Michael Flynn was set up

Any time you use the term "asinine" in connection with Philly boy, you're pretty much over the target. 

But strike that visual.

It's amazing to watch you guys launch into character assassination whenever things don't quite go your way. Truly childlike. Carry on.

Do us all a favor and read United States of America v. Fokker Services B.V. 818 F.3d 733 (2016)

Edit: for the sake of being less ambiguous, see below:


Correspondingly, “judicial authority is ... at its most limited” when reviewing the Executive's exercise of discretion over charging determinations. Pierce, 786 F.2d at 1201; see ICC v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs, 482 U.S. 270, 283, 107 S.Ct. 2360, 96 L.Ed.2d 222 (1987). The decision whether to prosecute turns on factors such as “the strength of the case, the prosecution's general deterrence value, the [g]overnment's enforcement priorities, and the case's relationship to the [g]overnment's overall enforcement plan.” Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607, 105 S.Ct. 1524, 84 L.Ed.2d 547 (1985). The Executive routinely undertakes those assessments and is well equipped to do so. By contrast, the Judiciary, as the Supreme Court has explained, generally is not “competent to undertake” that sort of inquiry. Id. Indeed, “[f]ew subjects are less adapted to judicial review than the exercise by the Executive of his discretion in deciding when and whether to institute criminal proceedings, or what precise charge shall be made, or whether to dismiss a proceeding once brought.” Newman v. United States, 382 F.2d 479, 480 (D.C.Cir.1967). “Judicial supervision in this area” would also “entail[ ] systemic costs.” Wayte, 470 U.S. at 608, 105 S.Ct. 1524. It could “chill law enforcement,” cause delay, and “impair the performance of a core executive constitutional function.” Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 465, 116 S.Ct. 1480 (quotation omitted). As a result, “the presumption of regularity” applies to “prosecutorial decisions and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that [prosecutors] have properly discharged their official duties.” Id. at 464, 116 S.Ct. 1480 *742 **74 (internal quotation marks, quotation, and alterations omitted). United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 741–42 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

Its amazing to watch your glee at the wrongful prosecution of a man who faithfully served our country for decades.  Truly childlike.  Carry on.

That's an interesting perspective.  VP and the rest of the usual suspects on TOB had the 2016 election not "quite go their way", so they have "launched into character assassination" for the last 3 1/2 years.  I guess people on the left don't own mirrors, or they would see what they most complain about in themselves.

Interesting case, but not an answer to the question that was asked.

Do you think it's asinine for the judge to ask for an explanation from the DoJ on the reasons for the dismissal?

I think it's a perfectly reasonable request, and I think it's an important question since there seems to be a lot of opposition to the government's request.

Well, we can't all have the deep sense of morality that you have Credo. After all, you've got jesus on your side and he really likes the "drag the dead carcasses" metaphor, that's just his style. Congrats on following his fine example. Your way of ridiculing those you disagree with and belittling your political opponents is just the sort of tolerance and understanding that jesus preached about. Well done.

So I have to ask...when will you be "coming to jesus"?