Flynn Walks.. DOJ drops case

[TexasGolf 4858]

37 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Fixed.

hoax confirmed

 

[wildcat09 29261]

6 minutes ago, TexasGolf said:

hoax confirmed

 

Look, we get it. You think laws are only for certain types of people to follow.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

1 hour ago, TexasGolf said:

 

 

 

Eli Lake

 

@EliLake

·

19h

 

Your Logan Act investigation is over. The bums lost.

your post has aids

[Mdhorn 5911]

21 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

My retort, which is not in support of the Trump administration or Flynn, is if there were good evidence of more serious criminal activity than perjury, why didn't they indict for that?  I suppose such charges could still be filed.

And Bridgegate, seriously?  A unanimous opinion authored by Kagan?  About the government stretching criminal laws to apply to quasi-criminal acts?  Civil libertarians should be dancing in the streets.

For a liberal, and a lawyer, you seem unwilling to see abuses by the government's criminal apparatus when you don't like the defendants.

you can flip this as well though by stating that Flynn confessed because the Feds had evidence and he didn't want a harder charge.  

[TexasGolf 4858]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Look, we get it. You think laws are only for certain types of people to follow.

Okay Brian Ross (ABC)

Edited May 8, 2020 by TexasGolf

[washparkhorn 9935]

3 hours ago, TexasGolf said:

hoax confirmed

 

History will decide that question - and the winner writes the history. Too soon for victory laps by either side. Americans are tired of the Russia story. Check back in 20 years. Trump gloating does not help him in any way - legally or politically. 

[Message Board User 12389]

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

I seriously hate that family so fucking much. rich (maybe) white trash.

[zork 629]

On 5/7/2020 at 3:00 PM, Captainant said:

Friendly reminder as well that Flynn is one of several cases being "reviewed" by Barr's DOJ. Investigating the investigators will only intensify through the election. Brace yourselves for our justice system to fall apart completely, or just become a copy of russia's "justice" system in which the chief executive is the judge and jury.

I thought that article was going to include this guy who is still working on some investigations(IIRC):

Quote

...

Those who know him portray Mr. Durham as the consummate straight arrow who is unlikely to have bowed to pressure from Mr. Barr or anyone else in his current assignment. Mr. Durham declined to be interviewed for this article.

“He believes in four things: his family, his profession, his religion and the Boston Red Sox,” said Hugh F. Keefe, a Connecticut defense lawyer who says Mr. Durham is so by the book, he once asked Mr. Keefe whether he had reported a free Red Sox ticket to the I.R.S. “If anyone thinks they can lead him like a horse to water, they’re mistaken.”

...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/23/us/politics/john-durham-fbi-russia.html

Edited May 8, 2020 by zork

[JimmyJames 12271]

Trump is a criminal and all his supporters, like our troll friend Zork here, are supporters of a criminal regime. 

The end. 

[Francisco 2.0 32343]

The best people.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/09/politics/filing-error-michael-flynn-case-reversal/index.html

 

Quote

The court filing on Thursday to drop former national security adviser Michael Flynn's criminal case used the attorney identification number for the previous US attorney, a technical error that adds to the twists of the dramatic reversal by the government.

The bombshell court filing was signed only by interim DC US attorney Timothy Shea, a political appointee who used the court identity number of his ousted predecessor Jesse Liu. The incorrect ID number is a technical error that may need to be fixed before the judge weighs in.

 

Quote

A Justice Department official told CNN on Saturday that the ID number under Shea's name was a clerical oversight. The official said it was the mistake of a staffer who submitted the filing to the court on Shea's behalf -- but who didn't sign it herself. The official said Shea was part of a team who wrote the document, and declined to explain why the career prosecutor, Jocelyn Ballantine, who signed several other recent filings in the Flynn case, didn't sign it.

 

Quote

People close to the DC US attorney's office said the mistake isn't one trial lawyers in that office would likely make. And they pointed to the fact that no other lawyer in that office signed the dismissal request as a possible indicator the document was prepared elsewhere, perhaps at the Justice Department headquarters, where Attorney General William Barr was closely managing the Flynn review.

Quote

 

 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

2 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

The best people.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/09/politics/filing-error-michael-flynn-case-reversal/index.html

 

 

 

 

This highlights a notable point. No career prosecutor signed off on letting Flynn off the hook. A political appointee had to do it. Reminds me of when several career prosecutors stepped aside when Barr interjected into the Stone sentencing. Politicization of the DOJ. Elections have consequences

[TwiceHorn 31288]

That little error demonstrates that the career types who filed it didn't give a shit about it.  If it had been something they took normal professional pride in, it wouldn't have happened.

Also, exceedingly telling that Shea, the acting USA for DC, is not admitted to practice in the District of DC, and therefore has no bar number.

[Captainant 27468]

Very interesting op-ed from NYT, especially in light of the clerical fuckups and errors. Its author is Mary B. McCord, who was an acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department from 2016 to 2017. Article below in spoiler:

Spoiler

At the direction of Attorney General Bill Barr, the Justice Department last week moved to dismiss a false-statements charge against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser. The reason stated was that the continued prosecution “would not serve the interests of justice.”

The motion was signed by Timothy Shea, a longtime trusted adviser of Mr. Barr and, since January, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington. In attempting to support its argument, the motion cites more than 25 times the F.B.I.’s report of an interview with me in July 2017, two months after I left a decades-long career at the department (under administrations of both parties) that culminated in my role as the acting assistant attorney general for national security.

That report, commonly referred to as a “302,” is an interesting read. It vividly describes disagreements between leadership of the Justice Department and the F.B.I. about how to handle the information we had learned about Mr. Flynn’s calls with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and, more specifically, Mr. Flynn’s apparent lies about those calls to incoming Vice President Mike Pence.

But the report of my interview is no support for Mr. Barr’s dismissal of the Flynn case. It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn. It does not suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn’s false statements were not material. And it does not support the Justice Department’s assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, “would not serve the interests of justice.”

I can explain why, relying entirely on documents the government has filed in court or released publicly.

Notably, Mr. Barr’s motion to dismiss does not argue that the F.B.I. violated the Constitution or statutory law when agents interviewed Mr. Flynn about his calls with Mr. Kislyak. It doesn’t claim that they violated his Fifth Amendment rights by coercively questioning him when he wasn’t free to leave. Nor does the motion claim that the interview was the fruit of a search or seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment. Any of these might have justified moving to dismiss the case. But by the government’s own account, the interview with Mr. Flynn was voluntary, arranged in advance and took place in Mr. Flynn’s own office.

Without constitutional or statutory violations grounding its motion, the Barr-Shea motion makes a contorted argument that Mr. Flynn’s false statements and omissions to the F.B.I. were not “material” to any matter under investigation. Materiality is an essential element that the government must establish to prove a false-statements offense. If the falsehoods aren’t material, there’s no crime.

The department concocts its materiality theory by arguing that the F.B.I. should not have been investigating Mr. Flynn at the time they interviewed him. The Justice Department notes that the F.B.I. had opened a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Flynn in 2016 as part of a larger investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the presidential election. And the department notes that the F.B.I. had intended to close the investigation of Mr. Flynn in early January 2017 until it learned of the conversations between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak around the same time.

Discounting the broader investigation and the possibility of Russian direction or control over Mr. Flynn, the department’s motion myopically homes in on the calls alone, and because it views those calls as “entirely appropriate,” it concludes the investigation should not have been extended and the interview should not have taken place.

The account of my interview in 2017 doesn’t help the department support this conclusion, and it is disingenuous for the department to twist my words to suggest that it does. What the account of my interview describes is a difference of opinion about what to do with the information that Mr. Flynn apparently had lied to the incoming vice president, Mr. Pence, and others in the incoming administration about whether he had discussed the Obama administration’s sanctions against Russia in his calls with Mr. Kislyak. Those apparent lies prompted Mr. Pence and others to convey inaccurate statements about the nature of the conversations in public news conferences and interviews.

Why was that so important? Because the Russians would have known what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak discussed. They would have known that, despite Mr. Pence’s and others’ denials, Mr. Flynn had in fact asked Russia not to escalate its response to the sanctions. Mr. Pence’s denial of this on national television, and his attribution of the denial to Mr. Flynn, put Mr. Flynn in a potentially compromised situation that the Russians could use against him.

The potential for blackmail of Mr. Flynn by the Russians is what the former Justice Department leadership, including me, thought needed to be conveyed to the incoming White House. After all, Mr. Flynn was set to become the national security adviser, and it was untenable that Russia — which the intelligence community had just assessed had sought to interfere in the U.S. presidential election — might have leverage over him.

This is where the F.B.I. disagreed with the Justice Department’s preferred approach. The F.B.I. wasn’t ready to reveal this information to the incoming administration right away, preferring to keep investigating, not only as part of its counterintelligence investigation but also possibly as a criminal investigation. Although several of us at Justice thought the likelihood of a criminal prosecution under the Logan Act was quite low (the act prohibits unauthorized communications with foreign governments to influence their conduct in relation to disputes with the United States), we certainly agreed that there was a counterintelligence threat.

That’s exactly why we wanted to alert the incoming administration. Ultimately, after our dispute over such notification continued through the inauguration and into the start of the Trump administration, the F.B.I. — without consulting the Justice Department — arranged to interview Mr. Flynn. By the time Justice Department leadership found out, agents were en route to the interview in Mr. Flynn’s office.

The account of my July 2017 interview describes my department’s frustration with the F.B.I.’s conduct, sometimes using colorful adjectives like “flabbergasted” to describe our reactions. We weren’t necessarily opposed to an interview — our focus had been on notification — but any such interview should have been coordinated with the Justice Department. There were protocols for engaging with White House officials and protocols for interviews, and this was, of course, a sensitive situation. We objected to the rogueness of the decision by the F.B.I. director, Jim Comey, made without notice or opportunity to weigh in.

The Barr-Shea motion to dismiss refers to my descriptions of the F.B.I.’s justification for not wanting to notify the new administration about the potential Flynn compromise as “vacillating from the potential compromise of a ‘counterintelligence’ investigation to the protection of a purported ‘criminal’ investigation.” But that “vacillation” has no bearing on whether the F.B.I. was justified in engaging in a voluntary interview with Mr. Flynn. It has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to its investigation into any links or coordination between Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.

And perhaps more significant, it has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to the clear counterintelligence threat posed by the susceptible position Mr. Flynn put himself in when he told Mr. Pence and others in the new administration that he had not discussed the sanctions with Mr. Kislyak. The materiality is obvious.

In short, the report of my interview does not anywhere suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was unconstitutional, unlawful or not “tethered” to any legitimate counterintelligence purpose.

TL:DR is the last paragraphs:

Quote

 

The Barr-Shea motion to dismiss refers to my descriptions of the F.B.I.’s justification for not wanting to notify the new administration about the potential Flynn compromise as “vacillating from the potential compromise of a ‘counterintelligence’ investigation to the protection of a purported ‘criminal’ investigation.” But that “vacillation” has no bearing on whether the F.B.I. was justified in engaging in a voluntary interview with Mr. Flynn. It has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to its investigation into any links or coordination between Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.

And perhaps more significant, it has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to the clear counterintelligence threat posed by the susceptible position Mr. Flynn put himself in when he told Mr. Pence and others in the new administration that he had not discussed the sanctions with Mr. Kislyak. The materiality is obvious.

 

This dismissal of the case by DOJ is tantamount to discounting the entire wider Mueller investigation and attempting to rewrite history - all while arguing in court that we the people shouldn't have access to all of its evidence and findings. And just a reminder of who Shea is:

He is a US attorney from DC who still hasn't been confirmed by the Senate since he started at that post in January.

He hasn't been admitted to the DC Bar. So, he can't even legally be the one to sign DOJ's motion.

He was in charge of Barr's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's death.

He was part of the DOJ's effort to undo the prosecutors' work on the Roger Stone case.

He worked under Barr at the time of the Iran-Contra coverups.

 

It's a pretty amazing attack on truth and transparency, all happening right in front of us while telling us it's in the name of justice. America sure is great again.

[TwiceHorn 31288]

23 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Very interesting op-ed from NYT, especially in light of the clerical fuckups and errors. Its author is Mary B. McCord, who was an acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department from 2016 to 2017. Article below in spoiler:

  Reveal hidden contents

At the direction of Attorney General Bill Barr, the Justice Department last week moved to dismiss a false-statements charge against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser. The reason stated was that the continued prosecution “would not serve the interests of justice.”

The motion was signed by Timothy Shea, a longtime trusted adviser of Mr. Barr and, since January, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington. In attempting to support its argument, the motion cites more than 25 times the F.B.I.’s report of an interview with me in July 2017, two months after I left a decades-long career at the department (under administrations of both parties) that culminated in my role as the acting assistant attorney general for national security.

That report, commonly referred to as a “302,” is an interesting read. It vividly describes disagreements between leadership of the Justice Department and the F.B.I. about how to handle the information we had learned about Mr. Flynn’s calls with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and, more specifically, Mr. Flynn’s apparent lies about those calls to incoming Vice President Mike Pence.

But the report of my interview is no support for Mr. Barr’s dismissal of the Flynn case. It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn. It does not suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn’s false statements were not material. And it does not support the Justice Department’s assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, “would not serve the interests of justice.”

I can explain why, relying entirely on documents the government has filed in court or released publicly.

Notably, Mr. Barr’s motion to dismiss does not argue that the F.B.I. violated the Constitution or statutory law when agents interviewed Mr. Flynn about his calls with Mr. Kislyak. It doesn’t claim that they violated his Fifth Amendment rights by coercively questioning him when he wasn’t free to leave. Nor does the motion claim that the interview was the fruit of a search or seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment. Any of these might have justified moving to dismiss the case. But by the government’s own account, the interview with Mr. Flynn was voluntary, arranged in advance and took place in Mr. Flynn’s own office.

Without constitutional or statutory violations grounding its motion, the Barr-Shea motion makes a contorted argument that Mr. Flynn’s false statements and omissions to the F.B.I. were not “material” to any matter under investigation. Materiality is an essential element that the government must establish to prove a false-statements offense. If the falsehoods aren’t material, there’s no crime.

The department concocts its materiality theory by arguing that the F.B.I. should not have been investigating Mr. Flynn at the time they interviewed him. The Justice Department notes that the F.B.I. had opened a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Flynn in 2016 as part of a larger investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the presidential election. And the department notes that the F.B.I. had intended to close the investigation of Mr. Flynn in early January 2017 until it learned of the conversations between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak around the same time.

Discounting the broader investigation and the possibility of Russian direction or control over Mr. Flynn, the department’s motion myopically homes in on the calls alone, and because it views those calls as “entirely appropriate,” it concludes the investigation should not have been extended and the interview should not have taken place.

The account of my interview in 2017 doesn’t help the department support this conclusion, and it is disingenuous for the department to twist my words to suggest that it does. What the account of my interview describes is a difference of opinion about what to do with the information that Mr. Flynn apparently had lied to the incoming vice president, Mr. Pence, and others in the incoming administration about whether he had discussed the Obama administration’s sanctions against Russia in his calls with Mr. Kislyak. Those apparent lies prompted Mr. Pence and others to convey inaccurate statements about the nature of the conversations in public news conferences and interviews.

Why was that so important? Because the Russians would have known what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak discussed. They would have known that, despite Mr. Pence’s and others’ denials, Mr. Flynn had in fact asked Russia not to escalate its response to the sanctions. Mr. Pence’s denial of this on national television, and his attribution of the denial to Mr. Flynn, put Mr. Flynn in a potentially compromised situation that the Russians could use against him.

The potential for blackmail of Mr. Flynn by the Russians is what the former Justice Department leadership, including me, thought needed to be conveyed to the incoming White House. After all, Mr. Flynn was set to become the national security adviser, and it was untenable that Russia — which the intelligence community had just assessed had sought to interfere in the U.S. presidential election — might have leverage over him.

This is where the F.B.I. disagreed with the Justice Department’s preferred approach. The F.B.I. wasn’t ready to reveal this information to the incoming administration right away, preferring to keep investigating, not only as part of its counterintelligence investigation but also possibly as a criminal investigation. Although several of us at Justice thought the likelihood of a criminal prosecution under the Logan Act was quite low (the act prohibits unauthorized communications with foreign governments to influence their conduct in relation to disputes with the United States), we certainly agreed that there was a counterintelligence threat.

That’s exactly why we wanted to alert the incoming administration. Ultimately, after our dispute over such notification continued through the inauguration and into the start of the Trump administration, the F.B.I. — without consulting the Justice Department — arranged to interview Mr. Flynn. By the time Justice Department leadership found out, agents were en route to the interview in Mr. Flynn’s office.

The account of my July 2017 interview describes my department’s frustration with the F.B.I.’s conduct, sometimes using colorful adjectives like “flabbergasted” to describe our reactions. We weren’t necessarily opposed to an interview — our focus had been on notification — but any such interview should have been coordinated with the Justice Department. There were protocols for engaging with White House officials and protocols for interviews, and this was, of course, a sensitive situation. We objected to the rogueness of the decision by the F.B.I. director, Jim Comey, made without notice or opportunity to weigh in.

The Barr-Shea motion to dismiss refers to my descriptions of the F.B.I.’s justification for not wanting to notify the new administration about the potential Flynn compromise as “vacillating from the potential compromise of a ‘counterintelligence’ investigation to the protection of a purported ‘criminal’ investigation.” But that “vacillation” has no bearing on whether the F.B.I. was justified in engaging in a voluntary interview with Mr. Flynn. It has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to its investigation into any links or coordination between Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.

And perhaps more significant, it has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to the clear counterintelligence threat posed by the susceptible position Mr. Flynn put himself in when he told Mr. Pence and others in the new administration that he had not discussed the sanctions with Mr. Kislyak. The materiality is obvious.

In short, the report of my interview does not anywhere suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was unconstitutional, unlawful or not “tethered” to any legitimate counterintelligence purpose.

TL:DR is the last paragraphs:

This dismissal of the case by DOJ is tantamount to discounting the entire wider Mueller investigation and attempting to rewrite history - all while arguing in court that we the people shouldn't have access to all of its evidence and findings. And just a reminder of who Shea is:

He is a US attorney from DC who still hasn't been confirmed by the Senate since he started at that post in January.

He hasn't been admitted to the DC Bar. So, he can't even legally be the one to sign DOJ's motion.

He was in charge of Barr's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's death.

He was part of the DOJ's effort to undo the prosecutors' work on the Roger Stone case.

He worked under Barr at the time of the Iran-Contra coverups.

 

It's a pretty amazing attack on truth and transparency, all happening right in front of us while telling us it's in the name of justice. America sure is great again.

Small correction.  Shea is admitted to the Bar of the District of Columbia, but not to practice before the US District Court for the District of Columbia.  Which is kind of a fundamental qualification for a US Attorney for that District.  It can be easily corrected, I'm sure, but demonstrates that he has spent no substantial time litigating either civil or criminal cases in the court for which he is acting and proposed US Attorney.  Prima facie evidence that he's a hack.

It would be kind of hilarious and fitting if the judges of the D. D.C. denied him admission for a year because he signed a paper without being admitted or having a pro hac motion pending.

Edited May 11, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Pig Bellmont 8692]

56 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Small correction.  Shea is admitted to the Bar of the District of Columbia, but not to practice before the US District Court for the District of Columbia.  Which is kind of a fundamental qualification for a US Attorney for that District.  It can be easily corrected, I'm sure, but demonstrates that he has spent no substantial time litigating either civil or criminal cases in the court for which he is acting and proposed US Attorney.  Prima facie evidence that he's a hack.

It would be kind of hilarious and fitting if the judges of the D. D.C. denied him admission for a year because he signed a paper without being admitted or having a pro hac motion pending.

I think DOJ attorneys can file in any federal court without formal bar admissions to each federal district. The ECF system has their bar numbers as #99999 or #00000 or something similar 

[TwiceHorn 31288]

9 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I think DOJ attorneys can file in any federal court without formal bar admissions to each federal district. The ECF system has their bar numbers as #99999 or #00000 or something similar 

Ahhh, sounds right.  Still disgraceful that he's not admitted.

[Longhorn 145]

Does anyone on here think that Trump should have done what Obama did for General Cartwright when he lied to the FBI? Let General Flynn get charged/convicted and then pardon right after?  
 

Or is the situation totally different based on what information was found in the FBI notes/files that were recently made public.

[TwiceHorn 31288]

7 minutes ago, Longhorn said:

Does anyone on here think that Trump should have done what Obama did for General Cartwright when he lied to the FBI? Let General Flynn get charged/convicted and then pardon right after?  
 

Or is the situation totally different based on what information was found in the FBI notes/files that were recently made public.

Amazingly, I think Trump is afraid of the backlash on pardoning his cronies.  He may do it on the way out, but seems to either innately understand or have had pounded into him that he can't just pardon his cronies willy-nilly without major backlash.  People still grumble about Marc Rich and Clinton was a popular president.

Edited May 12, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Alvin89 108]

 

[Alvin89 108]

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/299358-doj-drops-charges-against-alleged-libyan-arms-salesman-avoiding

[TwiceHorn 31288]

2 hours ago, Alvin89 said:

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/299358-doj-drops-charges-against-alleged-libyan-arms-salesman-avoiding

For perspective, the DOJ drops charges with relative frequency, before trial, before conviction, after losing an appeal.  There's no significance to be attached to that.

What is significant, though, is that Flynn had pled guilty and been scheduled for sentencing something like three times before coming up with the notion that he's now not guilty because of some gobbledygook.

That is strange to the point of bizarre and maybe even unique in American judicial history.

Edited May 12, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Francisco 2.0 32343]

 

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13547]

3 hours ago, Alvin89 said:

 

Have Clapper or Barr been charged with perjury?

[tx 3 putt 76409]

13 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

Please translate this 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Please translate this 

ТОЛЬКО В: Судья в деле FLYNN указывает, что он собирается установить график для получения сводок от заинтересованных сторон относительно усилий Министерства юстиции по прекращению дела.

[Francisco 2.0 32343]

5 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Please translate this 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/12/judge-slows-effort-drop-flynn-case-252725

 

Quote

The judge presiding over the tumultuous case of Michael Flynn pumped the brakes Tuesday on an effort by the Justice Department to drop the case against the former national security adviser and ally of President Donald Trump.

Minutes after lawyers for Flynn urged Judge Emmet Sullivan to "immediately" toss the matter, Sullivan indicated he wasn't ready to act just yet, instead indicating he'll set a schedule to accept briefs from outside parties who might have an interest in the case.

 

 

 

[washparkhorn 9935]

5 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Please translate this 

Judge is allowing "friends of the court" to file briefs that might be helpful to the Court when determining whether to allow the Government to drop their criminal case against Flynn. Unusual. I am trying to understand it within the framework of a victim's impact statement, but that may be misguided. 

[tx 3 putt 76409]

Bawhahahaahahahahahahaha 

that's a great fuck you to Barr and dear leader. The Russian agent Flynn will still walk but this is funny

[lemonlime 5503]

 

[Alvin89 108]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

For perspective, the DOJ drops charges with relative frequency, before trial, before conviction, after losing an appeal.  There's no significance to be attached to that.

What is significant, though, is that Flynn had pled guilty and been scheduled for sentencing something like three times before coming up with the notion that he's now not guilty because of some gobbledygook.

That is strange to the point of bizarre and maybe even unique in American judicial history.

I would say pardoning someone that potentially could have damning evidence involving the President and Secretary of State after a complete debacle in overthrowing the leader of a foreign country would be quite strange in itself. 

[Alvin89 108]

Sorry, dropping charges. 

[TwiceHorn 31288]

43 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Judge is allowing "friends of the court" to file briefs that might be helpful to the Court when determining whether to allow the Government to drop their criminal case against Flynn. Unusual. I am trying to understand it within the framework of a victim's impact statement, but that may be misguided. 

Not a bad analogy.

The defense, as in any case, is duty-bound to seek any avenue that will get their client to avoid charges, conviction, or prison/punishment.  So they aren't exactly unbiased or seeking any notion of justice except that of their client.

Similarly, this is a sign that the judge doesn't trust the prosecution's motives.

So, he's "opening the floor to the 'interest of justice"" so to speak.

[burntorangebongos 10681]

So under what circumstance other than a corrupt Justice Department does someone:

a. Lie to the Justice Department

b. PLEAD GUILTY

c. admit to committing felonies, 3 times while under oath AND have all charges dropped against them?

That was fucking shaky even for an entitled white guy like general Flynn, small g. Dude sold himself and our country down the river. Fuck him and I hope this stings as much as Africanized bees.

 

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

The judge recognizes the obvious. The attorney general is dropping the charges because he is absolutely corrupt and is simply doing trump’s bidding. Its amazing that anyone could think otherwise.

[TwiceHorn 31288]

14 minutes ago, Alvin89 said:

I would say pardoning someone that potentially could have damning evidence involving the President and Secretary of State after a complete debacle in overthrowing the leader of a foreign country would be quite strange in itself. 

It actually isn't strange at all in the sense that it happens, for a variety of reasons, known and unknown, with relative frequency.

What is strange is dismissing a case in which a final judgment of conviction, based on the defendant's own sworn admissions, is all but a fait accompli.

All that said, I think the prosecution has to be the master of its case as a matter of policy.  If it wants to dismiss it, the judge has nothing to say about it, except to sanction them for wasting everyone's time.

Edited May 13, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Alvin89 108]

13 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

So under what circumstance other than a corrupt Justice Department does someone:

a. Lie to the Justice Department

b. PLEAD GUILTY

c. admit to committing felonies, 3 times while under oath AND have all charges dropped against them?

That was fucking shaky even for an entitled white guy like general Flynn, small g. Dude sold himself and our country down the river. Fuck him and I hope this stings as much as Africanized bees.

 

 

https://www.newsweek.com/curious-case-michael-flynn-opinion-1503033?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true                          

Forget that Comey had told Congressthe Flynn case was going nowhere and that he failed to raise any concern with his oversight committee about White House interference. Never mind, as FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe would later put it, that "the two people who interviewed [Flynn] didn't think he was lying, [which] was not [a] great beginning of a false statement case."

The government managed to threaten and intimidate Flynn anyway, resulting in a formal plea deal and an undisclosed "side deal" to protect his son.

[Longhorn 145]

20 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

So under what circumstance other than a corrupt Justice Department does someone:

a. Lie to the Justice Department

b. PLEAD GUILTY

c. admit to committing felonies, 3 times while under oath AND have all charges dropped against them?

That was fucking shaky even for an entitled white guy like general Flynn, small g. Dude sold himself and our country down the river. Fuck him and I hope this stings as much as Africanized bees.

 

 

See General Cartwright. He ended up getting convicted and the pardoned right after. 

Personally, I’d like to see Flynn trial go forward. The FBI agents and their documentation, should be in front of a cross examination. It is bullshit that we don’t get to see this in court.  Hey should deposed and put under oath to answer questions.

[GW Hayduke 1952]

8 minutes ago, Longhorn said:

See General Cartwright. He ended up getting convicted and the pardoned right after. 

Personally, I’d like to see Flynn trial go forward. The FBI agents and their documentation, should be in front of a cross examination. It is bullshit that we don’t get to see this in court.  Hey should deposed and put under oath to answer questions.

That’s a great point.

we should find out from Flynn why he took tens of thousands of dollars from Russia? Why Flynn hid that he was paid from Russia? Why Flynn was paid tens of thousands of dollars from Turkey? Why he hid those payments from Turkey? Why Flynn was conspiring to aid Turkey with kidnapping on US soil? Why he was pushing the US to invest in Middle East nuclear projects during his first week as DNI? Why he lied to the FBI? Why he lied to Pence? There are a lot of unanswered questions.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

Why wasn’t he charged with that instead of the Logan Act?

[Captainant 27468]

50 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Why wasn’t he charged with that instead of the Logan Act?

Deffo has nothing to do with cooperating and agreeing to a plea deal for lesser charges. Nope, nuh uh, no way

[Hugo Stiglitz 23359]

 

[Grandioso 2592]

1. The lies come so fast in this clip it is incredible.

2. Twice he says the Trumpian phrase "treated very poorly"(TM).

 

[Gil Bang 25898]

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13547]

"Department officials reviewing the Flynn case interviewed Bill Priestap, the former head of F.B.I. counterintelligence, two days before making their extraordinary request to drop the case to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. They did not tell Judge Sullivan about Mr. Priestap’s interview. A Justice Department official said that they were in the process of writing up a report on the interview and that it would soon be filed with the court."

 

Ex-F.B.I. Official Is Said to Undercut Justice Dept. Effort to Drop Flynn Case https://a.msn.com/r/2/BB142Lmm?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare
 

[TwiceHorn 31288]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

That seems to be the cosmically correct thing to do here.

But, Christ almighty, in the general case it sets an awful precedent.  So awful, in fact, that I think an appellate court probably reverses any conviction that comes out of this.

Again, in the context of criminal law, the government has to be permitted to be the master of its own case.

Edited May 14, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Gil Bang 25898]

Toobin just said that he worked with Gleason, and he’s never met a better lawyer.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23359]

Hannity isn’t happy

 

[DalTxHornFan 3085]

Surly legal wizards:  Is there any reason that the amicus curiae briefs would necessarily only argue one side (that the court shouldn't accede to the motions of the parties?)  It seems odd that the court appointed this retired judge to present arguments only in opposition.  School me.  Thanks.

Edited May 14, 2020 by DalTxHornFan

[tx 3 putt 76409]

31 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Hannity isn’t happy

 

 

great to see hannity putting his law degree to good use !