Clarky

I'm not privy to anything more than you chum - but as usual you chose to selectively and with dishonestly copy and paste one side of it as your "contribution" to the discussion.

Flynn's statements to the court were drafted by lawyers who were part of a law firm where one of the bosses is that paragon of Democrat virtue Eric Holder (the contempt of Congress Obamah AG) - those lawyers didn't even bother to check the evidence and just told Flynn he had nowhere to go and had to suck it up... - here, sign this.... and sent him a bill that cost him a house.

A key piece of evidence has been withheld (the 302 form hidden since it was written up ) , a raft of procedural mistakes were made both at FBI and DoJ , exculpatory evidence withheld and last but not least clear evidence that he was set up by the FBI managers twice - and The Logan Act was used ... Flynn's defence was very deliberately mishandled.

But you'd know this and more (there is quite a bit more) if you actually bothered to look further - but as ever you don't

You've never asked yourself *why* Flynn got this much attention? - why go to so much trouble? - of course you haven't - because there's ample background copy n paste stuff made available to incurious braying fuckwits from the folk pulling this stunt.

The Logan Act of 1799.... it's like The Easter Act 1928, swearing in a public library, going into the House of Commons wearing a suit of armour and the Polish Potato Order. The intent in this matter was to crush Flynn by any means - as detailed in the FBI meeting notes - but you haven't looked at those either.

Flynn was a fool to trust Eric Holder's colleagues and and it's something of a stain on the present administration's reputation for loyalty (or lack thereof - when you're dumped by DJT - you're on your own) - that they didn't at least guide Flynn to competent counsel.

Not all the detail is in the public domain and there are some official redactions where actors can be identified by inference / elimination of those possessing statutory authority to act. As I understand it there will be more information released next week.

Somebody seriously had it in for Flynn and they connived with their minions to do him in. I really don't know why Flynn and why it was given such high priority - it will be interesting over the next few weeks to see if that actually develops into a fuller picture.

The call transcript is undisputed and the content of the conversation mundane in the context of Flynn's actual job - where's the crime?

But all this nuance is lost on Clarky.

Oh... and why did the FBI brief US Congressional oversight committee that "Flynn was in the clear"?

Mueller and Weissmann MO is all over this business - Flynn was broke and the Special Counsel Office threatened to go after Flynn's family unless he coughed a guilty plea - which they did via the media it seems rather than to the man himself.

au contraire Clarky boy.

But then you know that.

Flynn has expressed some remorse at not scoping out his predicament fully - and delegating specialist tasking to people he had been told he could trust = his delegation skills being one of the signature traits that got him promoted.... oops.

Big fee legal battles attract predators who have interests not aligned with justice and not aligned with the interests of the putative defendant / client.

A bit of mildly unrelated trivia - I have been involved with a UK High Court case (which we "won") where our lawyers turned out to have been working for both sides (a drunken partner bragged about it in front of witnesses) and while we got the tactical victory, the opposition (who are multimillion ££ clients of the solicitors involved) meddled with the case to dilute / mitigate their exposure and in one aspect colluded to hide evidence of criminal behaviour by employees of the outfit we were fighting. We paid them the cost of an average south UK 4 bed semi. (over 2 years)

Lawyers have quite a few clever, cunning and unprincipled folk in their ranks - discovering that late in the day can be traumatic....

Nice try but no banana there Clarky - although the award of a yellow fruit would be appropriate.

Flynn's lie? - the FBI told The US Congress on the record that he didn't lie - what do you make of that?

If you think Flynn wrote the plea submission to the court then you're simply adding to the already ample *evidence* that that you are a seriously low information copy 'n paste parroting troll dismally failing to understand how legal process works - or to deploy Malcolm Tucker - you might just be a shallow timewasting cunt.

Have a nice day