Sullivan is going to review the Flynn case - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15091312
I was right.

Sullivan is going to hold a hearing to review the corrupt and unprecedented mismanagement of the Flynn case.

"A federal judge has put the justice department’s decision to dismiss a criminal case against Michael Flynn, Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, on hold – opening the door for legal experts and other outside parties to oppose the administration’s motion to exonerate Flynn of lying to the FBI.

Judge Emmet Sullivan’s order is the latest development in the high-profile case, which has led critics, including Barack Obama and hundreds of former FBI and justice department officials, to question whether William Barr, the attorney general, was orchestrating favors for Trump.

Sullivan has questioned Flynn in court before. During a 2018 hearing, he rejected a motion supported by the administration for probation, telling Flynn: “Arguably, you sold your country out.”

Now for my next prediction, the judge will say his decision will stand.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... nt-dismiss
#15091349
late wrote:Judge Emmet Sullivan’s order is the latest development in the high-profile case, which has led critics, including Barack Obama and hundreds of former FBI and justice department officials, to question whether William Barr, the attorney general, was orchestrating favors for Trump.

Obama's criticism was hilarious. He couldn't even get the crime right. He claimed there was no precedent, when in fact the last time a high profile case was dismissed by the DoJ, it was his own AG, Eric Holder, who held the DoJ to account in the Senator Ted Stevens case.

Statement of Attorney General Eric Holder Regarding United States V. Theodore F. Stevens
Eric Holder wrote:In connection with the post-trial litigation in United States v. Theodore F. Stevens, the Department of Justice has conducted a review of the case, including an examination of the extent of the disclosures provided to the defendant. After careful review, I have concluded that certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial. In light of this conclusion, and in consideration of the totality of the circumstances of this particular case, I have determined that it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the indictment and not proceed with a new trial.

That case was also presented before Judge Sullivan. :lol:
#15091350
blackjack21 wrote:
That case was also presented before Judge Sullivan.



You didn't say anything.

What you would need to do is delineate the ways in which the cases are similar, how that decision should influence the Flynn case.

But you can't do that, and you know it.

Flynn's lawyers have already tried to get the case thrown out, and the judge said, in so many words, that they were being ridiculous.

The same way you are ridiculous, and not solely on this topic.

I'd say get real, but it's all propaganda and gaslighting now. Or to be more concise, all crap, all the time.
#15091474
late wrote:Flynn's lawyers have already tried to get the case thrown out, and the judge said, in so many words, that they were being ridiculous.

When both the prosecution and the defense are pushing for a dismissal, it's going to look ridiculous for the court to try to maintain a prosecution--especially when he will lose on appeal anyway.

late wrote:Sullivan has questioned Flynn in court before. During a 2018 hearing, he rejected a motion supported by the administration for probation, telling Flynn: “Arguably, you sold your country out.”

That's prejudicial. Making a false statement to an FBI investigator isn't betraying your country.

I love it when Clintonites can't get over Hillary losing to Donald Trump. I have cousins who love Clinton. They watch documentaries of her "presidency being stolen" and they actually cry on their couch watching it.

If Trump pulls this out in 2020, he's going to top Ronald Reagan. He'll be a legend.
#15091477
Why does this deserve its own thread ?

Like I posted on the orginal thread.

Finfinder wrote:Some facts you lack understanding

This was a malicious prosecution by the Obama administration
Brady material was concealed and withheld
A coerced guilty plea
It was shown he had ineffective assistance by council
Independent review by the AG and Assistant United State Attorney
The prosecution made a motion to dismiss

This is a trial court. There is literally no reason for Amici brief except for it being for political reasons.

"Jenny Ellis "


Should Joe Biden be called as a witnes?
#15091498
late wrote:Flynn's lawyers have already tried to get the case thrown out, and the judge said, in so many words, that they were being ridiculous.

Flynn only has one lawyer now and she is a very good one.
The Judge is a Democrat and is not following the law, but is being a biased partisan, which is plain to see.
#15091502
Yeah, the latest scuttlebutt is that Sullivan wants to cite Flynn for contempt of court for lying about being guilty in his plea agreement. This reflects so badly on the court and Flynn's political detractors. I don't think they are able to see it that way. For people who are dispassionate, it's absolutely baffling that a judge would do something like this. Judges are supposed to be impartial.
#15091517
Hindsite wrote:

The Judge is a Democrat and is not following the law, but is being a biased partisan, which is plain to see.



Well, that was expected.

Barr has turned the agency into the Injustice Dept. This has never happened before. And you can add to that he is letting Trump's minions out of jail.

The excuse is the virus, but it's only Trump's minions and there are no Corona cases in one of the jails in question.

They aren't even trying to hide it anymore, and there you are, like a little puppy, making noise without a shred of comprehension.

"In an open letter signed by more than 2,000 Justice Department alumni, the officials argue that Barr “has once again assaulted the rule of law.” “Our democracy depends on a Department of Justice that acts as an independent arbiter of equal justice,” they write, “not as an arm of the president’s political apparatus.”

Justice alums called on Barr to officially resign in their letter, as well as argue that Congress should formally censure the attorney general “for his repeated assaults on the rule of law in doing the President’s personal bidding rather than acting in the public interest.” In the former officials’ view, the decision to drop Flynn’s charges—which they note is “extraordinarily rare, if not unprecedented”—was completely unwarranted, and the Justice Department’s justification “does not hold up to scrutiny.” The DOJ argued in their legal motion that Flynn should not be prosecuted for lying under oath to the FBI about his contacts with Russia (a crime that he has openly confessed to), because they believe Flynn should not have been interviewed by the FBI as part of its Russia investigation in the first place. But as the Justice officials note, there's “ample evidence that the investigation was well-founded”—not to mention “the fact that Flynn admitted under oath and in open court that he told material lies to the FBI in violation of longstanding federal law.” “If any of us, or anyone reading this statement who is not a friend of the President, were to lie to federal investigators in the course of a properly predicated counterintelligence investigation, and admit we did so under oath, we would be prosecuted for it,” the officials write."

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/05/barr-drops-flynn-charges-doj-backlash-justice-officials

"The logic of the department’s position in the Flynn case is that the person who maliciously reported you to the FBI could not be prosecuted for making a false statement, because at the time the statements were made, those statements “were not ‘material’ to any viable counterintelligence investigation ... initiated by the FBI.” Or, to put it differently, the FBI can’t investigate whether someone is a Russian agent unless it already has evidence that the person is a Russian agent.

That isn’t the way either counterintelligence investigations or 18 U.S.C. § 1001 work. To begin with, the language of § 1001 does not support the department’s position. Section 1001 makes it a crime to make a materially false statement “in any matter within the jurisdiction of” a federal agency. This language does not require that there be an open investigation, but simply that the matter be “within the jurisdiction” of the FBI.

Counterintelligence is certainly within the FBI’s jurisdiction. And it beggars the imagination to suggest that following up on the Flynn-Kislyak conversation, along with Flynn’s false statements to Vice President Mike Pence and Press Secretary Sean Spicer, was outside the FBI’s jurisdiction. At a minimum, as many have noted, the fact that the Russian government would know that Flynn had lied left him open to potential blackmail by a hostile foreign power—surely a realistic counterintelligence concern. Of course, Flynn might have had innocent explanations for his conversation and his false statements, but the FBI surely would have been derelict in its duty to ignore this potential threat."

https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-departments-faulty-arguments-flynn-case
#15091690
blackjack21 wrote:Yeah, the latest scuttlebutt is that Sullivan wants to cite Flynn for contempt of court for lying about being guilty in his plea agreement. This reflects so badly on the court and Flynn's political detractors. I don't think they are able to see it that way. For people who are dispassionate, it's absolutely baffling that a judge would do something like this. Judges are supposed to be impartial.

Judge Sullivan is obviously an Obama supporter and not impartial in this case. It is pure political bias and Trump Derangement Syndrome in action. :lol:

late wrote:Barr has turned the agency into the Injustice Dept. This has never happened before. And you can add to that he is letting Trump's minions out of jail.

"In an open letter signed by more than 2,000 Justice Department alumni, the officials argue that Barr “has once again assaulted the rule of law.” “Our democracy depends on a Department of Justice that acts as an independent arbiter of equal justice,” they write, “not as an arm of the president’s political apparatus.”

In the words of Joe Biden, "That's a bunch of malarkey".

Those former "deep state" alumni are simply angry that the truth is now coming out as AG Barr is standing up for the rule of law in the Justice Department after the Obama administration had trampled all over it by using their "deep state" agents to spy for political purposes.

The truth is stranger than fiction.
#15091695
late wrote:"In an open letter signed by more than 2,000 Justice Department alumni, the officials argue that Barr “has once again assaulted the rule of law.” “Our democracy depends on a Department of Justice that acts as an independent arbiter of equal justice,” they write, “not as an arm of the president’s political apparatus.”

The Department of Justice is not independent of the presidency at all. All of its power comes from the president. It is also not an independent arbiter of justice. The courts are arbiters. Prosecutors are advocates not arbiters. They participate as adversaries in adversarial proceedings.

late wrote:Justice alums called on Barr to officially resign in their letter

He doesn't serve at their pleasure. He serves at the president's pleasure.

late wrote:The DOJ argued in their legal motion that Flynn should not be prosecuted for lying under oath to the FBI about his contacts with Russia (a crime that he has openly confessed to), because they believe Flynn should not have been interviewed by the FBI as part of its Russia investigation in the first place.

Again, you are proceeding with an assertion of fact not in evidence. Flynn's conversation with Kislyak was not criminal in nature, nor was it ever charged as a criminal act.

late wrote:Counterintelligence is certainly within the FBI’s jurisdiction.

Nobody suggested otherwise. However, there was no criminal investigation against Flynn. So using a statute for criminal investigations was unwarranted, because the questions were not probative. They already knew the answers.

Hindiste wrote:Judge Sullivan is obviously an Obama supporter and not impartial in this case. It is pure political bias and Trump Derangement Syndrome in action. :lol:

There is more to it than Trump derangement syndrome. They are actively trying--but failing--to destroy Flynn. In the process, they are demonstrating how utterly corrupt they are.

Hindsite wrote:Those former "deep state" alumni are simply angry that the truth is now coming out as AG Barr is standing up for the rule of law in the Justice Department after the Obama administration had trampled all over it by using their "deep state" agents to spy for political purposes.

They are angrier still that Ric Grennell exposed them. Their names, the dates they requested unmasking, and the number of times they did it are known to the public now. There's nothing more these people hate than the people knowing what they did, when they did it, and how often they did it. These people like to operate in the shadows.
#15091699
Flynn is irrelevant …… simply another of trump's fall guys.

What's relevant is that this farce demonstrates one more time that members of the elite are above the law. Nothing new here except that trump is rather obvious about it. Hasn't he been using the court system for years to fuck people with his cadre of lawyers. In Barr it looks as if he has his new Roy Cohn:

Image
Too bad Roy ^ is dead he would have made a fine Atty. General ….. serving at the pleasure of the president :lol:
Doesn't trump have a case going now that will, in fact, let him shoot someone dead on 5th Avenue and get away clean?
#15091702
jimjam wrote:Flynn is irrelevant …… simply another of trump's fall guys.

No. He's relevant. You don't have that many unmaskings--even the VPOTUS did it--if the person is irrelevant. Nobody cares about people like Papadopolous or Stone. They are window dressing. Flynn is different. He was set to take a powerful position.

jimjam wrote:What's relevant is that this farce demonstrates one more time that members of the elite are above the law.

Yes, but not in the way you are asserting.

jimjam wrote:Nothing new here except that trump is rather obvious about it.

Trump doesn't need to be subtle about it. Flynn did nothing wrong. He was targeted. The 302s and handwritten FBI notes detail it. The unmaskings put a solid foundation under that assertion. It all started late night on November 8, 2016--election night. They didn't think Trump was going to win. As soon as he did, they went to work.

What are you trying to say jimjam? Barr... Cohn... It's the Jews? :eek:
#15091711
jimjam wrote:What's relevant is that this farce demonstrates one more time that members of the elite are above the law.

It is also relevant that the Justice Department investigators wanted to close the case because they could not find that General Flynn did anything wrong. Even after the "deep state" got involved, the prosecutors originally asked the Judge to sentence Flynn to no jail time. When Judge Sullivan protested by questioning the prosecution about the possibility that Flynn was a traitor to his country, the original prosecutors told the judge that they had no evidence of that. So Judge Sullivan is still playing his partisan games to possibly force President Trump to issue a pardon to fully protect General Flynn. Those are the facts that are relevant now. The actions of Judge Sullivan are just partisan delaying tactics, nothing more.
#15091716
blackjack21 wrote:Flynn did nothing wrong.

How would they know without interviewing him?

no criminal investigation against Flynn

Wrong!

Predication...

FBI documentation, dating from August 2016, states that there is an articulable factual basis that Flynn “may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.”

Hindsite wrote:Flynn was a traitor to his country

On their face, the calls to Kislyak potentially undermined the foreign policy of the United States.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 15 May 2020 08:38, edited 1 time in total.
#15091717
ingliz wrote:How would they know without interviewing him?

Predication...

FBI documentation, dating from August 2016, states that there is an articulable factual basis that Flynn “may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.”

:)

Provide a link to the documentation dated from August 2016. If so, the FBI were engaged in illegal spying on an American citizen and violating his privacy.

The many unmasking requests of Flynn by Obama administration officials were requested before the date he even talked to the Russian ambassador in question. We need to know why.
#15091722
Hindsite wrote:illegal spying on an American citizen

Wrong.

Surveillance of Kislyak would have been authorised by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Provide a link to the documentation dated from August 2016.

Office of the Inspector General, Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation, pp. 59-60.

We need to know why.

Already answered - Acting as an agent for a foreign power (Turkey).


:)
#15091738
blackjack21 wrote:
The Department of Justice is not independent of the presidency at all. All of its power comes from the president.




So, did you make that bit of crazy up, or did are you parroting? Because that moves the country to within a silly millimeter of autocracy.

" "Can the President Control the Department of Justice?" Its authors are Bruce Green, the noted Fordham Law ethics expert, and law professor Rebecca Roiphe of New York Law School, who also has a doctorate in history from the University of Chicago.

Green and Roiphe contend that prosecutorial independence is baked into our system by history and tradition, but is the concept too tenuous to survive the Trump presidency?

I put that question to Roiphe in an interview Monday. She said no. “The convention is strong – stronger than people make it out to be,” she told me. “Maybe this is misplaced optimism, but I think there are more protections than people think.”

Green and Roiphe traced the concept of prosecutorial independence back to British law and explained how the idea strengthened as the federal criminal justice system expanded, especially after the Civil War. They concede that prosecutorial independence is not enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court precedent or federal law, but it’s become embedded in our criminal justice system.

The creation of the Justice Department in 1870, the spread of the idea of professional expertise and the growth of the administrative state have all bolstered the idea that the president alone cannot and does not control the justice system, the paper said. Prosecutorial power has always been diffuse in this country, and that’s by design. “Myriad zones of power have always comprised substantial and important checks on power,” Green and Roiphe wrote.

With only a few exceptions, presidents have been content to dictate DOJ policy while staying out of individual cases."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-independence/doj-independence-entrenched-and-ingrained-will-survive-trump-historian-law-prof-idUSKCN1IM2DP
#15091793
late wrote:Green and Roiphe contend that prosecutorial independence is baked into our system by history and tradition, but is the concept too tenuous to survive the Trump presidency?

They can content all they want. The constitution is deterministic. Scholarly opinions about the constitution are not. The DoJ didn't even exist until 1870.
#15091797
blackjack21 wrote:What are you trying to say jimjam? Barr... Cohn... It's the Jews?


That's stupid. Are you anti semantic? Cohn was trump's fixer …… now Barr is trump's fixer. This is basic stuff. Hard to believe you are ignorant of it.


Image

Birds ^ of a feather :lol:
Last edited by jimjam on 15 May 2020 17:17, edited 1 time in total.
#15091799
Hindsite wrote:Judge Sullivan is obviously an Obama supporter and not impartial in this case.

Like nobody is, it's obviously a political power struggle. The biggest problem with Flynn was that he was rivaling Pence even as a possible VP-candidate and happened to be too close to the Russians, or rather Putin, although the latter one was supposed to be one of his advantages. So he lost ground pretty quickly, however, he still could avoid getting destroyed legally it seems.

Image
Syrian war thread

Those incidents didn't take place in Douma

No, I'm saying that you're in over your head, bec[…]

There were 13 men shot. Not 14. There were 14 una[…]

Word on the social media streets is that a lot of […]