Phil Clarke, thank you. You will have read the article and noted:

'I can’t hide my disgust, my disdain’: judge lambasts Michael Flynn. In an unexpected moment, Judge Emmet Sullivan subjected Trump’s former national security adviser to a stinging rebuke

"When a stone-faced Michael Flynn entered courtroom 24 in the US district court in Washington DC on Tuesday, it looked like a cozy deal arranged with prosecutors – no jail time in exchange for a guilty plea and full cooperation – was already sealed.
But no one was counting on Judge Emmet Sullivan."

" Sullivan also quickly clamped down on any suggestion that Flynn’s admitted crime – lying to federal investigators – had occurred in part because the retired general had been lulled into thinking his interview with the FBI was simply a chat, and not part of a criminal investigation."

From the transcript, the Court gave Flynn every possible chance, once can see how him trying to change his story now might make them a bit cross…either he committed the offence he pled guilty to, an offence punishable by up to 5 years jail time and a $250,000 fine, or else he lied about his guilt - and the courts really hate being lied to. I don't see a third option.

THE COURT: Do you wish to challenge the circumstances on which you were interviewed by the FBI?
THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand that by maintaining your guilty plea and continuing with sentencing, you will give up your right forever to challenge the circumstances under which you were interviewed?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you have any concerns that you entered your guilty plea before you or your attorneys were able to review information that could have been helpful to your defense?
THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: At the time of your January 24th, 2017 interview with the FBI, were you not aware that lying to FBI investigators was a federal crime?
THE DEFENDANT: I was not -- I was aware.
THE COURT: You were aware?
THE DEFENDANT: Yeah.
THE COURT:You pled guilty before certain, quote, revelations that certain FBI officials involved in the January the 24th interview were themselves being investigated for misconduct. Do you seek an opportunity to withdraw your plea in light of those revelations?
THE DEFENDANT: I do not, Your Honor.

[…]

THE COURT: Do you feel that you were competent and capable of entering into a guilty plea when you pled guilty on December 1st, 2017?
THE DEFENDANT: I do, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand the nature of the charges against you and the consequences of pleading guilty?
THE DEFENDANT: I do understand, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And that was covered extensively by Judge Contreras. I've read the transcript. Are you continuing to accept responsibility for your false statements?
THE DEFENDANT: I am, Your Honor.

[…]

THE COURT: All right. Do you contend that Mr. Flynn is entitled to any additional information that has not been provided to you?
MR. KELNER: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you wish to seek any additional information before moving forward to sentencing?
MR. KELNER: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you believe the FBI had a legal obligation to warn Mr. Flynn that lying to the FBI was a federal crime?
MR. KELNER: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is it your contention that Mr. Flynn was entrapped by the FBI?
MR. KELNER: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you believe Mr. Flynn's rights were violated by the fact that he did not have a lawyer present for the interview?
THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.
[…]

Mr. Flynn, anything else you want to discuss with me about your plea of guilty? This is not a trick. I'm not trying to trick you. If you want some time to withdraw your plea or try to withdraw your plea, I'll give you that time. If you want to proceed because you are guilty of this offense, I will finally accept your plea.
THE DEFENDANT: I would like to proceed, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Because you are guilty of this offense?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. I am satisfied that Mr. Flynn entered his guilty plea while competent and capable. He understood at that time the nature of the charges against him and the consequences of pleading guilty. Having carefully read all the materials provided to the Court in this case, including those materials reviewed under seal and in-camera, I conclude that there was and remains to be a factual basis for Mr. Flynn's plea
of guilty. As such, there's no reason to reject his guilty plea and I'll, therefore, move on to the sentencing phase….

Heck, maybe they waterboarded him.

"Heck, maybe they waterboarded him.

May 18, 2020 at 3:21 PM Phil Clarke"

If the Judge has been abused by Democrats, he should report it.

In the meantime, if he was making statements based on faked up information supplied to him in private, and not within the Court, his judgement may become the subject of further scrutiny, in other Cases too.

Phil Clarke, this is one of Judge Sullivan’s own precedents from 2009.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/07/ted.stevens/index.html

"District Judge Emmet Sullivan also appointed an independent, nongovernment attorney, Henry Schuelke III, to investigate possible misconduct by the government lawyers who prosecuted the 85-year-old former senator from Alaska.

"In nearly 25 years on the bench, I've never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I've seen in this case," Sullivan said."

" Paul O'Brien, one of the new government attorneys assigned to the case, made no attempt to the justify the conduct of the previous prosecution team. "We deeply regret this occurred," he said. "We apologize to the court."

In issuing his ruling, Sullivan noted the Justice Department's investigation into potential misconduct by government prosecutors had gone on for six months with no result.

"The silence is deafening," Sullivan said.

The judge previously had excoriated prosecutors during the trial and held the prosecution in contempt at one point."

More on FBI Entrapment and Blackmail.

https://youtu.be/yvPBftdaloE

How many Democrats and Climate Scientists can you fit in a State Pen?

Schiff is a fan of Climate Science and lying

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/14/trump-russia-investigation-evidence-collusion-obstruction-adam-schiff

"Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said Wednesday that the panel had seen an “abundance” of evidence of collusion with Russia and obstruction by Donald Trump’s campaign and administration that is not yet public." *He lied*

"Speaking to reporters in Washington, Schiff said a lot of information was already in the public domain that pointed to extensive contacts between the Trump campaign team and the Kremlin, and later efforts by the Trump entourage to cover up those contacts. But Schiff said there was much more to come out." *He lied*

" He said: “There is certainly an abundance of non-public information that we’ve gathered in the investigation. And I think some of that non-public evidence is evidence on the issue of collusion and some … on the issue of obstruction.”." *He lied*

Lies compiled on this occasion by Julian Borger for The Guardian

Julian Borger being used to promote Schiff lies in Ireland

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/trump-russia-inquiry-falters-after-chairman-s-midnight-run-1.3025434

The liars keep cropping up.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/18/trump-collusion-russia-mueller-barr
"Of course Trump's campaign colluded with Russia. But unfortunately that's not a crime"
Richard Wolffe

"Richard Wolffe is a Guardian US columnist"
He probably believes Mann's Hockey Stick too.

Sir Kim Darroch may have been another victim of malicious lies generated by corrupted agents.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48937120
"In the emails leaked to the Mail on Sunday, Sir Kim said: "We don't really believe this administration is going to become substantially more normal; less dysfunctional; less unpredictable; less faction-riven; less diplomatically clumsy and inept."

The emails, dating from 2017, said rumours of "infighting and chaos" in the White House were mostly true.

The government has opened an internal inquiry into the publication of the memos and police have been urged to open a criminal investigation."

Against FDA advice, the president is on drugs.

Phil Clarke, your link to Lawfare:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-redux-what-those-fbi-documents-really-show

makes reference to the work of:
"Adam Goldman
Adam Goldman reports on the F.B.I. for The New York Times and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for national reporting on Russia’s meddling in the presidential election."

How does a journalist win a Pulitzer Prize for being wrong? Lawfare really ought to check their references, and Adam Goldsmith's references weren't from FBI sources were they?

Adam Goldman was part of:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize_for_National_Reporting

2018: Staffs of The New York Times and The Washington Post, "for deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration."

As they were wrong, and the information was" deeply sourced" and followed "relentlessly reported coverage", then it was corruption and propaganda instilled into the Nation's understanding.

Are Pulitzers dished out for political reasons like Climate Science awards?

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/05/19/zeroing-in-grassley-and-johnson-ask-dni-grenell-for-declassified-unmasking-list-in-2017-timing-relates-to-nsa-database-exploits/

US justice;

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/05/19/flynn-judge-grants-amicus-request-for-oral-arguments-defense-attorney-sidney-powell-reacts/

President Biden:

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/phone-calls-between-quid-pro-joe-biden-and-ukraines-poroshenko-leak-explicitly-details

Rice?

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/05/19/susan-rice-memo-declassified-and-released-confirms-discussion-about-flynn-as-subject-of-fbi-investigation/

Flynn:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/05/19/flynn-defense-files-request-for-appellate-court-intervention/

do some work:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/declassified-email-reveals-obama-comey-conversation-about-flynn_3357016.html

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/05/19/flynn-defense-files-request-for-appellate-court-intervention/

Phil Clarke, ignorant, low information, stupid.

Turd.

I suspect we are witnessing the Irritating Phil Clarke Collective.
May 20, 2020 at 7:29 AM tomo

The same levels of honesty, integrity and reliability as Adam Schiff, and no evidence to prove his claims.

Just me.

Charly, when insulting someone's intelligence, try not to post the same useless link twice ;-)

Democrat/Climate Science/Chinese Communist collusion now seems more likely than anything Schiff claimed.

Rice is a connection.

No wonder Democrats were so unhappy about Trump confronting North Korea.

Reality Bites.

Reality:

"From Undercover Huber:
Flynn’s original FD-302 is so important, the Special Counsel had to leak a prosecution threat against Flynn’s son just to avoid turning it over to his original lawyers Covington

THREAD
Wed Nov 1, 2017: Flynn’s original lawyers Covington ask for a copy of his FD-302: “We don’t think he has committed a felony offense”

Fri Nov 3, 2017: Covington ask for the FD-302 AGAIN: “We don’t think there’s a FARA violation. We don’t think he made false statements”

The Special Counsel refused to turn over Flynn’s original FD-302 both those times. Instead, they schedule a follow up conference call with Covington for the following week and subtly threaten Covington that they might be a fact witness against Flynn for preparing his FARA filings

Flynn hasnt pled guilty to anything at this point. His lawyers are adamant he’s *innocent*. And the SCO won’t even turn over the edited FD-302, never mind the original one, for them to look at
The SCO claimed they couldn’t turn over the FD-302 because it would “reveal” parts of their overall Russia interference investigation. But even the edited version of the Jan 24, 2017 interview shows Flynn wasn’t asked about Russian interference or anything remotely like Collusion.

And we now know that the FBI itself wanted to close its Crossfire Razor investigation of Flynn for potential links to Russian interference long before that Jan 24, 2017 interview
And that investigation of Flynn should never have been opened in the first place, given its laughably weak predicate lacking any articulable factual basis for believing he could have been colluding or conspiring with Russia
We also now know that the Dec 29 Flynn-Kislyak call changed nothing with regards to any Collusion. And the FBI never opened a Logan Act criminal probe (which would also have been ridiculous)
And in the Mueller report, the SCO itself admits Flynn merely asked Russia not to “escalate” in response to Obama’s sanctions or only rrespond “reciprocally”. There’s nothing wrong with that. What should he have said, go ahead nuclear armed Russia, please escalate?

So the SCO wouldn’t be “revealing” anything legitimate about its Russian interference investigation by turning over Flynn’s FD-302 - any of them, even the heavily edited versions filed weeks after the interview
Of course, what turning over the 302 would have really revealed is likely a document stating that the agents didn’t believe Flynn was lying, and metadata proving that it went through weeks of editing and polishing in violation of FBI policies."

From another thread....

"Publishing personal communications without permission is of course immoral.

May 20, 2020 at 1:12 PM Phil Clarke"

Phil Clarke acknowledges that those acting under Obama's "Authority" were immoral.
This is considered worthy of a Nobel or Pulitzer Prize in Politicised Climate Science and achieves 97% Peer Approval.

May 20, 2020 at 2:07 PM Charly
Barr has contradicted Trump about prison sentences for Obama and Biden.
Barr has not said anything about anyone else.

Trump previously said that HE did not wish to put St Hillary in prison.

Barr has maintained and demonstrated his independence and that of US Law from President Trump, even though Democrats and their Agents assumed they could use US Law against President Trump, based on the authority of President Obama.

The offence was lying to the FBI. An offence he pled guilty to.

THE COURT: Mr. Flynn, anything else you want to discuss with me about
your plea of guilty? This is not a trick. I'm not trying to
trick you. If you want some time to withdraw your plea or try to
withdraw your plea, I'll give you that time. If you want to
proceed because you are guilty of this offense, I will finally
accept your plea.
THE DEFENDANT: I would like to proceed, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Because you are guilty of this
offense?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

Was he perjuring himself?

Yes, after being bankrupted, and his son threatened. Dirty cops, dirty judiciary. Ongoing.

I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and because I am, in fact, guilty of the crime charged. No threats have been made to me nor am I under the influence of anything that could impede my ability to understand this Statement of the Offense fully. I have read every word of this Statement of the Offense, or have had it read to me.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, after consulting with my attorneys, I agree and stipulate to this Statement of the Offense, and declare under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct

I wouldn't shed any tears, he'll be allowed to go free by the DOJ, will become a conservative hero and will probably be given his own show on Fox ;-)

I wouldn't shed any tears, he'll be allowed to go free by the DOJ, will become a conservative hero and will probably be given his own show on Fox ;-)

May 20, 2020 at 5:02 PM Phil Clarke

General Flynn would be an excellent choice to oversee the draining of the DOJ FBI swamp, and can be trusted to pursue those who are guilty of actual crimes.

Should Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Rice, Strzok etc wish to consider a plea bargain, it should not be up to Trump to decide whether prison sentences are justifiable for those found guilty in a Court as opposed to The White House.