Flynn Walks.. DOJ drops case

[HenryJames 67116]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not real interested in defending Flynn, but Ok, so that maybe contradicts US policy at the time.  When it's going to change in about three weeks.

He’s telling them that they’re not going to be punished for interfering in the fucking election.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

3 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

He’s telling them that they’re not going to be punished for interfering in the fucking election.

I don't read it that way.  Even so, that would have been and apparently was the Trump Admin policy, which although highly undesireable, was perfectly legal.

Am I missing something?

Edited May 30, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Message Board User 12405]

 

[Nivek 17330]

Stupid is as stupid does.

He admitted in court to lying. His defense was they didn’t think lying to the FBI was a crime. He said on record the FBI behaved appropriately as a matter of evidence. He accepted the plea.

He was prompted by the FBI to jog his memory during the interview so to avoid an “oops, I forgot.”

[Nivek 17330]

I don't read it that way.  Even so, that would have been and apparently was the Trump Admin policy, which although highly undesireable, was perfectly legal.

Am I missing something?

Flynn talks, like ya know, a teenage girl?

[TwiceHorn 31987]

16 minutes ago, Nivek said:

He admitted in court to lying. His defense was they didn’t think lying to the FBI was a crime. He said on record the FBI behaved appropriately as a matter of evidence. He accepted the plea.

He was prompted by the FBI to jog his memory during the interview so to avoid an “oops, I forgot.”

He never actually raised that as a defense.  His defense, post-plea, was basically prosecutorial misconduct, which sort of morphed into not material lies because improper investigation.

Wearing my lawyer hat, those transcripts don't move the needle on this either way.

Clearly a politically motivated dismissal.  I see no overwhelming evidence of either innocence or guilt.  A jury trial could have been a roll of the dice just like most others.  That he pled guilty instantaneously indicates a guilty conscience, or some overwhelming coercion that seemingly would have come out by now.

If you want to contend that he was laying the groundwork for Trumpco obfuscation and "treasonous" activity, I buy that 100%.  Don't see that that is illegal. Infuriating, given what we have learned, but not illegal.

I should point out that the information (indictment) and plea statement of facts indicate lies that those transcripts don't address.  Lies that werem't "I don't recall."

Edited May 30, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Message Board User 12405]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

It is a never ending cover up with little to no consequences.  These fuckers don’t give a shit if they get caught because daddy will fix everything in the end.

[Nivek 17330]

On 5/29/2020 at 8:31 PM, TwiceHorn said:

He never actually raised that as a defense.  His defense, post-plea, was basically prosecutorial misconduct, which sort of morphed into not material lies because improper investigation.

 

From Wiki- Flynn's attorneys submitted a sentencing memo on December 11, 2018, requesting leniency and suggesting FBI agents had tricked him into lying during the January 24, 2017, White House interview and did not advise him that lying to federal agents is a felony.

Maybe I should have interpreted that as an act of desperation to see if it would stick? 

[Captainant 28389]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/judge-sullivan-says-he-is-not-required-to-rubber-stamp-dojs-bid-to-dismiss-flynn-case/2020/06/01/5c1befd6-a418-11ea-b619-3f9133bbb482_story.html

The judge must evaluate Flynn’s dramatically different claims, Sullivan’s lawyer Beth Wilkinson told the court: “What, if anything, should Judge Sullivan do about Mr. Flynn’s sworn statements to the court, where he repeatedly admitted to the crime and to the voluntariness of his guilty plea, only to now claim that he never lied to the government and was pressured and misled into pleading guilty?”

[HenryJames 67116]

 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

On 5/31/2020 at 10:09 AM, Nivek said:

From Wiki- Flynn's attorneys submitted a sentencing memo on December 11, 2018, requesting leniency and suggesting FBI agents had tricked him into lying during the January 24, 2017, White House interview and did not advise him that lying to federal agents is a felony.

Maybe I should have interpreted that as an act of desperation to see if it would stick? 

Well, a sentencing memo comes after a guilty plea or conviction by trial, so it's not really a defense to the offense, as that's off the table by that point.

And yeah, sentencing memos from defendants tend to be acts of desperation.

[GW Hayduke 1957]

We need more public servants like Judge Sullivan in this day and age.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

That's a really good brief.  I'm impressed.

[JBJ 3780]

 

On 5/31/2020 at 10:09 AM, Nivek said:

From Wiki- Flynn's attorneys submitted a sentencing memo on December 11, 2018, requesting leniency and suggesting FBI agents had tricked him into lying during the January 24, 2017, White House interview and did not advise him that lying to federal agents is a felony.

Maybe I should have interpreted that as an act of desperation to see if it would stick? 

The sentencing memo was in support of the prosecutions sentencing memo so no to the latter.

But that is the part that got him into trouble with Sullivan.  Judges don't like it when you plea guilty and argue innocence at the same time.  That's what the salon owner in Dallas was held in contempt for.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

7 minutes ago, JBJ said:

 

That's what the salon owner in Dallas was held in contempt for.

Definitely inaccurate.

After being cited for violating the shut-down laws, she was sued by the city to shut her down in an entirely separate civil action after she continued to operate her salon.  The court there, a civil court, issued an injunction.

She violated the injunction, was cited for contempt (as any violator of a civil injunction would be) and was "sentenced" to seven days in jail as a contempt remedy when she told the presiding judge she would not abide by the injunction.

Every plea bargain is accompanied by a "plea colloquy" in which the judge asks the defendant about the voluntariness of the plea and the defendant's actual guilt.  If a judge gets wind of much "not guilty" sentiment during the plea colloquy, s/he may reject the plea.  They don't usually get angry about it, they just don't want to accept a coerced plea (even though most or all of them are coerced to some degree).  It's really a theater of the absurd.

[JBJ 3780]

31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Definitely inaccurate.

After being cited for violating the shut-down laws, she was sued by the city to shut her down in an entirely separate civil action after she continued to operate her salon.  The court there, a civil court, issued an injunction.

She violated the injunction, was cited for contempt (as any violator of a civil injunction would be) and was "sentenced" to seven days in jail as a contempt remedy when she told the presiding judge she would not abide by the injunction.

Every plea bargain is accompanied by a "plea colloquy" in which the judge asks the defendant about the voluntariness of the plea and the defendant's actual guilt.  If a judge gets wind of much "not guilty" sentiment during the plea colloquy, s/he may reject the plea.  They don't usually get angry about it, they just don't want to accept a coerced plea (even though most or all of them are coerced to some degree).  It's really a theater of the absurd.

Turns out this is true about the Dallas salon lady.  I guess I don't pay attention.  I was under the impression she was pleading guilty to the Covid fine while giving the speech in support of her civil disobedience.

But, your last paragraph is the point I meant to make wrt Flynn, Sullivan, and his initial sentencing.

Edited June 9, 2020 by JBJ

[Wulaw Horn 19560]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Definitely inaccurate.

After being cited for violating the shut-down laws, she was sued by the city to shut her down in an entirely separate civil action after she continued to operate her salon.  The court there, a civil court, issued an injunction.

She violated the injunction, was cited for contempt (as any violator of a civil injunction would be) and was "sentenced" to seven days in jail as a contempt remedy when she told the presiding judge she would not abide by the injunction.

Every plea bargain is accompanied by a "plea colloquy" in which the judge asks the defendant about the voluntariness of the plea and the defendant's actual guilt.  If a judge gets wind of much "not guilty" sentiment during the plea colloquy, s/he may reject the plea.  They don't usually get angry about it, they just don't want to accept a coerced plea (even though most or all of them are coerced to some degree).  It's really a theater of the absurd.

That last paragraph is really smart and should be read over and over and over again until it sinks in- especially the parenthetical and the last sentence. 

[High Plains Drifter 11161]

On 6/1/2020 at 5:04 PM, HenryJames said:

 

 

I'm no submarine captain, but it sounds like the judge is taking no shit from the DOJ.

 

 

[washparkhorn 9967]

On 6/1/2020 at 3:04 PM, HenryJames said:

 

The judge is questioning the timing of the dismissal motion. And from that snippet seems to assert the Government cannot intercede at this point. I believe substantive due process suggests all parties can raise substantive due process rights for the accused at any time through well-established procedures.

I would be interested in what amicus has argued. Orders are written for clarity - especially when appellate review is expected. The flowery details tend to be folded away.

I am not sure this judge should be handling this - given this juncture in the case. He is getting close to witness territory. Has there been a motion to recuse by the Parties to the matter? 

Edited June 10, 2020 by washparkhorn

[washparkhorn 9967]

42 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I'm no submarine captain, but it sounds like the judge is taking no shit from the DOJ.

 

 

Pretty extraordinary. He is pissed at both parties. 

[Hiphopopotamos 21158]

 

[Hiphopopotamos 21158]

 

[Hiphopopotamos 21158]

 

[Hiphopopotamos 21158]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Bill Barr is very upset.

[Hookah Horns 3089]

8 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

I am not sure this judge should be handling this - given this juncture in the case. He is getting close to witness territory. Has there been a motion to recuse by the Parties to the matter? 

I'm not sure what you're talking about or why he should recuse himself.

A witness to the record in the Sullivan proceedings? Because he's responding to a writ of mandamus petition? 

Edited June 10, 2020 by Hookah Horns

[Hookah Horns 3089]

9 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

The judge is questioning the timing of the dismissal motion. And from that snippet seems to assert the Government cannot intercede at this point. I believe substantive due process suggests all parties can raise substantive due process rights for the accused at any time through well-established procedures.

I would be interested in what amicus has argued. Orders are written for clarity - especially when appellate review is expected. The flowery details tend to be folded away.

The issue is not that it's too late for the gov't to dismiss the case. It's that they don't have an unqualified right to a dismissal; they need leave of court. In requesting leave, they need to explain their reasoning. The timing of the request is cited as a reason the court suspects the reasoning offered is pretextual and the gov't instead has corrupt intent. Which is one potentiality the rule requiring leave of court was designed to prevent, according to the amicus brief. 

Edited June 10, 2020 by Hookah Horns

[Hookah Horns 3089]

21 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

I'm not sure what you're talking about or why he should recuse himself.

A witness to the record in the Sullivan proceedings? Because he's responding to a writ of mandamus petition? 

I meant to say "the Flynn proceedings," not Sullivan. 

[TheStoicPaisano 9948]

Oral arguments are this morning in DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

Edited June 12, 2020 by TheStoicPaisano

[TwiceHorn 31987]

On 6/10/2020 at 3:17 AM, washparkhorn said:

The judge is questioning the timing of the dismissal motion. And from that snippet seems to assert the Government cannot intercede at this point. I believe substantive due process suggests all parties can raise substantive due process rights for the accused at any time through well-established procedures.

I would be interested in what amicus has argued. Orders are written for clarity - especially when appellate review is expected. The flowery details tend to be folded away.

I am not sure this judge should be handling this - given this juncture in the case. He is getting close to witness territory. Has there been a motion to recuse by the Parties to the matter? 

While Katyal said "Judge Sullivan," what he meant was filed by Sullivan's attorney on his behalf in the DC Circuit in the mandamus proceeding.

The "amicus," which seems to me to be more a "government ad litem" or special master, has excoriated the government, as he probably should.

However, I don't think this ends with anything but dismissal.

My bold prediction, the DC Circuit denies mandamus but intimates that anything but a dismissal would be viewed askance.

It goes back to Sullivan and he dismisses, regretfully, in an opinion that rips the DOJ a new one and very possibly sanctions Shea.

Edited June 12, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[tx 3 putt 78470]

Can the judge continue on with ‘perjury’ charges despite the DoJ interference ? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

This gonna be good...

 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

Can the judge continue on with ‘perjury’ charges despite the DoJ interference ? 

I really think the max the judge can do with that is refer it to the US attorney's office for prosecution.

Also, for various reasons, I'm not sure any prosecutor's office wants to get too deep into perjury in the plea bargain process.  That would pretty literally put the system on trial.  And while the system is broken, there probably needs to be some kind of fix in place or ready to roll before it just gets invalidated.

Edited June 12, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31987]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

While Katyal said "Judge Sullivan," what he meant was filed by Sullivan's attorney on his behalf in the DC Circuit in the mandamus proceeding.

The "amicus," which seems to me to be more a "government ad litem" or special master, has excoriated the government, as he probably should.

However, I don't think this ends with anything but dismissal.

My bold prediction, the DC Circuit denies mandamus but intimates that anything but a dismissal would be viewed askance.

It goes back to Sullivan and he dismisses, regretfully, in an opinion that rips the DOJ a new one and very possibly sanctions Shea.

On the Shea matter, note that he was made acting USA for the District of DC for a whopping 60 days and then moved to a non-judicial post at the DEA.

It's fairly clear that he was a sacrificial lamb for this, knew that it would wreck his career as a prosecutor/USA, and was "quid pro quo'ed" the DEA post to give him something to do and probably a pay bump.

Edited June 12, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[JBJ 3780]

2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Can the judge continue on with ‘perjury’ charges despite the DoJ interference ? 

Technically, yes.  However, the window to pursue perjury for statements made as part of a plea is very narrow.  It's l about 50/50 whether a court even swears in a plea (DC district always does by rule), but taking an oath it doesn't supercede protections given to pleas. 

Gleeson danced around it for good reasons and the argument he did make doesn't make much sense to me. 

I read it as he asked Sullivan to maintain the courts acceptance of the guilty plea while at the same time determine the guilty plea to be false.  Anyone have a more reasonable interpretation?

Edited June 12, 2020 by JBJ

[Hookah Horns 3089]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

While Katyal said "Judge Sullivan," what he meant was filed by Sullivan's attorney on his behalf in the DC Circuit in the mandamus proceeding.

The "amicus," which seems to me to be more a "government ad litem" or special master, has excoriated the government, as he probably should.

However, I don't think this ends with anything but dismissal.

My bold prediction, the DC Circuit denies mandamus but intimates that anything but a dismissal would be viewed askance.

It goes back to Sullivan and he dismisses, regretfully, in an opinion that rips the DOJ a new one and very possibly sanctions Shea.

I thought it was going to be dismissed, but after reading the amicus brief, I now believe it won't. 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

7 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

I thought it was going to be dismissed, but after reading the amicus brief, I now believe it won't. 

I haven't read the amicus brief.  I think the DC Circuit's opinion is going to be more influential on that than the amicus.

[Hookah Horns 3089]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I haven't read the amicus brief.  I think the DC Circuit's opinion is going to be more influential on that than the amicus.

I'd expect Sullivan will make his ruling before the mandamus opinion is issued. I think the justices in that case will want to see what he does first. If he dismisses it it's moot anyway. 

Edited June 12, 2020 by Hookah Horns

[Celery Man 21076]

Hopping in late here as I saw some stuff about Flynn and don't know what's going on (but have read this page). So, it sounds like it is possible that the court may reject the dropping of the charges, in which case what happens?

[TwiceHorn 31987]

24 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Hopping in late here as I saw some stuff about Flynn and don't know what's going on (but have read this page). So, it sounds like it is possible that the court may reject the dropping of the charges, in which case what happens?

Now that he has the brief of the amicus, pending the outcome of the mandamus appeal, Sullivan can either dismiss the case or sentence Flynn.

After he does that, Flynn will have the right/ability to take a regular appeal of the sentence/lack of dismissal that will get full consideration of the issues.

Edited June 13, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Celery Man 21076]

thanks 2h!

[Fudge Nuggets 19407]

I swear you lawyers can fuck up the absolute most clear cut bullshit every damn time.

[GW Hayduke 1957]

For anyone that wants to listen to yesterday's oral arguments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15exlPAA3U&feature=emb_err_woyt

[jimmyjazz 46976]

Wasn't there a brouhaha on this thread about materiality?  It seems the amicus brief presents a strong case:

Quote

"That is about as straightforward a case of materiality as a prosecutor, court, or jury will ever see," Gleeson wrote. "In asserting otherwise, the Government struggles mightily to argue that Flynn's false statements neither affected nor could have affected the FBI's investigation of his and his colleagues' potential ties to the Russian government."

Gleeson

Edited June 13, 2020 by jimmyjazz

[Hookah Horns 3089]

21 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I swear you lawyers can fuck up the absolute most clear cut bullshit every damn time.

Fair point

[Hookah Horns 3089]

5 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wasn't there a brouhaha on this thread about materiality?  It seems the amicus brief presents a strong case:

Gleeson

Yeah their materiality argument is bullshit. There's no way it's immaterial just because they were going to close the investigation into Flynn. There's no requirement that a false statement be material to an investigation of the person making the statement. His lies were clearly material to the broader Russia investigation. 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

34 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Yeah their materiality argument is bullshit. There's no way it's immaterial just because they were going to close the investigation into Flynn. There's no requirement that a false statement be material to an investigation of the person making the statement. His lies were clearly material to the broader Russia investigation. 

That is pretty much the crux of the government's motion and it seems to be very thin.

The secondary, or maybe primary, crux is the power of a court to deny a motion to dismiss under Rule 48.  Gleeson makes a dandy little case for that power.  But, he cites dicta (language unnecessary to the decision) from cases that almost exclusively come down on the side of the defendant.  That might work since the facts and posture of this is so bizarre, but in the usual case doesn't work that well.

Edited June 13, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Hookah Horns 3089]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That is pretty much the crux of the government's motion and it seems to be very thin.

The secondary, or maybe primary, crux is the power of a court to deny a motion to dismiss under Rule 48.  Gleeson makes a dandy little case for that power.  But, he cites dicta (language unnecessary to the decision) from cases that almost exclusively come down on the side of the defendant.  That might work since the facts and posture of this is so bizarre, but in the usual case doesn't work that well.

He also cited some treatises and other secondary sources that persuaded me that rule 48(a) was intended to cover instances of govt corruption in moving to dismiss, and provide judicial authority to reject such dismissald. The DOJ contends that the rule only intended to cover instances where the defendant objects to the dismissal (because the prosecutor is harassing the defendent by dismissing and recharging, etc). 

[jimmyjazz 46976]

Is Gleeson expected to consider all conflicting precedent, etc. when writing such a brief?  Is it OK for him to cite rulings that only support his opinion as to the legality of the DOJ's actions?