1. Former Democrat Presidential Candidate and Former CNN Permanent Guest Michael Avenatti Found Guilty on Three Counts of Extortion
2. Barr Appoints Independent Counsel to Review Flynn Case

Avenatti:

Here's the first bullet point from CNBC about Avenatti -- it's about Avenatti.

Disgraced lawyer Michael Avenatti was convicted of all three charges related to his efforts to extort up to $25 million from athletic apparel giant Nike.

Here are the second two bullet points from CNBC about Avenatti -- they're about, get this, Trump,

The verdict in Manhattan federal court came two years after Avenatti gained widespread notoriety for his representation of porn star Stormy Daniels in her legal disputes with President Donald Trump.

Trump’s then-lawyer Michael Cohen paid Daniels hush money to keep her quiet about claims of an affair with the president on the eve of the 2016 election.

Hey CNBC, if you're providing background information about him, how about mentioning he was a fixture on Liberal Democrat Propaganda Organs and was seriously touted as a possible president by liberal Democrat media types?

Update: Has anyone done a Wellness Check on Avenatti Super-Fan and Guest of the Qatari Government Rick Wilson?

A new outside prosecutor will review the handling of the Michael Flynn case.

Excellent.

The Department of Justice has tapped an outside prosecutor to review the case of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Fox News has learned.

A senior Justice Department official told Fox News on Friday that Jeff Jensen, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, has been assigned to Flynn’s case.

Jensen will be working hand-in-hand with the lead prosecutor of Flynn case, Brandon Van Grack, according to the official.

You will once again notice the blatant double standards as people who are constantly urging every possible outside investigation of Trump suddenly start claiming that investigations are inherently corrupt and anti-American when the targets are the sources of their leaks.

Via bonginoreport.com -- which is a less c***s***ery version of the Drudge Report -- this story from The Federalist.

Short version: the fact that the government reversed its previous no-time plea agreement, then insisted on jail time, and only later re-reversed themselves and went back to the original plea creates a legal right for Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea, without the usual burdens and requirements attached to withdrawing a plea.

The government originally recommended probation for Flynn a year ago. Recently, however, the government reversed course and recommended a jail sentence but soon reverted back to its original position. Flynn’s counsel has now filed two separate motions seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. One is based on his former lawyers having a conflict of interest in his case. The other is on the ground that the government breached his plea agreement by changing its sentencing recommendation.

The withdrawal of a guilty plea in federal court is a difficult legal maneuver in a simple case, which this case surely is not. Withdrawing a plea is only possible with the approval of the judge...

How the Santobello Rule Affects Flynn's Case

Plea agreements function like written contracts in criminal cases, and the courts enforce them. Where the terms of a plea agreement are ambiguous or uncertain, they are interpreted against the government because of the unequal bargaining power between the two parties.

In 1971, the Supreme Court decided in Santobello v. New York that if the government breaches a plea agreement, a defendant can ask to withdraw his guilty plea without having to satisfy the other factors that normally apply to a request to withdraw it.

posted by Ace at 03:30 PM

| Access Comments