SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: puborectalis who wrote (1229496)5/13/2020 11:06:21 AM
From: Thomas M.1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Mick Mørmøny

  Read Replies (2) of 1575338
 
In 2017, Judge Sullivan wrote in the WSJ that "Judges have a responsibility to take action against unethical prosecutors."

In the Flynn case, Judge Sullivan made a series of falsehoods in court. They were all based on the lies prosecutors told him. But rather than being angry at the lying prosecutors, Sullivan is angry at Flynn. Ergo, Sullivan WANTED the prosecutors to lie to him. He is a Dem hack.

Flynn prosecutor Brandon Van Grack should be in trouble.

How Van Grack's misrepresentations about the Flynn investigation and evidence led Judge Sullivan to issue an inaccurate opinion.

Van Grack told Judge Sullivan that the Flynn “lies” "impeded" and "had a material impact on" the Trump/Russia investigation. Van Grack also told Judge Sullivan that he had provided all Brady evidence – and all “information that could reasonably be construed as favorable and material to sentencing.” Van Grack to Judge Sullivan: The govt has provided all Brady Evidence. The government has not "suppressed evidence." [All this turned out to be false.]

Based on these misrepresentations -Judge Sullivan concluded that the Flynn interview was based on Trump/Russia (it wasn't) and thus his "lies" were material. New evidence shows Sullivan's conclusion was incorrect.

Judge Sullivan also wrongly found – based on promises from Van Grack – that the govt had already provided Flynn with favorable/material info on "pre-interview discussions" This was not the case - as discovered when the govt provided the Strzok messages and Priestap notes. Van Grack influences Sullivan into another faulty conclusion.

Sullivan: “Mr. Flynn’s false statements to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian Ambassador were relevant to the FBI’s [Russian interference] inquiry.” Again, evidence now shows this to be false – it was a Logan Act inquiry led by FBI leadership.

Sullivan: The evidence proves that this was not a perjury trap. New evidence: FBI discussions of a perjury trap. AG Barr explains in greater detail: They kept the Flynn investigation open "for the express purpose of trying to catch, lay a perjury trap for General Flynn."


twitter.com

Tom
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext