is a horrible decision. Is that better, jackass? You can play word games all day but it doesn't change anything. This is DOA when it goes to the appellate courts.

However, here is another take from a prosecutor. This author states "There is no complex legal issue to be resolved. DOJ’s dismissal motion may be politically controversial, but legally it is pro forma. The only branch of government constitutionally authorized to proceed with a criminal prosecution is the executive. The Justice Department has declined to prosecute. There is nothing for the judge to do besides the ministerial task of ending the case on the court’s records." If usurping power you don't have isn't breaking the law, what is it then? https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...ses-dismissal/

Judicial misconduct also occurs when a judge acts in ways that are considered unethical or otherwise violate the judge's obligations of impartial conduct. Sullivan is definitely not showing impartial conduct.

[goldfly]

garmel stays angry

[Garmel]

Not mad. Just the way I debate.

[thethe]

So many people ate being red pilled.

[zitothebrave]

So many people ate being red pilled.

And if you ever had any doubts about thethe being wrong on any of this. Being a red piller is one of them.

[thethe]

And if you ever had any doubts about thethe being wrong on any of this. Being a red piller is one of them.

Yeah, who wants the truth.

Clearly not you.

[Garmel]

So many people ate being red pilled.

I love how every time you say it people freak out. It's hilarious.

[zitothebrave]

Yeah, who wants the truth.

Clearly not you.

NO thinking that only you have access to the truth is stupid.

[thethe]

No big deal

-Judge Sullivan (approved by Meta)

[Metaphysicist]

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!! Okay, he's breaking and ignoring established precedents. However, overturning a precedent from the SCOTUS is a horrible decision. Is that better, jackass? You can play word games all day but it doesn't change anything. This is DOA when it goes to the appellate courts.

He is not "overturning" a SCOTUS precedent. That's doesn't even make sense as a thing a district judge can do. I think you mean he is misapplying precedent; that happens relatively frequently, and sorting it out is the whole point of the appellate courts.

Anyway, Chenoweth really oversold the applicability of those cases; it is frankly, a complete lie that these are controlling cases for Sullivan's request for amicus briefing. He's a lawyer who should know better. What he seems to mean is that he thinks Sullivan should have looked at those cases and learned certain lessons about his role and therefore rubberstamp the dismissal.

U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith is about an appellate court injecting a new issue to a case that was never in dispute between the parties. The appellate court then actually adjudicated that invented issue. That's not what is happening here. The situations are, frankly, not that similar. There is a shared background principle re: judicial restraint, but that's about it.

Fokker (which is not SCOTUS, but still binding on Sullivan) is more relevant. It is a case about a judge denying a DPA under the Speedy Trial Act because other 3rd parties weren't being charged at all, thus completely usurping the charging power of the prosecution. It doesn't really address what to do when a case has already been adjudicated and the prosecution changes their mind. The case is still pretty interesting, and the discussion of Rule 48 in it helpful explains why it is extremely unlikely Sullivan ultimately does anything but dismiss the case.

Neither of them says anything about the "wrongness" of what Sullivan has done so far. He is literally just asking for briefing on a Rule 48 dismissal and its implications, after conviction, which is perfectly within his discretion as judge. But Chenoweth sees a background principle in them he see Sullivan ignoring and doesn't like. Which, great, he's entitled to his opinion, but that's all it is. The histrionics about "breaking the law" are bizarre.

This is a pretty rare, possibly unique, situation so anyone acting like there is "obvious" precedent is just trying to deceive you. I also looked Chenoweth up and he is Mike Pompeo's former Chief of Staff who thinks the whole Administrative State is unconstitutional, so, actual lol at this guy giving an impartial take in the first place.

However, here is another take from a prosecutor. This author states "There is no complex legal issue to be resolved. DOJ’s dismissal motion may be politically controversial, but legally it is pro forma. The only branch of government constitutionally authorized to proceed with a criminal prosecution is the executive. The Justice Department has declined to prosecute. There is nothing for the judge to do besides the ministerial task of ending the case on the court’s records." If usurping power you don't have isn't breaking the law, what is it then? https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...ses-dismissal/

Judicial misconduct also occurs when a judge acts in ways that are considered unethical or otherwise violate the judge's obligations of impartial conduct. He's definitely not showing impartial conduct.

I have to admit I was disappointed that "another prosecutor" turned out to be real-life conspiracy theorist Andrew McCarthy. I assume he also believes Sullivan is also part of an Obama plot to bring us under Sharia law. I refuse to believe you meant this as a serious suggestion.

The argument that asking for amici is "usurping power" and therefore "breaking the law" is laughable. The article itself notes that requests for just this thing have been made dozens of time in this case alone.

I am well aware of the actual way Rule 48 motions work. I would be surprised if Sullivan failed to ultimately dismiss the charges, unless else something unforeseen comes out. If he does somehow get there, it is certainly possible the DC Circuit would overturn him. But the idea that you have decided he's a lawbreaker because he asked for more briefing on a politically fraught case shows you are not looking at this rationally.

You are letting right-wing trolls at National Review etc. rile you up.

[Garmel]

You are letting right-wing trolls at National Review etc. rile you up.

No, I'm actually noticing a judge who accused Flynn of treason, which even confused the prosecutors. A judge that said losing a 302 happens (Something you didn't even seem to know somehow) all the time and a judge that's ignoring a buttload of prosecutorial misconduct. The fact you think this is on the up and up tells me you're listening to the same garbage trolls form the MSM that told you Trump was colluding with the Russians. It's laughable.

[Garmel]

No big deal

-Judge Sullivan (approved by Meta)

Meta has serious blinders not to see what's going on.

[thethe]

Meta is just another leftist who got radicalized in college.

When he has to actually make his own decisions he is embarassingly wrong. Thats why he lives in the theoretical world where nothing is at risk.

Its pathetic.

[goldfly]

man

it's been at least a page since we have seen a tweet with a picture of some highlighted stuff

glad to see we didn't let page 504 miss out on that