Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
  On 5/17/2019 at 8:12 PM, Hedge said:

 

Nothing new to see here. Someone on their staff probably just finished reading some of Gpap's book.

 

Edit: That's not a dig at you, Foxx. Just my personal gripe with the "DEVELOPING" opening.

Expand  

sure, no worries. for folks like me who didn't read the book, excerpts like these are appreciated. 

 

note: though not posting much of late (meatspace has gone crazy with the workload), i still do read here a lot daily. and i do concur with those who say something doesn't appear to be on the up and up with GPap. though it is still interesting to throw it into the pot and add it to the stew of all the other machinations that are going/have been going on. 

Edited by Foxx
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
  On 5/17/2019 at 8:56 PM, Foxx said:

sure, no worries. for folks like me who didn't read the book, excepts like these are appreciated. 

 

Expand  

 

For sure. I know I need refreshers for what I have forgotten or mis-remembered with all the different threads being pulled (I knew I should have taken notes from the start!), so I will gladly even re-read things. I'm just tired of the "look at me" media.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
  On 5/24/2019 at 11:56 PM, Foxx said:
Expand  

 

So, obstruction really was the greater sin.  <_<

 

This info should help bring TDS sufferers towards an abatement.  But it won't.  CNN will spin this as "proof" obstruction was the REAL crime "they" were investigating (regardless of what was being obstructed - SHUT UP there was obstruction.)

 

Going to get uglier before it gets better.

Edited by Taro T
  • Like (+1) 5
Posted

Not sure this will work. Attorney-client privilege, in the context of corporate counsel, belongs to the company, not to the individual officers/directors/employees. If the "company" has waived privilege, through Flynn acting with authority to waive the privilege on behalf of the corporation, it likely doesn't matter if this guy agreed or not.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
  On 6/5/2019 at 3:43 PM, Buffalo_Gal said:


WTH is the DOJ still pulling? 

Expand  

 

I am operating on the premise of harm to ongoing investigations -- but I really don't know. The Flynn case has always seemed to be tied to the big reveal (so to speak), in part because Flynn has been cooperating for so long with multiple other investigations (the FARA Turkey stuff which we know about, then about 5 other investigations which remain classified). 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
  On 6/5/2019 at 3:37 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Expand  

 

Judge got this right. The DOJ lawyers should be ***** ashamed and embarrassed for filing a motion to try to prevent the Defendant from presenting a meritorious defense.

  • Like (+1) 4
Posted

So, after telling Flynn he wouldn't need an attorney present, they use parts of the interview to get a warrant?

 

Doesn't that automatically bring into question any charges against Flynn?

  • Like (+1) 3
×
×
  • Create New...