You base that opinion on what?
facts as I have observed them .
Have you stated any facts? I can see that you have stated a few opinions and maybe a couple of things you attribute as facts but arenât
The facts I refer to are in the public domain. I cant really help you learn to Google. You know the facts though. And if we laid them out here, you© would say âSullivan is in the rightâ because as fewer and fewer Trump 2016 Campaign associates are found guilty of crimes, the more and more it becomes irrefutable that there was a coup against the President.
And you© and Don Lemon canât stand for that 
1 Like
Just so we are clear. You are claiming that there was an attempted coup as a fact.
It is my opinion, based on the facts, that there was and continues to be a coup attempt against the POTUS.
1 Like
so did the appellate court.
DoJ Admits there was missing Brady material, there is no controversy for the judge to rule on. Further, Sullivan ruled on that BEFORE the exculpatory material came out.
The appellate court did not rule on Brady material.
You can find Judge Raoâs opinion here to confirm.
Where does the DOJ admit that there was exculpatory evidence whitheld, or Brady material, for that matter? Are you referring to the filing of the writ of mandamus? The DOJ didnât file a writ, that was filed by Powell.
The DoJ did file with the appellate in support of the writ.
They have admitted exculpatory evidence was with held and then proven it by releasing it.
What exactly do you think theyâve been turning over? Library receipts?
My point is that you are making statements that you believe to be fact but they arenât backed by the documents.
The DOJ has not stated in their motion to dismiss nor their brief filed in the writ of mandamus that exculpatory information was with held.
I am making statements that are facts. Releasing the withheld Brady materials (as they still are doing even now) is an admission that they were held in the first place. Powell accuses them of it in her filings, and they do not refute it. Legally, as far as courts are concerned, it is an uncontested fact.
Powell has made accusations thatâs true but the DOJ has not made those accusations.
The Brady material you point to does not appear to be exculpatory. Are you referring to the FBI hand written notes? How did that force Flynn to lie? He did that all on his own.
where did they deny it?
its a court, once the accusation is made if left uncontested it is considered true.
They are releasing new exculpatory evidence often, evidence that was with held in violation of Brady rules. If they didnât violate Brady, theyâd have nothing to release.
But you go ahead and let that TDS overcome all logic and reason.
The doctored 302? Nope, not buying it. The DoJ admits there was no wrongdoing on any call and no reason to investigate. (well, none except that apparently Joe Biden wanted too) It doesnât get more exculpatory than that. In order for any âlieâ told to the FBI to be illegal, it must be material. Nothing said in those circumstances can be material to anything.
The accusations made by Powell have not been contested because there has been no response to the accusations, yet. But your claim that uncontested accusations are true is telling.
Much of the information that has recently been released is information from Covington that wasnât supplied to Powell. That conflates the issue. Can you point to anything that has been released that is exculpatory? That is the Brady rule, it is exculpatory evidence.
The DOJ has also argued that there was reason to investigate and they also argued the materiality of the case. Judge Sullivan also ruled on the materiality of the case. In the motion to dismiss, by the DOJ, they argue against their own previous arguments with no explanation of why they do this. Shouldnât they have to ask the court to strike their earlier arguments on these two issues? Itâs not like those documents, motions and briefs donât exist.
your definition of exculpatory is a bit narrow I think. The DoJ admitting that their was no predicate for questioning Flynn in the first place renders anything he told them immaterial. That is exculpatory, because if what he told them is not material, then no crime was committed.
And no, the bulk of the information is from the FBI. Materials that were being with held that the defense never saw. Like the fact that the FBI shut down the investigation because there was no evidence of any wrongdoing at all, only to have Strojk reopen it before the paper work went through and Comey (at the behest of Biden) allow him (against policy) to question Flynn on a matter the FBI had already determined was not unlawful.
The fact that the DoJ has determined no law was broken IS exculpatory.
They argued that there was a predicate to interview Flynn and the Judge issued an opinion on that. They then filed a motion to dismiss arguing against their own position with no reason as to why. They should, at the very least, have to explain this position.
Before the case was closed, Flynn lied to Pence and Spicer about his conversations with Kislyak. Flynn was caught in a lie to VP and Spicer, who then repeated the lie. The idea that there was already an open investigation simply meant that they didnât need to open a new investigation.
The DOJ has never made this statement. They have said that it would not serve public interest to prosecute, in the motion to dismiss. Which also contradicts their previously filed motions and briefs. But I donât know of any statement that DOJ has made clearing Flynn of crimes. When did they say Flynn did not break the law?
1 Like
