Soooo, apparently only 16 of those 39 people actually made a request, the rest "could have received that information"? That makes little sense to me but maybe it will be made more clear later. How they know that only 16 people made the request but they can't say who the 16 are is another puzzle I don't quite understand.
Who the hell are all these people making this request, asking? Who is the pubah that says Michael Flynn is the guy? Sounds to me like it has to be somebody in charge at the NSA that was listening to that phone call. Now apparently, that is perfectly legal if your name is on a list of persons who can legally have that information. I guess that's were the 39 come in.
Apparently Christopher Wray has had this information for over 3 years. he knows that Samantha Power has testified that even though her name was on the request, 7 times apparently, she says she made no such request. Has Wray asked any of these people under oath if they were the one who told the Washington Post it was Flynn on that call? If not, why not? No interest in solving a crime that will get you 10 years in prison for disseminating classified information and Wrey isn't interested? Why the hell not?
And what do the Democrats think about this news? "It's all a distraction from the actual crimes committed by Trump". Sooooo, you're interested in Trump's crimes but not the crimes of persons in the Obama administration? Is that what you are saying? A crime that will get you 10 years in prison is a "distraction"?
I'm trying to imagine who these people are that Judge Sullivan is asking for their opinion.
Friend of the court: Your Honor, if it pleases the court, there is no precedent for somebody admitting to lying to the FBI getting off scot-free".
Judge Sullivan "what about President Obama pardoning General Cartwright for lying to the FBI before spending even a day in jail, isn't that getting off scot-free"?
Friend of the Court, "with all due respect your Honor, bringing "whataboutism" into the discussion we don't feel would be productive". "We feel that AG Barr has violated "institutional norms" and has undermined the rule of law in dropping charges against General Flynn".
Judge Sullivan, "did James Comey, Director of the FBI violate "institutional norms" when he sent those FBI agents into the White House with out going through White House council"?
Friend of the court, "well your Honor, again with all due respect, we don't think "whataboutism" advances the cause of our petition".
Judge Sullivan "what is your purpose here today"?
Friend of the court, "to make sure that Russian loving traitor, lying bastard that served his country honorably for 33 years doesn't go free and be free to speak his mind knowing double jeopardy applies".
Judge Sullivan, "thank you, I'll take all that relevant, pertinent information into consideration when I decide if I will sentence General Flynn to jail even though the Department of Justice has not only dropped the case but admitted that they should never have brought the case in the first place considering that there was no crime committed by General Flynn and that he never actually lied about not speaking to the Russian Amb. As a matter of fact General Flynn said he didn't remember that specific conversation which could be seen in the original 302 that was mysteriously lost which as you know, can not be assumed to be an admission of guilt since Hillary used that same method to avoid incriminating herself with false statements"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...il-server.html
Hillary Clinton used variations of 'I don't recall' 21 out of 25 times when answering questions about private email server in court filing
Lots of smoke, no fire YET
