“CoronaVirus is overblown press-created hysteria”

[concha]

1 minute ago, The Guru said:

Nothing I'm saying here is dumb because if it was I bet you and your brilliant team of right-wing loons would be able to argue it.

But you never can.

 

Yeah, Andy.

You've been pretty clearly exposed.

You know it.

And anyone reading this too.

Even your pouch jockey pal Dumbass66 had to pivot to Texas.

Even HE knows you were beaten like a $2 hooker.

🤣

 

[The Guru]

1 minute ago, concha said:

I believe you tried accusing me of a lie yesterday that was no such thing.

Please jog my memory.

You definitely contradicted yourself which could be considered a lie in some contexts.

And given your track record wouldn't be a stretch.

[concha]

1 minute ago, The Guru said:

I don't even have to rely on concha's oldies but goldies.

He gives us new lies and/or contradictions every day it seems.

 

You just make shit up.  🤣

 

[The Guru]

concha getting red-faced mad when his own quotes and claims are re-posted is classic.

But he's totally exposing people, man!

Yeah, himself.

[concha]

Just now, The Guru said:

Please jog my memory.

You definitely contradicted yourself which could be considered a lie in some contexts.

And given your track record wouldn't be a stretch.

 

How did I contradict myself?

Saying something was a good read and something else was an ass-whooping is contradictory?

There isn't one iota of contradiction in that.

You are a fool.  🤡

 

[concha]

Just now, The Guru said:

concha getting red-faced mad when his own quotes and claims are re-posted is classic.

But he's totally exposing people, man!

Yeah, himself.

 

Says the guy who made a stupid ASSumption about Georgia and has been revealed as a total fool.

Even his little sidekick DBP saw it.

Hilarious.

You are funny as hell.

🤣

[The Guru]

2 minutes ago, concha said:

You just make shit up.  🤣

concha on May 14 linking an article that says Flynn was objectively guilty and claiming that it was a "good read" on the subject.

On 5/14/2020 at 7:10 AM, concha said:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/ending-the-flynn-false-statement-case-was-the-right-judgment/

A good read.  And moreso given the increasing amount of evidence showing the politics behind the witch hunt.

Then, concha the next day pasting a letter that says Flynn was framed and calling it an "ass-whooping" on the subject.

Quote

OPEN MEMORANDUM
To: Barack Hussein Obama
From: Sidney Powell
www.SidneyPowell.com

Date: May 13, 2020

Re: Your Failure to Find Precedent for Flynn Dismissal

Regarding the decision of the Department of Justice to dismiss charges against General Flynn, in your recent call with your alumni, you expressed great concern: “there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.”

Here is some help—if truth and precedent represent your true concern. Your statement is entirely false. However, it does explain the damage to the Rule of Law throughout your administration.

First, General Flynn was not charged with perjury—which requires a material false statement made under oath with intent to deceive.1 A perjury prosecution would have been appropriate and the Rule of Law applied if the Justice Department prosecuted your former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for his multiple lies under oath in an investigation of a leak only he knew he caused.

McCabe lied under oath in fully recorded and transcribed interviews with the Inspector General for the DOJ. He was informed of the purpose of the interview, and he had had the benefit of counsel. He knew he was the leaker. McCabe even lied about lying. He lied to his own agents—which sent them on a “wild-goose-chase”—thereby making his lies “material” and an obstruction of justice. Yet, remarkably, Attorney General Barr declined to prosecute McCabe for these offenses.

Applying the Rule of Law, after declining McCabe’s perjury prosecution, required the Justice Department to dismiss the prosecution of General Flynn who was not warned, not under oath, had no counsel, and whose statements were not only not recorded, but were created as false by FBI agents who falsified the 302.

Second, it would seem your “wingman” Eric Holder is missing a step these days at Covington & Burling LLP. Indelibly marked in his memory (and one might think, yours) should be his Motion to Dismiss the multi-count jury verdict of guilty and the entire case against former United States Senator Ted Stevens. Within weeks of Mr. Holder becoming Attorney General, he moved to dismiss the Stevens prosecution in the interest of justice for the same reasons the Justice Department did against General Flynn—egregious misconduct by prosecutors who hid exculpatory evidence and concocted purported crimes.

As horrifying as the facts of the Stevens case were, they pale in comparison to the targeted setup, framing, and prosecution of a newly elected President’s National Security Advisor and the shocking facts that surround it. This case was an assault on the heart of liberty— our cherished system of self-government, the right of citizens to choose their President, and the hallowed peaceful transition of power.

Third, the inability of anyone in your alumni association to find “anybody who has been charged [with anything] just getting off scot-free” would be laughable were it not so pathetic.

Many of your alum feature prominently in the non-fiction legal thriller published in 2014: Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice. A national best- seller, it focusses on the egregious prosecutorial misconduct of your longest serving White House Counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler; your counter-terrorism advisor Lisa Monaco; Loretta Lynch’s DAG for the Criminal Division Leslie Caldwell; and Mueller protégé Andrew Weissmann. While they worked as federal prosecutors on the Enron Task Force—under the purported supervision of Christopher Wray—they destroyed Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs; sent four Merrill Lynch executives to prison on an indictment that criminalized an innocent business transaction while they hid the evidence that showed those defendants were innocent for six years. Both cases were reversed on appeal for their over-criminalization and misconduct. Indeed, Andersen was reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court.

Fourth, even if your many alumni don’t remember multiple cases that had to be reversed or dismissed for their own misconduct, Judge Emmet Sullivan should remember dismissing the corrupted case against Ted Stevens. Judge Sullivan is the judicial hero of Licensed to Lie. It is that case that caused Judge Sullivan to enter the strong Brady order the Mueller and D.C. career prosecutors violated repeatedly in the Flynn prosecution.

Fifth, there is precedent for guilty pleas being vacated. Your alumni Weissmann and Ruemmler are no strangers to such reversals. At least two guilty pleas they coerced by threats against defendants in Houston had to be thrown out—again for reasons like those here. The defendants “got off scot-free” because—like General Flynn—your alumni had concocted the charges and terrorized the defendants into pleading guilty to “offenses” that were not crimes. Andersen partner David Duncan even testified for the government against Andersen in its trial, but his plea had to be vacated. Enron Broadband defendant Christopher Calger had his plea vacated. There are many others across the country.

Sixth, should further edification be necessary, see Why Innocent People Plead Guilty, written in 2014 by federal Judge Jed Rakoff (a Clinton appointee). Abusive prosecutors force innocent people to plead guilty with painful frequency. The Mueller special counsel operation led by Andrew Weissmann and Weissmann “wannabes” specializes in prosecutorial terrorist tactics repulsive to everything “justice” is supposed to mean. These tactics are designed to intimidate their targets into pleading guilty—while punishing them and their families with the process itself and financial ruin.

Most important, General Flynn was honest with the FBI agents. They knew he was—and briefed that to McCabe and others three different times. At McCabe’s directions, Agent Strzok and McCabe’s “Special Counsel” Lisa Page, altered the 302 to create statements Weissmann, Mueller, Van Grack, and Zainab Ahmad could assert were false. Only the FBI agents lied—and falsified documents. The crimes are theirs alone.

Seventh, the D.C. circuit in which you reside vacated a Section 1001 case for a legal failure much less egregious than those in General Flynn’s case. United States v. Safavian, 528 F.3d 957 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Safavian sought advice from his agency’s ethics board and did not give them all the relevant info. The jury convicted him on the theory it was a 1001 violation to conceal the information from the government ethics board. The court disagreed: “As Safavian argues and as the government agrees, there must be a legal duty to disclose in order for there to be a concealment offense in violation of § 1001(a)(1), yet the government failed to identify a legal disclosure duty except by reference to vague standards of conduct for government employees.” General Flynn did not even know he was the subject of an investigation—and in truth, he was not. The only crimes here were by your alumni in the FBI, White House, intelligence community, and Justice Department.

These are just a few obvious and well-known examples to those paying any attention to criminal justice issues.

Finally, the “leaked” comments from your alumni call further evinces your obsession with destroying a distinguished veteran of the United States Army who has defended the Constitution and this country “from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” with the highest honor for thirty-three years. He and many others will continue to do so.

1As a “constitutional lawyer,” surely you recall that perjury (or false statements) also requires intent to deceive. In Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973), the Supreme Court reversed a conviction of perjury. In Bronston, the defendant’s answer was a truthful statement, but not directly responsive to the question and ultimately misled federal authorities. The Court determined: “A jury should not be permitted to engage in conjecture whether an unresponsive answer, true and complete on its face, was intended to mislead or divert the examiner; the state of mind of the witness is relevant only to the extent that it bears on whether “he does not believe [his answer] to be true.” To hold otherwise would be to inject a new and confusing element into the adversary testimonial system we know.” Id. at 359. The FBI agents who interviewed General Flynn specifically noted that his answers were true or he believed his answers to be true—completely defeating criminal intent. Furthermore, General Flynn knew and remarked they had transcripts of his conversations.

🤡

[concha]

 

It's hilarious how Andy gets beaten like a rented mule after writing utter stupidity, lies about it, and then accuses others of being liars.

Pure Comedy Gold

🤣  😂  🤣

 

[The Guru]

4 minutes ago, concha said:

How did I contradict myself?

This has only been repeated about 4 times now which just proves that you don't read and just vomit lies and stupid takes.

May 14: Flynn objectively guilty

On 5/14/2020 at 7:10 AM, concha said:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/ending-the-flynn-false-statement-case-was-the-right-judgment/

A good read.  And moreso given the increasing amount of evidence showing the politics behind the witch hunt.

May 15: Flynn framed

Quote

OPEN MEMORANDUM
To: Barack Hussein Obama
From: Sidney Powell
www.SidneyPowell.com

Date: May 13, 2020

Re: Your Failure to Find Precedent for Flynn Dismissal

Regarding the decision of the Department of Justice to dismiss charges against General Flynn, in your recent call with your alumni, you expressed great concern: “there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.”

Here is some help—if truth and precedent represent your true concern. Your statement is entirely false. However, it does explain the damage to the Rule of Law throughout your administration.

First, General Flynn was not charged with perjury—which requires a material false statement made under oath with intent to deceive.1 A perjury prosecution would have been appropriate and the Rule of Law applied if the Justice Department prosecuted your former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for his multiple lies under oath in an investigation of a leak only he knew he caused.

McCabe lied under oath in fully recorded and transcribed interviews with the Inspector General for the DOJ. He was informed of the purpose of the interview, and he had had the benefit of counsel. He knew he was the leaker. McCabe even lied about lying. He lied to his own agents—which sent them on a “wild-goose-chase”—thereby making his lies “material” and an obstruction of justice. Yet, remarkably, Attorney General Barr declined to prosecute McCabe for these offenses.

Applying the Rule of Law, after declining McCabe’s perjury prosecution, required the Justice Department to dismiss the prosecution of General Flynn who was not warned, not under oath, had no counsel, and whose statements were not only not recorded, but were created as false by FBI agents who falsified the 302.

Second, it would seem your “wingman” Eric Holder is missing a step these days at Covington & Burling LLP. Indelibly marked in his memory (and one might think, yours) should be his Motion to Dismiss the multi-count jury verdict of guilty and the entire case against former United States Senator Ted Stevens. Within weeks of Mr. Holder becoming Attorney General, he moved to dismiss the Stevens prosecution in the interest of justice for the same reasons the Justice Department did against General Flynn—egregious misconduct by prosecutors who hid exculpatory evidence and concocted purported crimes.

As horrifying as the facts of the Stevens case were, they pale in comparison to the targeted setup, framing, and prosecution of a newly elected President’s National Security Advisor and the shocking facts that surround it. This case was an assault on the heart of liberty— our cherished system of self-government, the right of citizens to choose their President, and the hallowed peaceful transition of power.

Third, the inability of anyone in your alumni association to find “anybody who has been charged [with anything] just getting off scot-free” would be laughable were it not so pathetic.

Many of your alum feature prominently in the non-fiction legal thriller published in 2014: Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice. A national best- seller, it focusses on the egregious prosecutorial misconduct of your longest serving White House Counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler; your counter-terrorism advisor Lisa Monaco; Loretta Lynch’s DAG for the Criminal Division Leslie Caldwell; and Mueller protégé Andrew Weissmann. While they worked as federal prosecutors on the Enron Task Force—under the purported supervision of Christopher Wray—they destroyed Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs; sent four Merrill Lynch executives to prison on an indictment that criminalized an innocent business transaction while they hid the evidence that showed those defendants were innocent for six years. Both cases were reversed on appeal for their over-criminalization and misconduct. Indeed, Andersen was reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court.

Fourth, even if your many alumni don’t remember multiple cases that had to be reversed or dismissed for their own misconduct, Judge Emmet Sullivan should remember dismissing the corrupted case against Ted Stevens. Judge Sullivan is the judicial hero of Licensed to Lie. It is that case that caused Judge Sullivan to enter the strong Brady order the Mueller and D.C. career prosecutors violated repeatedly in the Flynn prosecution.

Fifth, there is precedent for guilty pleas being vacated. Your alumni Weissmann and Ruemmler are no strangers to such reversals. At least two guilty pleas they coerced by threats against defendants in Houston had to be thrown out—again for reasons like those here. The defendants “got off scot-free” because—like General Flynn—your alumni had concocted the charges and terrorized the defendants into pleading guilty to “offenses” that were not crimes. Andersen partner David Duncan even testified for the government against Andersen in its trial, but his plea had to be vacated. Enron Broadband defendant Christopher Calger had his plea vacated. There are many others across the country.

Sixth, should further edification be necessary, see Why Innocent People Plead Guilty, written in 2014 by federal Judge Jed Rakoff (a Clinton appointee). Abusive prosecutors force innocent people to plead guilty with painful frequency. The Mueller special counsel operation led by Andrew Weissmann and Weissmann “wannabes” specializes in prosecutorial terrorist tactics repulsive to everything “justice” is supposed to mean. These tactics are designed to intimidate their targets into pleading guilty—while punishing them and their families with the process itself and financial ruin.

Most important, General Flynn was honest with the FBI agents. They knew he was—and briefed that to McCabe and others three different times. At McCabe’s directions, Agent Strzok and McCabe’s “Special Counsel” Lisa Page, altered the 302 to create statements Weissmann, Mueller, Van Grack, and Zainab Ahmad could assert were false. Only the FBI agents lied—and falsified documents. The crimes are theirs alone.

Seventh, the D.C. circuit in which you reside vacated a Section 1001 case for a legal failure much less egregious than those in General Flynn’s case. United States v. Safavian, 528 F.3d 957 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Safavian sought advice from his agency’s ethics board and did not give them all the relevant info. The jury convicted him on the theory it was a 1001 violation to conceal the information from the government ethics board. The court disagreed: “As Safavian argues and as the government agrees, there must be a legal duty to disclose in order for there to be a concealment offense in violation of § 1001(a)(1), yet the government failed to identify a legal disclosure duty except by reference to vague standards of conduct for government employees.” General Flynn did not even know he was the subject of an investigation—and in truth, he was not. The only crimes here were by your alumni in the FBI, White House, intelligence community, and Justice Department.

These are just a few obvious and well-known examples to those paying any attention to criminal justice issues.

Finally, the “leaked” comments from your alumni call further evinces your obsession with destroying a distinguished veteran of the United States Army who has defended the Constitution and this country “from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” with the highest honor for thirty-three years. He and many others will continue to do so.

1As a “constitutional lawyer,” surely you recall that perjury (or false statements) also requires intent to deceive. In Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973), the Supreme Court reversed a conviction of perjury. In Bronston, the defendant’s answer was a truthful statement, but not directly responsive to the question and ultimately misled federal authorities. The Court determined: “A jury should not be permitted to engage in conjecture whether an unresponsive answer, true and complete on its face, was intended to mislead or divert the examiner; the state of mind of the witness is relevant only to the extent that it bears on whether “he does not believe [his answer] to be true.” To hold otherwise would be to inject a new and confusing element into the adversary testimonial system we know.” Id. at 359. The FBI agents who interviewed General Flynn specifically noted that his answers were true or he believed his answers to be true—completely defeating criminal intent. Furthermore, General Flynn knew and remarked they had transcripts of his conversations.

 

[The Guru]

Just now, concha said:

It's hilarious how Andy gets beaten like a rented mule after writing utter stupidity, lies about it, and then accuses others of being liars.

Pure Comedy Gold

You have to tell yourself this every morning just to get out of bed but everybody here knows, even your butt buddies, that you were extremely angry after getting exposed so frequently in such a short time period.

The tenor of your posts was obvious before you took your short sabbatical.

[concha]

2 minutes ago, The Guru said:

concha on May 14 linking an article that says Flynn was objectively guilty and claiming that it was a "good read" on the subject.

Then, concha the next day pasting a letter that says Flynn was framed and calling it an "ass-whooping" on the subject.

🤡

 

And those are contradictory how?

There is a lie.... where?

You are so lacking in actual arguments that you desperately have to make up shit.

It's comical.  🤣

 

Thanks for getting my weekend of to such a jovial start.

🤣

 

[The Guru]

concha links to an article that says Flynn was guilty and then creams himself over a letter full of lies, one of which that Flynn was framed.

In other words, just a normal two days for concha.

Contradict, lie, carry water, do toady things, etc.

[The Guru]

1 minute ago, concha said:

And those are contradictory how?

You are so beaten that it's comical.

This is what concha does when he knows he can't win (mainly because of his own incompetence).

Guilty on May 14th and framed on May 15th.

concha wants to know what the contradiction is.

Good lord.

😄

[concha]

2 minutes ago, The Guru said:

This has only been repeated about 4 times now which just proves that you don't read and just vomit lies and stupid takes.

May 14: Flynn objectively guilty

May 15: Flynn framed

 

 

So the two people writing the articles may have a disagreement.

You might want to ask them.

As usual you are desperate to make up a contradiction or a lie on my partas your actual chances of making an argument amount to shit.  🤣

 

This is the guy who totally face-palnted on his take about the Covid situation in Georgia and is acting like he knows What he's talking about.

 

Keep dancing, Andy!

[The Guru]

Just now, concha said:

So the two people writing the articles may have a disagreement.

One is refusing to enforce the law. The other is straight up lying.

Both want a criminal to go free.

You endorse both of their takes.

But you don't know what the contradiction is.

💩

[The Guru]

2 minutes ago, concha said:

You might want to ask them.

You endorse contradictory claims and then your defense is to ask them.

😄

What a complete loser.

[concha]

4 minutes ago, The Guru said:

You have to tell yourself this every morning just to get out of bed but everybody here knows, even your butt buddies, that you were extremely angry after getting exposed so frequently in such a short time period.

The tenor of your posts was obvious before you took your short sabbatical.

 

Yeah, Andy. Not so much. 🤣

Unlike you i have a job and I've been working insane hours on a couple of projects.

I haven't had the time to spend on all day here for weeks after screwing over the needy people of entire state. You know, like you.

LMAO

 

[concha]

1 minute ago, The Guru said:

One is refusing to enforce the law. The other is straight up lying.

Both want a criminal to go free.

You endorse both of their takes.

But you don't know what the contradiction is.

💩

 

Does "a good read" mean endorsement? Or that it's interesting at least in parts?

Andy just makes up his take, proclaims it gospel and then starts flinging accusations of dishonesty like a monkey throws shit.

Monkeys just have more dignity and intellectual honesty than Andy does.

 

[The Guru]

Just now, concha said:

Not so much. 🤣

I love how when poeple are feeling themselves, and posting every day, they seemingly don't have a job that gets in the way.

But the moment that they start getting smashed, embarrassed and quoted into oblivion they all of the sudden have jobs, families and Afghanistan deployments.

As if none of those things exist at any other time.

I can smoke you and do other things.

And apparently better than you can when only focusing on one thing at a time.

[The Guru]

Just now, concha said:

Does "a good read" mean endorsement? Or that it's interesting at least in parts?

Linking an article from the National Review that carries water for your "side" is an endorsement, yes.

[The Guru]

1 minute ago, concha said:

Andy just makes up his take, proclaims it gospel and then starts flinging accusations of dishonesty like a monkey throws shit.

Flynn was objectively guilty and there was no evidence whatsoever of any misconduct.

Everything since has been an effort to lie and scheme Flynn out of trouble.

This can all be argued based on known facts. All you can do is lie and pretend that notes equal a framing.

[concha]

6 minutes ago, The Guru said:

I love how when poeple are feeling themselves, and posting every day, they seemingly don't have a job that gets in the way.

But the moment that they start getting smashed, embarrassed and quoted into oblivion they all of the sudden have jobs, families and Afghanistan deployments.

As if none of those things exist at any other time.

I can smoke you and do other things.

And apparently better than you can when only focusing on one thing at a time.

 

The last thing you will ever do is "smoke me". I'm praying that was not a Freudian slip.

There is no way you still have a job of any meaning, Andy.  How many days in the last, say, 6 weeks are there where you posted less than 20 times? 30? 40? How many when you don't have posts morning, afternoon and night?

It's funny that you think you ran me off.  I'm sure there's a delusional personality disorder in there somewhere. 🤡

 

[concha]

6 minutes ago, The Guru said:

Linking an article from the National Review that carries water for your "side" is an endorsement, yes.

 

Well, pack it all in, folks.

Andy decides what we actually think about things.

Cases in point?

1) The above

2) Making up a bullshit take on the Georgia Covid situation (and face-planting over it)

🤡

 

[The Guru]

2 minutes ago, concha said:

Well, pack it all in, folks.

Andy decides what we actually think about things.

No, you decided when you linked an article that defended your "side" and are now upset that you were dumb enough to contradict yourself the next day.

I'm just the messenger.

You're the dunce who did this to yourself.

[concha]

2 minutes ago, The Guru said:

No, you decided when you linked an article that defended your "side" and are now upset that you were dumb enough to contradict yourself the next day.

I'm just the messenger.

You're the dunce who did this to yourself.

 

You're the guy who makes shit up.

LMAO