Flynn Walks.. DOJ drops case

[JBJ 3649]

I've read about that case, but haven't read the case.  It could be argued here that the amicus is on (opposing) an issue raised.  At least the first part.

I feel like this is just being strung out for no reason other than to string it out.  The result is inevitable at this point, whether now, on appeal, or a new judge.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

Well Sullivan is known to have a low tolerance for government shenanigans and has presided over some fucked up prosecutions.  So I think this is his attempt to at least expose the shenanigans if not undo them.

Also, I looked at Rule 48, Fed. R. Crim. Pro.  As originally written, a dismissal by the government was automatic, no leave of court required.  In 1944, I believe, the leave of court proviso was added because "a number of states now require leave of court."  Well, that's a satisfying reason!

In a criminal case, it seems kind of dumb to require leave of court.  We stack most of the court rules and procedures in favor of a criminal defendant because of the awesome power the government otherwise wields.

As mentioned above, even though leave of court to dismiss is required in most civil cases, where the rules aren't stacked one way or the other, a court pretty much has to dismiss, but can place conditions on it to punish misbehavior or unfairness.

Edited May 23, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[CowboyFred 1151]

pretty good read and an exceptional list of legal scholars that signed it.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

[TwiceHorn 31283]

2 hours ago, CowboyFred said:

pretty good read and an exceptional list of legal scholars that signed it.

Once divorced from the desired outcome regarding Michael Flynn, I don't find it convincing at all.

They keep saying that by dismissing, the judiciary is endorsing the executive.  I don't find that true at all.  

The judiciary has no power until that power is invoked by the government or a private party (in a civil case).  Just like federal civil courts' jurisdiction is limited to "cases and controversies," once the parties to a criminal case "agree" to its dismissal, that's the end of it.

Now, I do think the judiciary has the power to excoriate the executive on the record.

Edited May 23, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[CowboyFred 1151]

yea I can see where you're coming from on the judiciary's power not being invoked in this case.  I guess I don't like the way the executive branch is getting involved in this sense insofar as Trump's influence through Barr being the reason for the prosecutor's making this move.  Flynn knew his rights.  His attorneys knew his rights.  They even offered him a court appointed outside counsel to review the case and he declined and pled.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

[NaTeWHO 850]

Judge Sullivan has hired a lawyer. I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to this stuff, can someone tell me what that means? Why does he need a lawyer?

[NashLonghorn 270]

7 hours ago, NaTeWHO said:

Judge Sullivan has hired a lawyer. I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to this stuff, can someone tell me what that means? Why does he need a lawyer?

Because the DC Court of Appeals  asked Judge Sullivan to explain why he isn’t dismissing the case. 

Edited May 25, 2020 by NashLonghorn

[TwiceHorn 31283]

The type of appeal currently ongoing is a "writ of mandamus."  Normal appeals come after a final judgment in a case.

This type of appeal is not of the outcome of the case, but of the judge's action.  It is an appeal seeking an order commanding the judge to do or not do the action complained of.  So, technically, the judge, rather than a party, is the appellee or respondent in the appeal.

In a lot of cases, a party is adequate to represent the judge, because it is a party that asked him to do whatever is complained of.

In this particular case, more than the average mandamus, the judge is the only one who can represent his interest because he's not acting at the behest of a party.

The driving notion of the writ of mandamus is that whatever action is complained of, it is of a nature that it can't be fixed by an appeal after entry of final judgment.  I don't believe that is actually true here, so the DC Circuit has an automatic out if it wants to take it.

A classic writ of mandamus situation is when a judge potentially erroneously orders disclosure of attorney-client privileged material.  Because of the cat out of the bag nature of that situation, it can't be fixed by an ordinary appeal.  In that case, one of the parties has convinced the judge to make that order, so normally the judge wouldn't make any response in the court of appeals:  that party will defend the judge's actions.

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

On 5/23/2020 at 4:01 PM, CowboyFred said:

yea I can see where you're coming from on the judiciary's power not being invoked in this case.  I guess I don't like the way the executive branch is getting involved in this sense insofar as Trump's influence through Barr being the reason for the prosecutor's making this move.  Flynn knew his rights.  His attorneys knew his rights.  They even offered him a court appointed outside counsel to review the case and he declined and pled.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

Yeah but none of that fucking matters. If a prosecutor says nope there is no case or controversy and the judge sure as hell cannot take it upon themself to try the case for the state. 

As twice said- every benefit of the doubt should and does go to the defendant and that’s with damn good reason- the might of the government is fucking staggering... they don’t need the help. 

This is an absurd, politically-motivated travesty. You cannot give the government the benefit of the doubt, ever. They already win what 90+ percent of cases. Not to mention using power of trial and harsher sentence as a club to beat a defendant over the head with. You do not want the judge to have more power to tip the scales explicitly against the accused.  Ever. 

 

[Foosters 17734]

Just now, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah but none of that fucking matters. If a prosecutor says nope there is no case or controversy and the judge sure as hell cannot take it upon themself to try the case for the state. 

As twice said- every benefit of the doubt should and does go to the defendant and that’s with damn good reason- the might of the government is fucking staggering... they don’t need the help. 

This is an absurd, politically-motivated travesty. You cannot give the government the benefit of the doubt, ever. They already win what 90+ percent of cases. Not to mention using power of trial and harsher sentence as a club to beat a defendant over the head with. You do not want the judge to have more power to tip the scales explicitly against the accused.  Ever. 

 

Nice of you to drop in to defend the rule of law at this point.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

1 minute ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah but none of that fucking matters. If a prosecutor says nope there is no case or controversy and the judge sure as hell cannot take it upon themself to try the case for the state. 

As twice said- every benefit of the doubt should and does go to the defendant and that’s with damn good reason- the might of the government is fucking staggering... they don’t need the help. 

This is an absurd, politically-motivated travesty. You cannot give the government the benefit of the doubt, ever. They already win what 90+ percent of cases. Not to mention using power of trial and harsher sentence as a club to beat a defendant over the head with. You do not want the judge to have more power to tip the scales explicitly against the accused.  Ever. 

 

Yeah, this is pretty much it.  It amounts to the judge taking sides.  No matter how justified it may seem in this case, it's a complete non-starter.

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

Just now, Foosters said:

Nice of you to drop in to defend the rule of law at this point.

I worked for a prosecutors office as summer associate. My job was to find cases to kick wherever I could- warrants and intakes.  I kicked as many as possible. I’m practically Bernard in my dislike of cops. In short- feel free to stick it up your fucking ass- I’m opposed to government growth at any time, have that as an underlying principal, and am not a partisan. 

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

3 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Nice of you to drop in to defend the rule of law at this point.

Oh, also I just fucking argued for jury nullification on the murder thread about 25 hours ago as a necessary and proper thing for civilians on the jury to do for the same reason I’m making right here. 

 

[Captainant 27467]

2 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah but none of that fucking matters. If a prosecutor says nope there is no case or controversy and the judge sure as hell cannot take it upon themself to try the case for the state. 

There's no case to try. The defendant pled guilty and signed affidavits to confirm he did what he was accused of. The prosecutor that brought the case and secured the confession and legal conviction was forced out, and the new prosecutor brought in by Barr filed a motion riddled with errors that it's trying to spike the case. 

You're dissembling about how the judge doesn't have the authority to try the case, completely ignoring that the facts and legal assessment of guilt were already confirmed by the defendant himself. 

[Anastasis 23394]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The prosecutor that brought the case and secured the confession and legal conviction was forced out, and the new prosecutor brought in by Barr filed a motion riddled with errors that it's trying to spike the case. 

Also, the lead Mueller prosecutor...

Let's just dispense with the delusion of a legal system devoid of political intersection. 

[Captainant 27467]

Yes, Flynn was an innocent angel who dindonuffin and anyone who attacks Trump's enemies is a hypocrite and a partisan hack. Both sides. Of course, how obvious it is to me now! 

 

[Anastasis 23394]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Yes, Flynn was an innocent angel who dindonuffin and anyone who attacks Trump's enemies is a hypocrite and a partisan hack. Both sides. Of course, how obvious it is to me now! 

Yeah, nobody is saying that. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

I think the Judge has an ethical dilemma - not because of anything he did; the facts changed and the rhetoric had been hot. Court of Appeals needs to wrap it up. 

Amici asserting the Judge has a duty to deny the motion if he believes the dismissal was improperly obtained. I think that is a long stretch in this case. This was an aggressive attorney working for her client. 

[CowboyFred 1151]

14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, this is pretty much it.  It amounts to the judge taking sides.  No matter how justified it may seem in this case, it's a complete non-starter.

I completely agree with that.  My comment was more personal opinion/being fed up with this administration.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

21 minutes ago, CowboyFred said:

I completely agree with that.  My comment was more personal opinion/being fed up with this administration.

I dig.  

I have just managed for the most part not to lose sight of the bigger picture operation of the criminal justice system in all of this.  Despite my distaste for the defendants.  That seems to infuriate a lot of people.

For better or worse, I tend to somewhat celebrate the victories of defendants, even when they're privileged and clearly corrupt.  I guess my hope is that the victories "trickle down" to the more deserving that are being ground to dust by the system.  But you know what they say about hope. . . .  I probably have a handful of shit.

 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

Considering the the presence of the guilty plea by the defendant, the removal/resignation of the prior prosecutor, and potus/barr's rather obvious political intervention, I think Sullivan needs to ask a ton of questions and ensure those answers are made public.  If his questions and concerns aren't addressed, he should drag this out into 2021 when a new DOJ steps in.  

[safe sex 11684]

Has anything ever "trickled down" to the more deserving in this country? Not trying to be snide. Off the top of my head, I can't think of an example, but I'm also far from a student of history (and a little daydrunk)

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

3 hours ago, trauma babe said:

Has anything ever "trickled down" to the more deserving in this country? Not trying to be snide. Off the top of my head, I can't think of an example, but I'm also far from a student of history (and a little daydrunk)

Sure. 

We have an entire jurisprudence set up with broad rights to the accused bc of this “trickle down”. 

Does it always work?  Of course not. But generally police read people their rights, don’t torture confessions out of them, can’t illegal search etc. it’s not perfect or anything but I get the sense it more or less happens like it should most of the time. Without any of the stuff you are asking if it trickles down it would happen none of the time. 

[Captainant 27467]

7 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

We have an entire jurisprudence set up with broad rights to the accused bc of this “trickle down”. 

I'm pretty sure the constitution outlines the rights of the accused. And if your position is that everything the founding fathers did and the entire revolution is "trickle down" then you just may need to cool it on the reaganomics

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

15 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I'm pretty sure the constitution outlines the rights of the accused. And if your position is that everything the founding fathers did and the entire revolution is "trickle down" then you just may need to cool it on the reaganomics

The constitutions says whatever the court says it does, or so we’ve decided as a civilized population. Until the 1960’s it didn’t mean what it means now to the accused- that made a huuuuuuuge change in how police had to deal with accused. Is it perfect now? Nope. Is it miles better than it was 60 years ago?  Sure. 

If you go and read the exchange in its entirety you see it this way:

Twice is arguing for the judge to kick the case from a procedure issue (not letting the judge take a bite at the defendant when the prosecutor declined to do so) and saying he roots for all defendant procedural rights because even if the defendant in particular is a scum bag it’s going to trickle down to the general population and be a benefit. 

Trama responds by asking - does this trickle down ever work in the real world and I responded with - yeah- it’s exactly what you’ve seen with dulling of powers of cops since the Warren court. 

 

Look- there are two ways to look at everything in politics- thru a partisan lens and through a procedural lens. 

When you look at things through a partisan lens you do jackass shit that comes around to fuck you in the ass when the the shoe is on the other foot. 

When you ignore whatever the partisan back and forth of the day is and decide things on a procedural basis then you actually limit the power of the government or the opposition party to fuck you in the ass next time around. 

You know, the exact opposite of a banana republic. 

[Captainant 27467]

So trump installing a new AG who has systematically minimized, denigrated, and attacked every single investigation into trump and those in his orbit is the opposite of a banana republic, got it. Thank goodness they're removing all of those pesky inspector generals too, really was getting in the way of not being a banana republic. 

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

So trump installing a new AG who has systematically minimized, denigrated, and attacked every single investigation into trump and those in his orbit is the opposite of a banana republic, got it. Thank goodness they're removing all of those pesky inspector generals too, really was getting in the way of not being a banana republic. 

Where have I said I’m in support of Trump? That’s one (of many) major problem I have with him- that he’s politicizing things that ought not be. I’m a process guy not a results guy. Everybody is playing with fire fucking with process and has been for years. 

[Captainant 27467]

1 minute ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Where have I said I’m in support of Trump? That’s one (of many) major problem I have with him- that he’s politicizing things that ought not be. I’m a process guy not a results guy. Everybody is playing with fire fucking with process and has been for years. 

The line of thinking you're applying of "the prosecution withdrew" is ignoring that Flynn has already formally admitted guilt, and the motion by Barr would effectively undo the confession. You're using the trump/barr argument while claiming to be holding your nose about it. 

I'd love to hear your opinions on Iran/Contra too when barr got out of the jam by dazzling everyone with procedural bullshit to hide treason. 

[LongestHorn 759]

19 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 those pesky inspector generals too

inspectors general.  We’re not savages.  

[Brian Fantana 6668]

19 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Yeah, nobody is saying that. 

I mean maybe you're not saying that but there are lots of people saying that lol

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

39 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The line of thinking you're applying of "the prosecution withdrew" is ignoring that Flynn has already formally admitted guilt, and the motion by Barr would effectively undo the confession. You're using the trump/barr argument while claiming to be holding your nose about it. 

I'd love to hear your opinions on Iran/Contra too when barr got out of the jam by dazzling everyone with procedural bullshit to hide treason. 

We have people formally admit guilt all the time that are probably innocent of whatever it is they are claiming to be guilty of. 

Prosecutors use, all the time, threats of lots of jail to get you to plead for a little bit of jail. It’s not a big in the system it’s a feature. 

You want a judge taking it upon themselves to retry a case every time someone is exonerated?  I don’t. 

But then again- I’ve actually sat down and pulled cases to be kicked before they were ever tried before (granted, in a minor setting as I was doing that as a 2L in misdemeanor court) but it was a lesson I thought every DA ever  should have drilled into their heads- we serve the people and the accused are part of that, and protecting their rights damn sure are part of that. 

[Captainant 27467]

3 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

You want a judge taking it upon themselves to retry a case every time someone is exonerated?  I don’t. 

Please show me where, how, and why flynn has been exonerated. With supporting evidence, if you don't mind.

[Anastasis 23394]

33 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I mean maybe you're not saying that but there are lots of people saying that lol

Sounds like your time would be better spent tracking down those people to engage with. Maybe migrate to twitter.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

5 hours ago, trauma babe said:

Has anything ever "trickled down" to the more deserving in this country? Not trying to be snide. Off the top of my head, I can't think of an example, but I'm also far from a student of history (and a little daydrunk)

Well, for example, this case would seem set to establish the principle that when the government wants to dismiss a case, it has the unfettered "right" or ability to do so, no matter what stage the prosecution may be "at," and no matter how much the judge may dislike the dismissal.  That could potentially assist any defendant.

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

49 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Please show me where, how, and why flynn has been exonerated. With supporting evidence, if you don't mind.

Trump said so. 

QED

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, for example, this case would seem set to establish the principle that when the government wants to dismiss a case, it has the unfettered "right" or ability to do so, no matter what stage the prosecution may be "at," and no matter how much the judge may dislike the dismissal.  That could potentially assist any defendant.

Which was my point with basically everything that came out of the 1960’s in the court. 

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

58 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Please show me where, how, and why flynn has been exonerated. With supporting evidence, if you don't mind.

The government said that he is. I don’t know how else to say it but that. The government is the entity that charges and it’s the entity that tries the case. If they are saying it needs to be kicked then it needs to be kicked. 

I want as narrow a scope of use of government powers as possible. You want the political result that you want. I don’t know how else to say it. It’s a bad idea to start from a result and work backwards. 

[Bullneck 18987]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

We have people formally admit guilt all the time that are probably innocent of whatever it is they are claiming to be guilty of. 

Prosecutors use, all the time, threats of lots of jail to get you to plead for a little bit of jail. It’s not a big in the system it’s a feature. 

You want a judge taking it upon themselves to retry a case every time someone is exonerated?  I don’t. 

But then again- I’ve actually sat down and pulled cases to be kicked before they were ever tried before (granted, in a minor setting as I was doing that as a 2L in misdemeanor court) but it was a lesson I thought every DA ever  should have drilled into their heads- we serve the people and the accused are part of that, and protecting their rights damn sure are part of that. 

Didn't Fynn plead guilty? 

[RomaVicta 29794]

23 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah but none of that fucking matters. If a prosecutor says nope there is no case or controversy and the judge sure as hell cannot take it upon themself to try the case for the state. 

As twice said- every benefit of the doubt should and does go to the defendant and that’s with damn good reason- the might of the government is fucking staggering... they don’t need the help. 

This is an absurd, politically-motivated travesty. You cannot give the government the benefit of the doubt, ever. They already win what 90+ percent of cases. Not to mention using power of trial and harsher sentence as a club to beat a defendant over the head with. You do not want the judge to have more power to tip the scales explicitly against the accused.  Ever. 

 

 

21 hours ago, Captainant said:

There's no case to try. The defendant pled guilty and signed affidavits to confirm he did what he was accused of. The prosecutor that brought the case and secured the confession and legal conviction was forced out, and the new prosecutor brought in by Barr filed a motion riddled with errors that it's trying to spike the case. 

You're dissembling about how the judge doesn't have the authority to try the case, completely ignoring that the facts and legal assessment of guilt were already confirmed by the defendant himself. 

 

8 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

Considering the the presence of the guilty plea by the defendant, the removal/resignation of the prior prosecutor, and potus/barr's rather obvious political intervention, I think Sullivan needs to ask a ton of questions and ensure those answers are made public.  If his questions and concerns aren't addressed, he should drag this out into 2021 when a new DOJ steps in.  

 

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Please show me where, how, and why flynn has been exonerated. With supporting evidence, if you don't mind.

You guys are tearing me apart here. I can't spot the idiot or who is clearly wrong. THAT'S NOT HOW WE DO THINGS IN THE USA!!!!!!

I wish I'd followed this more closely because coming in late is difficult. Compliments to you guys for illuminating two sides so well that I can at least see why it's not simple.

A question from a lay person:

It seems an issue here is abuse of power by the AG appointed by Trump to cripple investigations against the president. The abuse flows through the AG to a new prosecutor the AG appoints and charges with dropping a case where a plea has already been entered.

Yesterday the guy was guilty by his own admission. Today he's not guilty by executive action. 

Is impeachment the only remedy for this if, indeed, it was an abuse of power? If a president has a conviction proof senate, don't we pretty much have a near autocrat using the executive branch?

If I remain correct in my analysis (tenuous, I know), should the actor in the judicial branch act as a check on that abuse to whatever extent the judge can do so?

What kind of a fuck do we have as president to be even trying this? What kind of electorate do we have that chooses to sleep through it?

Anyway, thanks for some good argument on this page.

[Captainant 27467]

2 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

The government said that he is. I don’t know how else to say it but that. The government is the entity that charges and it’s the entity that tries the case. If they are saying it needs to be kicked then it needs to be kicked. 

I want as narrow a scope of use of government powers as possible. You want the political result that you want. I don’t know how else to say it. It’s a bad idea to start from a result and work backwards. 

So in order:

1. The government pressed charges, and secured a plea deal in exchange for cooperation with other ongoing investigations related to counterintelligence and Mueller's overall efforts
2. In his plea deal, Flynn signed affidavits under penalty of perjury to affirm and confirm that he did what the government said he did, and was guilty of lying to the FBI as charged.
3. Barr comes into power at DOJ, and the entire previous prosecution team is removed from the case and a new prosecution team joins the case and the sentencing portion of the trial is postponed
   1. Barr also previously and concurrently been attacking other fruits of the mueller investigation
4. The new prosecution team does a complete 180 and says they don't in fact have a case against flynn and he's really the victim in all of this, filing a motion riddled with errors to spike the case AFTER guilt has been established and attested to by the defendant himself under penalty of perjury.
5. Now that DOJ has completely swapped the prosecution team and filed a literally unprecedented motion for dismissal to the benefit of one of the presidents old allies and advisors
6. Flynn's legal guilt is now reversed without the introduction of any sort of evidence or supporting reasoning, and it should be considered an overly broad exercise of judicial power to ask just what in the flying fuck is going on here?

Judges aren't stupid. You may wish they were to further limit government powers and to make your job easier, but it's not exactly normal for a high-profile prosecution to get halted at the 11th hour AFTER securing a guilty judgement. Especially in a vacuum of evidence and with a significant number of parallel actions and actors to a previous abuse of justice by a political ally to the president.

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

30 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Didn't Fynn plead guilty? 

I think so. Thus the point of my first paragraph. People plead guilty in the real world as a risk management calculation all the time. Or due to finances. Or a host of other reasons.  I can guarantee you that there are people in jail that plead guilty that actually aren’t. 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

16 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

 

 

 

You guys are tearing me apart here. I can't spot the idiot or who is clearly wrong. THAT'S NOT HOW WE DO THINGS IN THE USA!!!!!!

I wish I'd followed this more closely because coming in late is difficult. Compliments to you guys for illuminating two sides so well that I can at least see why it's not simple.

A question from a lay person:

It seems an issue here is abuse of power by the AG appointed by Trump to cripple investigations against the president. The abuse flows through the AG to a new prosecutor the AG appoints and charges with dropping a case where a plea has already been entered.

Yesterday the guy was guilty by his own admission. Today he's not guilty by executive action. 

Is impeachment the only remedy for this if, indeed, it was an abuse of power? If a president has a conviction proof senate, don't we pretty much have a near autocrat using the executive branch?

If I remain correct in my analysis (tenuous, I know), should the actor in the judicial branch act as a check on that abuse to whatever extent the judge can do so?

What kind of a fuck do we have as president to be even trying this? What kind of electorate do we have that chooses to sleep through it?

Anyway, thanks for some good argument on this page.

Well, start from fundamentals.  The job of the executive is to enforce the laws provided by the legislature.  The judiciary provides a forum for enforcement and tells the executive and the legislature when they have overstepped their constitutional bounds within the context of the executive's judicial enforcement actions.  And civil suits for those not implicating the criminal laws.

As we have learned, the biggest single check on the executive is political:  impeachment and the vote.

Inherent in the power to enforce the law is the power not to enforce the law.  In the specific criminal context, it is the power to bring prosecutions and to dismiss them.

The constitutional dimension to judicial power in the criminal context is mostly to enforce the protections of the Constitution for the benefit of the defendant and to interpret and apply the laws of the legislature in prosecutions brought by the executive.  The case law says that the judiciary has almost no power over the executive as concerns the decisions to prosecute (and the corollary to dismiss).

So you might yearn for some judicial power to check the executive in this context.  But there is one monstrous constitutional problem and that is the defendant.  The judiciary has little power here and even less when you consider that the full exercise of that power results in conviction of a defendant.

Edited May 26, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

18 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

 

 

 

You guys are tearing me apart here. I can't spot the idiot or who is clearly wrong. THAT'S NOT HOW WE DO THINGS IN THE USA!!!!!!

I wish I'd followed this more closely because coming in late is difficult. Compliments to you guys for illuminating two sides so well that I can at least see why it's not simple.

A question from a lay person:

It seems an issue here is abuse of power by the AG appointed by Trump to cripple investigations against the president. The abuse flows through the AG to a new prosecutor the AG appoints and charges with dropping a case where a plea has already been entered.

Yesterday the guy was guilty by his own admission. Today he's not guilty by executive action. 

Is impeachment the only remedy for this if, indeed, it was an abuse of power? If a president has a conviction proof senate, don't we pretty much have a near autocrat using the executive branch?

If I remain correct in my analysis (tenuous, I know), should the actor in the judicial branch act as a check on that abuse to whatever extent the judge can do so?

What kind of a fuck do we have as president to be even trying this? What kind of electorate do we have that chooses to sleep through it?

Anyway, thanks for some good argument on this page.

No. The judiciary should have literally no check on the president legally. The voters can vote him out. The house can make its case and the senate can convict. 

If you allow the executive to be judged by the judiciary (or charged by them) you could have every broke dick jurisdiction from bugshit Nebraska to cousin fucking Arkansas filings charges and sitting in judgment. Or, NY and LA. Either way, the president should be above the law but for impeachment. 

Think about it- the absolute longest the American people can go without getting the chance to weigh in is 24 months. Most court cases take way longer than that. 

Also- everything Twice said. 

Edited May 26, 2020 by Wulaw Horn

[Captainant 27467]

Wulaw doesn't believe in balance of powers and that the judiciary is not a co-equal branch of government? Yikes. 

Edited May 26, 2020 by Captainant

[TwiceHorn 31283]

14 minutes ago, Captainant said:

So in order:

1. The government pressed charges, and secured a plea deal in exchange for cooperation with other ongoing investigations related to counterintelligence and Mueller's overall efforts
2. In his plea deal, Flynn signed affidavits under penalty of perjury to affirm and confirm that he did what the government said he did, and was guilty of lying to the FBI as charged.
3. Barr comes into power at DOJ, and the entire previous prosecution team is removed from the case and a new prosecution team joins the case and the sentencing portion of the trial is postponed
   1. Barr also previously and concurrently been attacking other fruits of the mueller investigation
4. The new prosecution team does a complete 180 and says they don't in fact have a case against flynn and he's really the victim in all of this, filing a motion riddled with errors to spike the case AFTER guilt has been established and attested to by the defendant himself under penalty of perjury.
5. Now that DOJ has completely swapped the prosecution team and filed a literally unprecedented motion for dismissal to the benefit of one of the presidents old allies and advisors
6. Flynn's legal guilt is now reversed without the introduction of any sort of evidence or supporting reasoning, and it should be considered an overly broad exercise of judicial power to ask just what in the flying fuck is going on here?

Judges aren't stupid. You may wish they were to further limit government powers and to make your job easier, but it's not exactly normal for a high-profile prosecution to get halted at the 11th hour AFTER securing a guilty judgement. Especially in a vacuum of evidence and with a significant number of parallel actions and actors to a previous abuse of justice by a political ally to the president.

We're not talking about whether it's right or wrong in some cosmic sense.  Or whether it's a normal case or an unusual case.

The result, I believe, has to be the same, and that is that Sullivan has to dismiss the case.  I do think he retains the power to dismiss it without prejudice to its refiling and assume that the pendency of the case is going to toll limitations for 2.5 years.

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Wulaw doesn't believe in balance of powers and that the judiciary is not a co-equal branch of government? Yikes. 

No. That’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying that the constitution tells us who has the power to try the president for high crimes and misdemeanors (and it’s the same people who have the power over removal of justices). 

Obama admitted to dealing coke in his book, right?  What’s the statute of limitations on that?  Pretend it’s 20 years- you want someone indicting him for that while he’s the president?

[TwiceHorn 31283]

2 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

No. The judiciary should have literally no check on the president legally. The voters can vote him out. The house can make its case and the senate can convict. 

If you allow the executive to be judged by the judiciary (or charged by them) you could have every broke dick jurisdiction from bugshit Nebraska to cousin fucking Arkansas filings charges and sitting in judgment. Or, NY and LA. Either way, the president should be above the law but for impeachment. 

Think about it- the absolute longest the American people can go without getting the chance to weigh in is 24 months. Most court cases take way longer than that. 

The judiciary has the power to invalidate executive actions as exceeding constitutional authority, as when something is reserved to the legislature, or it is unlawful or illegal under a valid non-criminal law.

I'm not 100% convinced that the notion that the President cant' be indicted for criminal actions in office is sound.

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The judiciary has the power to invalidate executive actions as exceeding constitutional authority, as when something is reserved to the legislature, or it is unlawful or illegal under a valid non-criminal law.

I'm not 100% convinced that the notion that the President cant' be indicted for criminal actions in office is sound.

Of course as to the first paragraph. I thought it was pretty clear I was talking about criminal context in that regard as I went into impeachment etc immediately thereafter  

As to the second paragraph war game it out. It’s a bad idea. 

Edited May 26, 2020 by Wulaw Horn

[Bullneck 18987]

14 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I think so. Thus the point of my first paragraph. People plead guilty in the real world as a risk management calculation all the time. Or due to finances. Or a host of other reasons.  I can guarantee you that there are people in jail that plead guilty that actually aren’t. 

He did. 

Also I think most people are aware that the government will push for guilty pleas from the pay-day loan crowd to 1) get a conviction for themselves, and 2) create a record for the defendant.

But remember that Flynn wasn't some dumbass picked up with a reefer in his pocket at 2am on Dirty South.  He was the nation's top intelligence officer also working on behalf of a foreign government.  Judge Bullneck would have him shot at dawn.