I was watching Fox News that whole morning, while he entered the building. When they were waiting for him to come back out after pleading guilty, the Fox News reporter, about 40-years old, blonde hair female, reported that Flynn named Trump as the one who gave the order. After she said that, she shrugged her shoulders, shook her head from side to side without saying anything, then finally said "this isn't good for the President." LOL. They were at a loss for words. They had no idea how to spin it at that point. I'm sure some emergency meetings were called, lol.
As I mentioned a moment ago, watching Lou Dobbs last night trying in very obvious desperation to spin this recent development was comical as hell. Between Flynn being an Obama hold over to Hillary's email scandal to the cost of this Mueller investigation being WAY out hand and with no oversight, etc... I watched his fake outrage with a bit of glee as he's so bad at acting the part even a ten year old can see through it.
...president-elect Trump asked Flynn to reach out to Russia regarding “working jointly against ISIS” and to “repair relations.”
So that rules out "Russian meddling", which you already proved was Obama's fault and also didn't occur anyway. Fine. The whole "meddling" thing is pretty dumb.
If it was just business-as-usual diplomatic talks, why would Flynn put his neck on the block and lie to the FBI? Why didn't he just say "Oh of course, that, no worries, it was ISIS matters and to repair relations" and end of story?
I'm sure this is another nothing burger...... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/us/russia-mcfarland-flynn-trump-emails.html
Any of you trump sucking clowns want fries with it?
[Edited on 12/2/2017 by PhotoRon286]
Apparently, it's worth it to prove a point to liberals.
Hold on there smart guy, what was illegal about Flynn's phone call with the Russians? If you are so darn smart please tell us which laws that broke?
I'll go with the one he pleaded guilty to today.
Haha still waiting for the rebuttal from the wise and knowledgeable Trumpkins of the WP.
President Trump asked Gen. Flynn to reach out to The Russians AFTER the election during the transition just like every administration since the 1950s has done.
There has been no assertion by the Mueller investigation otherwise.
The Putin/Trump conspiracy for steal the election is a far-left lie.
President Trump asked Gen. Flynn to reach out to The Russians AFTER the election during the transition just like every administration since the 1950s has done.
So that rules out "Russian meddling", which you already proved was Obama's fault and also didn't occur anyway. Fine. The whole "meddling" thing is pretty dumb.
If it was just business-as-usual diplomatic talks, why would Flynn put his neck on the block and lie to the FBI? Why didn't he just say "Oh of course, that, no worries, it was ISIS matters and to repair relations" and end of story?
President Trump asked Gen. Flynn to reach out to The Russians AFTER the election during the transition just like every administration since the 1950s has done.
There has been no assertion by the Mueller investigation otherwise.The Putin/Trump conspiracy for steal the election is a far-left lie.
Agreed. The treason occurred AFTER the election and DURING the administration, so what’s the big deal? Muleman is right - there’s nothing wrong with illegally meeting with foreign countries if it happens DURING the administration. Duh!!
President Trump asked Gen. Flynn to reach out to The Russians AFTER the election during the transition just like every administration since the 1950s has done.
There has been no assertion by the Mueller investigation otherwise.The Putin/Trump conspiracy for steal the election is a far-left lie.
Every incoming administration since the 1950s didn't ask another country to vote at the UN in a particular manner in direct opposition to the policy of the current sitting administration. Trump may have been the president elect, but he was not president yet. The country can only have one president at a time, and when ANYBODY makes a deal with another country in opposition to the current US policy, that is TREASON.
This is what happens when you have a President who doesn't understand the law. His ego was so quick to boast that he fired Flynn because of the Russians (only after Flynn brokered a deal of course) that he didn't understand the obstruction that implicates (it's no coincidence a lawyer is attempting to cover for his tweet). Breaking in to the Watergate wasn't what brought Nixon down (he may not have known about Liddy's actions until after the fact) it was deceit of the cover up. Clinton didn't incur impeachment proceeding because of his "relations", it was because he lied under oath attempting to cover it up.
I'm not saying this will bring Trump down, but the deceit is the bigger legal issue for him. Everyone knows Trump lies to boost his ego, but obstructing an investigation is pretty egregious.
Hold on there smart guy, what was illegal about Flynn's phone call with the Russians? If you are so darn smart please tell us which laws that broke?
I'll go with the one he pleaded guilty to today.
Haha still waiting for the rebuttal from the wise and knowledgeable Trumpkins of the WP.
Wrong again Brainiac, still waiting for someone to explain what was illegal about the phone call. I'll tell you there was NOTHING illegal about the phone call. His crime was lying about it.
And with all due respect to my friends here the Logan Act, while amusing, is nothing more than the ticket the previous administration used to get this investigation started. No one has EVER been convicted under the Logan Act. Hillary will get elected to a third term before that happens.
Violation of The Logan Act is hard to prove. Nixon's violation of it in 1968 didn't really come to light until decades later. To paraphrase Willi Cicci, the family has a lot of buffers.
Hold on there smart guy, what was illegal about Flynn's phone call with the Russians? If you are so darn smart please tell us which laws that broke?
I'll go with the one he pleaded guilty to today.
Haha still waiting for the rebuttal from the wise and knowledgeable Trumpkins of the WP.
Wrong again Brainiac, still waiting for someone to explain what was illegal about the phone call. I'll tell you there was NOTHING illegal about the phone call. His crime was lying about it.
And with all due respect to my friends here the Logan Act, while amusing, is nothing more than the ticket the previous administration used to get this investigation started. No one has EVER been convicted under the Logan Act. Hillary will get elected to a third term before that happens.
Using all caps doesn’t make your opinions fact, but if your goal is to look childish, well played sir. And once again, why commit perjury if the phone call was on the up and up and not violating any ethical standards?
[Edited on 12/4/2017 by lukester420]
Hold on there smart guy, what was illegal about Flynn's phone call with the Russians? If you are so darn smart please tell us which laws that broke?
I'll go with the one he pleaded guilty to today.
Haha still waiting for the rebuttal from the wise and knowledgeable Trumpkins of the WP.
Wrong again Brainiac, still waiting for someone to explain what was illegal about the phone call. I'll tell you there was NOTHING illegal about the phone call. His crime was lying about it.
And with all due respect to my friends here the Logan Act, while amusing, is nothing more than the ticket the previous administration used to get this investigation started. No one has EVER been convicted under the Logan Act. Hillary will get elected to a third term before that happens.
Using all caps doesn’t make your opinions fact, but if your goal is to look childish, well played sir. And once again, why commit perjury if the phone call was on the up and up and not violating any ethical standards?
[Edited on 12/4/2017 by lukester420]
Good question but lying to the FBI about the phone call does not make the phone call illegal. It just makes you susceptible to being charged for lying to the FBI.
Judge presiding over Michael Flynn criminal case is recused: court
(Reuters) - The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia judge presiding over the criminal case for President Donald Trump’s former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has been recused from handling the case, a court spokeswoman said on Thursday.
According to a court filing, U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, who presided over a Dec. 1 hearing where Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about his contacts with Russia, will no longer handle the case.
Court spokeswoman Lisa Klem did not say why Contreras was recused, and added that the case was randomly reassigned.
Reuters could not immediately learn the reason for the recusal, or reach Contreras.
An attorney for Flynn declined to comment.
Now, Flynn’s sentencing will be overseen by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan. Sullivan was appointed by former Democratic President Bill Clinton.
Flynn was the first member of Trump’s administration to plead guilty to a crime uncovered by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s wide-ranging probe into Russian attempts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election and potential collusion by Trump aides. Russia has denied meddling in the election and Trump has dismissed any suggestion of collusion.
Flynn has agreed to cooperate with Mueller’s ongoing investigation.
A sentencing date has not yet been set, but the parties are due to return to court on February 1 for a status report hearing.
Contreras was appointed to the bench in 2012 by former Democratic President Barack Obama.
He was also appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in May 2016 for a term lasting through 2023.
That court issues warrants that allow Justice Department officials to wiretap individuals, a process that has been thrown into the spotlight amid the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election.
The most recent controversy related to FISA warrants involves Peter Strzok, a senior FBI agent who was removed from the Russia investigation for exchanging text messages with a colleague that expressed anti-Trump views.
At a hearing on Thursday at the House Judiciary Committee, Republican lawmaker Jim Jordan pressed FBI Director Christopher Wray on whether a former British spy’s dossier of allegations of Russian financial and personal links to Trump’s campaign and associates was used by Strzok to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil Trump’s transition team.
Judge Sullivan previously served on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals under appointments by Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, respectively.
So what?
So what?
You don't find it curious that the judge presiding over the Gen. Flynn case was abruptly pulled off the case by the court?
So what?
You don't find it curious that the judge presiding over the Gen. Flynn case was abruptly pulled off the case by the court?
Judges are recused often for amny reasons, but it comes down to assuring an impartial judge. Example: A judge has an investment in a company that has an employee involved in the case.
So what?
You don't find it curious that the judge presiding over the Gen. Flynn case was abruptly pulled off the case by the court?
Judges are recused often for amny reasons, but it comes down to assuring an impartial judge. Example: A judge has an investment in a company that has an employee involved in the case.
Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation. Does that someone mean he is guilty of something?
Besides, Flynn has already pleaded guilty. The judge isn't going to change that. Anyway you look at it, Flynn is a traitor to the US, who was appointed by Trump despite being warned.
So what?
You don't find it curious that the judge presiding over the Gen. Flynn case was abruptly pulled off the case by the court?
Judges are recused often for amny reasons, but it comes down to assuring an impartial judge. Example: A judge has an investment in a company that has an employee involved in the case.
No reason was given and in a high profile case that always brings suspicion.
Add in the fact that the pulled judge was an Obama appointee and the stench grows.
Gen. Flynn now has two major reasons to appeal and rulings.
Yep and the new judge Sullivan was a Clinton appointee. Whoopdedoo.
So what?
You don't find it curious that the judge presiding over the Gen. Flynn case was abruptly pulled off the case by the court?
Judges are recused often for amny reasons, but it comes down to assuring an impartial judge. Example: A judge has an investment in a company that has an employee involved in the case.
No reason was given and in a high profile case that always brings suspicion.
Add in the fact that the pulled judge was an Obama appointee and the stench grows.
Gen. Flynn now has two major reasons to appeal and rulings.
Yeah, a better choice would be Michael Spencer Peterson. You know, Trump's nominee who couldn't answer basic first year law school questions.
So what?
You don't find it curious that the judge presiding over the Gen. Flynn case was abruptly pulled off the case by the court?
Judges are recused often for amny reasons, but it comes down to assuring an impartial judge. Example: A judge has an investment in a company that has an employee involved in the case.
No reason was given and in a high profile case that always brings suspicion.
Add in the fact that the pulled judge was an Obama appointee and the stench grows.
Gen. Flynn now has two major reasons to appeal and rulings.Yeah, a better choice would be Michael Spencer Peterson. You know, Trump's nominee who couldn't answer basic first year law school questions.
Which of course has nothing to do with the judge in the Gen. Flynn case being kicked to the curb.
Try again junior.
So what?
You don't find it curious that the judge presiding over the Gen. Flynn case was abruptly pulled off the case by the court?
Judges are recused often for amny reasons, but it comes down to assuring an impartial judge. Example: A judge has an investment in a company that has an employee involved in the case.
No reason was given and in a high profile case that always brings suspicion.
Add in the fact that the pulled judge was an Obama appointee and the stench grows.
Gen. Flynn now has two major reasons to appeal and rulings.Yeah, a better choice would be Michael Spencer Peterson. You know, Trump's nominee who couldn't answer basic first year law school questions.
Which of course has nothing to do with the judge in the Gen. Flynn case being kicked to the curb.
Try again junior.
So the judge recused himself. The trial will still go on. Nothing burger.
