Department of Justice drops Flynn Case - Page 8 - 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.
#15093448
late wrote:Fictionally...

You must have access to phenomenally good drugs.

I have access to good information.

15 GOP AGs File Brief Supporting DOJ's Decision to Drop Flynn Charges
5/18/20

On Monday, 15 Republican state attorneys general filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, encouraging U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to allow the U.S. Department of Justice to drop all charges against retired General Michael Flynn.

"The Court should immediately grant the federal government's motion to dismiss the information against General Flynn because the federal judiciary has no authority to make the executive branch pursue (or continue to pursue) a criminal conviction," the brief continued. "And the court should grant the motion without commentary on the decision to charge or not to charge, because such punditry disrobes the judiciary of its cloak of impartiality."

Documents in the Flynn case released in April detailed a conversation between FBI agents in which they discussed whether their interview style with Flynn should be "to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired." The DOJ's position is that there was no reason to place the FBI's interview with Flynn under investigation because Flynn's statements were immaterial.

Trump said the new information meant Flynn was "essentially exonerated" and that the documents showed there were "dirty, filthy cops at the top of the FBI."

https://www.newsweek.com/15-gop-ags-fil ... es-1504951

Judge Sullivan is also ordered by the DC Circuit Court to respond to General Flynn’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus by June 1, 2020.
#15093458
Hindsite wrote:Trump said the new information meant Flynn was "essentially exonerated" and that the documents showed there were "dirty, filthy cops at the top of the FBI."

I say what information we have points to Trump being a "serial offender" and documents show there is a "dirty, filthy administration atop Capitol Hill."
#15093459
late wrote:And who exactly gets to make the decision about amicus briefs? Yeah, Sullivan...

We're seeing that might not be the case now. Sullivan has until June 1st to show cause. He's getting the standard 10 days. It will be interesting to see his reply to the appellate court.

late wrote:This is precisely the sort of thing that winds up in the SC precisely because it's not the simple little case you wish it was.

Sullivan will lose if it goes before SCOTUS.

Tainari88 wrote:Trump has stacked the Supreme Court with his cronies.

He's appointed 2 of 9 justices. That's hardly stacking the court.

Tainari88 wrote:If Trump gets another four years he might have the possibility of putting in two more far right nightmare judges and if Sonia Sotomayor's diabetes kills her off quick? You are looking at a vast majority of young far right judges. it is fucking over. The law of the land will favor the corporate uber plutocrats.

It already does favor the plutocrats. Arguably, it always has. He will however ultimately kill off social legislation forced on the US by the court for the next 30 years, which would be a good thing. It would be even better if they overturn Roe v. Wade and Obergefell among other shitty decisions just to make legislators have to earn their paychecks.

Doug64 wrote:Assuming it isn't a new issue or overruling previous precedent, when the Supreme Court makes a 9-0 ruling it is a simple case, and the fact it even made it to the Supreme Court at all means someone farther up the line made a serious blunder.

Exactly. They smacked down the Ninth Circuit yet again.

ingliz wrote:Flynn and Turkey...

In March 2017, Flynn and his consulting firm retroactively registered as foreign agents working on behalf Turkey.

Turkey is part of NATO.

Godstud wrote:Trump cultists and Republicans don't mind traitors.

You're Canadian. You wouldn't understand. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Paine, etc. were all traitors to the British Crown.

ingliz wrote:Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e), a defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw his or her guilty plea prior to sentencing.

That's true. Do you think that's a good thing? It's no longer germaine to the case, because the DoJ is dropping the case. The judge is doing his level best to say "objection your honor," except he's the judge. :roll:

SpecialOlympian wrote: He is nothing but a violent prostitute who will sell his services to anyone, like a common whore.

What's your beef against prostitutes?

ingliz wrote:It's complete bollocks and should be laughed out of court.

By the objection of what interested party?

ingliz wrote:The only good thing to come out of it - At least they are not pretending now that all are equal under the law and we get to see what a complete sham your justice system is.

Indeed. The NeverTrumpers have done irreparable harm to the reputation of the United States.

late wrote:The watergate prosecutors were not trying to compare this case to Watergate, at least not in that way.

:roll: The reason to have Watergate prosecutors was so that the media would compare it to Watergate. I was a little kid during Watergate. Millennials don't even know what Watergate is, let alone why the media always puts "gate" after every scandal, proving their sheer lack of creativity ought to have seen them flunk out of journalism school. ... and yes, Trump is to be chided for "Obamagate," because putting "gate" after anything is just dumb.

jimjam wrote:I have to wonder what Donald and his propaganda apparatus (Rush, Sean, Hindsite & Bj #21) have to say about this.

If Biden is elected, he will never exercise presidential power. So I guess you could say Biden is being honest.

Hindsite wrote:Judge Sullivan is also ordered by the DC Circuit Court to respond to General Flynn’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus by June 1, 2020.

It's fun isn't it? I'm sure he's not looking forward to this. I'll bet his Watergate prosecutors or that Clinton judge are already writing his response.
#15093461
blackjack21 wrote:You're Canadian. You wouldn't understand. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Paine, etc. were all traitors to the British Crown.
:lol: Foolish evasion. Is that the best you can do? Your intellect seems to have abandoned you.

I understand as much as the next American you know, and implying differently is mere distraction.

Traitors to the British Crown is relevant, how?
#15093466
blackjack21 wrote:By the objection of what interested party?

The Judge.

As the defendant either lied when he plead guilty - twice - or he's lying now, a conservative D.C. Circuit may uphold Sullivan’s discretionary authority to impose a punishment on his own. The general consensus is that the D.C. appeals court is unlikely to give the accused what he’s asking for.


:)
#15093467
Godstud wrote::lol: Foolish evasion. Is that the best you can do? Your intellect seems to have abandoned you.

I understand as much as the next American you know, and implying differently is mere distraction.

Traitors to the British Crown is relevant, how?

Didn't they teach you history in Canada?

Those who fought on the British side during the American Revolution were given land grants in Upper Canada — they were called the United Empire Loyalists . Thus, in Upper Canada the population was staunchly loyal to the British Crown and would remain that way into the first deca.des of the 20th century.

ingliz wrote:The Judge.

As the defendant either lied when he plead guilty - twice - or he's lying now, a conservative D.C. Circuit may uphold Sullivan’s discretionary authority to impose a punishment on his own. The general consensus is that the D.C. appeals court is unlikely to give the accused what he’s asking for.

That depends if they are just as partisan as Judge Sullivan.
#15093473
Hindsite wrote:Didn't they teach you history in Canada?
Yes, they do. I am well aware of that

Hindsite wrote:Those who fought on the British side during the American Revolution were given land grants in Upper Canada — they were called the United Empire Loyalists.
This was 100 years before Canada even became a country, and as such, is completely irrelevant. You're talking 5 generations removed.

Hindsite wrote:Thus, in Upper Canada the population was staunchly loyal to the British Crown and would remain that way into the first decades of the 20th century.
Canada is allied to England, and part of a Commonwealth of nations, by choice, not because they are "beholding" to England, or because of some idea of "staunch loyalty to the British Crown", that you might envision.

Canada's been it's own country, since 1867. Canada did not have a revolution to gain it's sovereignty, so it's an entirely different mentality, that most Americans probably don't understand.

That said, pretending I don't know about American history, is ridiculous. We've been exposed to American history, our whole lives, in Canada. We don't simply learn about our own country, to the exclusion of everyone else.

So... you are just supporting blackjack21s irrelevant and anti-intellectual argument. :knife:
#15093504
Godstud wrote::lol: Foolish evasion. Is that the best you can do? Your intellect seems to have abandoned you

People aren't going to uphold systems they no longer believe in. That's why Comey, McCabe, Strzok and Page decided to try to overthrow the president. That's straight up treason, but it won't be treated that way because the media and much of the establishment don't believe in a democracy that gives Donald Trump the reigns of power. Similarly, back in the 1760s, Philadelphia had become the second largest city in the British Empire, but the subjects in various colonies could have their rights abused arbitrarily. So they no longer took their allegiance to the crown seriously. Personally, I think the US constitution is in peril now. I no longer take it seriously, because I know it does not guarantee homosexual marriage. So it is nothing more than a fig leaf at this point. It has been rendered unfit for its intended purpose. Even the Governor of New Jersey said on Tucker Carlson that defending the Bill of Rights was "above my pay grade."

Godstud wrote:Traitors to the British Crown is relevant, how?

Because you are still a subject of the British Crown, and I am not.

ingliz wrote:The Judge.

Sometimes, you make some cogent arguments, but sometimes you say something utterly daft like this. Judges are not adversarial parties to a controversy. Acting in such a way violates impartiality.

ingliz wrote:As the defendant either lied when he plead guilty - twice - or he's lying now, a conservative D.C. Circuit may uphold Sullivan’s discretionary authority to impose a punishment on his own.

If the judge thinks Flynn committed a crime, his duty is to send a criminal referral to the DoJ, not to punish Flynn on his own.

ingliz wrote:The general consensus is that the D.C. appeals court is unlikely to give the accused what he’s asking for.

We shall see. They've given Sullivan 10 days to respond rather than rejecting the petition out of hand. So it seems they want to hear Sullivan's argument rather than shooting down the petition for an extraordinary writ summarily. So I rather doubt there is any such "consensus."
#15093505
blackjack21 wrote:Because you are still a subject of the British Crown, and I am not.
Completely irrelevant and a pathetic distraction.

Why don't you mention where I live? It matters about as much as that. :lol:
#15093527
late wrote:That was odd.

The watergate prosecutors were not trying to compare this case to Watergate, at least not in that way.

If you want to do that, you would say that this case and Nixon's antics undermined the Rule of Law.

Which is bass ackwards.

This attacks Rule of Law where it lives. Barr is injecting politics into the justice system. He's not the AG, he just pretends to be. He's Trumps Roy Cohn, a dirty lawyer that would break any rule, violate any oath or law, to get what he wanted.

The ones that injected politics into the justice system were those that, unable to find a crime, tried to create one and then lied when they failed so that they could pursue a vendetta against one of the President’s subordinates, and by extension against the President. At least they didn’t demand Flynn’s execution, as happened so often historically in British politics. Though the judge’s tirade against Flynn accusing him of treason comes pretty close.

Hindsite wrote:Judge Sullivan is also ordered by the DC Circuit Court to respond to General Flynn’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus by June 1, 2020.

From what I’ve heard, that ten days is an unusually short time limit. Of more importance, perhaps, is the DC Circuit Court panel’s reference to the U.S. vs Fokker ruling

    Since the Arthur Andersen prosecution in which thousands of innocent workers lost their jobs, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has increasingly turned to deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) to avoid the collateral consequences of a corporate criminal conviction. In a DPA, the government agrees to dismiss filed charges if a corporation complies with negotiated conditions that are aimed at punishing the misconduct and allowing the corporation to demonstrate rehabilitation. Traditionally, judicial scrutiny over the DPA’s terms has been “essentially nonexistent.” However, three recent district court decisions have attempted to assert a more substantive role for the court — declaring that an Article III judge is not a “potted plant” or “rubber stamp” when reviewing DPAs. The D.C. Circuit subsequently curtailed these efforts in United States v. Fokker Services B.V., in which it held that to preserve “the Executive’s long-settled primacy over charging,” a court is not authorized to reject a DPA based on a finding that the “charging decisions” and “conditions agreed to in the DPA” are inadequate. By ostensibly precluding judicial review of a DPA’s negotiated terms, the D.C. Circuit overcorrected and reinforced the executive branch’s unchecked discretion over DPAs by reassuring prosecutors that future courts will rubber stamp such agreements.
#15093625
"The appearance of the law must be upheld …… especially when it is being broken." Boss Tweed Tammany 1846, The Trump Gang 2020.

Image

As much as things change ….. they remain the same.
#15093728
Doug64 wrote:unable to find a crime

You are not trying hard enough.

Slap 5 years on the sorry piece of shit for criminal contempt and watch him bleed financially as the lawyers prepare for a jury trial - Due process and all that

There's more than one way to skin a cat.


:)
#15093735
Lmbo people are trying to turn a story about a loser that got fired for being a huge Islamophobe, during a time when we were drone striking Arabs nonstop, who ended up getting busted for trying to kidnap someone for Turkey along with his dumbassed Qanon believing son into an American success story.

Flynn is a hero to every moronic middle class honkey who doesn't get invited to Thanksgiving anymore because they won't shut up about about how Trump is actually fighting pedophiles like Batman beats up thugs whenever he goes golfing lmao.
#15093747
blackjack21 wrote:




The reason to have Watergate prosecutors was so that the media would compare it to Watergate. I was a little kid during Watergate. Millennials don't even know what Watergate is, let alone why the media always puts "gate" after every scandal, proving their sheer lack of creativity ought to have seen them flunk out of journalism school. ... and yes, Trump is to be chided for "Obamagate," because putting "gate" after anything is just dumb.




Actually, Trump created the controversy in off the cuff comments. Now Republicans are scrambling to make some sort of weird justification for it.
#15093811
ingliz wrote:You are not trying hard enough.

Slap 5 years on the sorry piece of shit for criminal contempt and watch him bleed financially as the lawyers prepare for a jury trial - Due process and all that

There's more than one way to skin a cat.


:)

That is precisely what Judge Sullivan is trying to do to a man that has faithfully served his country for decades. But since no honest judge that hasn’t completely lost his mind wants to punish innocent defendants that try to back out of coerced guilty pleas, I doubt his attempt will get very far. We aren’t Iran under the Supreme Leader, Russia under Putin, or China under the CCP, after all.
#15093814
I almost forgot, a bit more on the early timeline of the Flynn case:

    Wed Nov 1, 2017: Flynn’s original lawyers Covington ask for a copy of his FD-302: “We don’t think he has committed a felony offense”

    Fri Nov 3, 2017: Covington ask for the FD-302 AGAIN: “We don’t think there’s a FARA violation. We don’t think he made false statements”

    The Special Counsel refused to turn over Flynn’s original FD-302 both those times. Instead, they schedule a follow up conference call with Covington for the following week and subtly threaten Covington that they might be a fact witness against Flynn for preparing his FARA filings

    Flynn hasnt pled guilty to anything at this point. His lawyers are adamant he’s *innocent*. And the SCO won’t even turn over the edited FD-302, never mind the original one, for them to look at

    The SCO claimed they couldn’t turn over the FD-302 because it would “reveal” parts of their overall Russia interference investigation. But even the edited version of the Jan 24, 2017 interview shows Flynn wasn’t asked about Russian interference or anything remotely like Collusion

    And we now know that the FBI itself wanted to close its Crossfire Razor investigation of Flynn for potential links to Russian interference long before that Jan 24, 2017 interview

    And that investigation of Flynn should never have been opened in the first place, given its laughably weak predicate lacking any articulable factual basis for believing he could have been colluding or conspiring with Russia

    We also now know that the Dec 29 Flynn-Kislyak call changed nothing with regards to any Collusion. And the FBI never opened a Logan Act criminal probe (which would also have been ridiculous)

    And in the Mueller report, the SCO itself admits Flynn merely asked Russia not to “escalate” in response to Obama’s sanctions or only respond “reciprocally”. There’s nothing wrong with that. What should he have said, go ahead nuclear armed Russia, please escalate?

    So the SCO wouldn’t be “revealing” anything legitimate about its Russian interference investigation by turning over Flynn’s FD-302 - any of them, even the heavily edited versions filed weeks after the interview

    Of course, what turning over the 302 would have really revealed is likely a document stating that the agents didn’t believe Flynn was lying, and metadata proving that it went through weeks of editing and polishing in violation of FBI policies

    If even Covington (never mind Sidney Powell) got their hands on any version of the 302, given their adamant position that Flynn was “innocent”, Flynn almost certainly would have fought the charges vigorously

    And if the SCO tried to indict Flynn anyway, that would have meant discovery, pre-trial depositions etc. Given what we now know 2.5 years later, that would have blown a gaping hole in the SCO’s case

    So back to Fri Nov 3, 2017. The SCO has been asked for the 302, twice.
    White shoe Covington say their guy is “innocent” of all charges. How do the SCO change the dynamic? They leak to the press that they’re going to charge his son with a felony unless he gives in and plead guilty

    Sun Nov 5, 2017: “Three sources” close to the Flynn investigation leak this to NBC news…

    By the time Covington follow up with the SCO after this weekend of light reading of veiled threats for the Flynn family, they’ve already agreed to bring Flynn in for a “proffer” - a prelude to pleading guilty to the false statements offense
    This is despite Covington circulating in internal memos at the time talking points that “We are firmly of the view that he did not commit any felony offenses. There are no circumstances under which he would plea to a felony offense”

    Remember: Covington - not Sidney Powell - are on record here REPEATEDLY saying their guy is *innocent*. They are “firmly” of this belief. And they’ve been representing him for months. This isn’t something they dreamed up after 5 minutes talking to the General

    The SCO turned over zero documents to Covington that would make them change their assessment of Flynn’s innocence. In fact, had the SCO turned *anything* over, it would have strengthened the view that Flynn could mount a strong defense against any false statement charge

    Examples:

    —Comey’s testimony that both agents didn’t think Flynn lied
    —302 - likely says the same thing
    —Closing EC for “Razor”, showing the FBI wanted to close its own case
    —Kislyak transcript
    —That no Logan Act EC existed opening a new case
    —Strzok/Page texts showing bias

    Any or all of those would blow a hole in *both* mandatory elements of the 1001 false statements charge - that any lie was “knowing” and “willful” (Flynn lied, deliberately) and “material” - i.e. could influence a genuine predicated FBI investigation
Last edited by Doug64 on 24 May 2020 15:37, edited 1 time in total.
#15093818
One has to wonder why the Trump crowd went all the way to the Supreme Court to hide the details of the investigation.

And don't waste my time with carefully edited transcripts. The House Intel Committee needs it all.
#15093827
ingliz wrote:Slap 5 years on the sorry piece of shit for criminal contempt and watch him bleed financially as the lawyers prepare for a jury trial - Due process and all that

5 years for contempt? It's not a felony.

SpecialOlympian wrote:Lmbo people are trying to turn a story about a loser that got fired for being a huge Islamophobe, during a time when we were drone striking Arabs nonstop, who ended up getting busted for trying to kidnap someone for Turkey along with his dumbassed Qanon believing son into an American success story.

He was never charged for kidnapping. Why do you think throwing these bizarre charges out there is meaningful?

SpecialOlympian wrote:Flynn is a hero to every moronic middle class honkey who doesn't get invited to Thanksgiving anymore because they won't shut up about about how Trump is actually fighting pedophiles like Batman beats up thugs whenever he goes golfing lmao.

Even black people are honkeys now if they don't vote for Biden, who's something of a pedophile himself.

late wrote:Actually, Trump created the controversy in off the cuff comments. Now Republicans are scrambling to make some sort of weird justification for it.

Putting gate after everything is just dumb. However, there is little question that the Obama administration sought to undermine the peaceful transfer of power and prosecute his political successor.

Doug64 wrote:That is precisely what Judge Sullivan is trying to do to a man that has faithfully served his country for decades. But since no honest judge that hasn’t completely lost his mind wants to punish innocent defendants that try to back out of coerced guilty pleas, I doubt his attempt will get very far. We aren’t Iran under the Supreme Leader, Russia under Putin, or China under the CCP, after all.

Yes, but we were the US under Obama.

This vlogging lawyer stay-at-home dad has some interesting things to say about it:



I agree. I think Sullivan is going to get a smack down. If I were Sullivan, I would just dismiss the case and render the writ hearing irrelevant.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

It doesn't take 4 days to charge someone with mu[…]

Sorry. Aside from yes, no and conditional, what […]

June 1, Sunday It has been an unnerving night f[…]

It's impossible to get a job

I think a lot of employers might be impressed by t[…]