Department of Justice drops Flynn Case - Page 6 - 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.
#15091585
Judge Sullivan’s consideration of contempt charges against Flynn for withdrawing his guilty plea is ludicrous, a play by someone that doesn’t want defendants that have been coerced into offering a false guilty plea to be able to back out afterwards.

Also, a fair look at the lunacy of Judge Sullivan’s call for amicus briefs:

The Politicized Order Inviting Amicus Briefs against the Flynn Case’s Dismissal

    Late Tuesday, federal district judge Emmet Sullivan issued a bizarre order, inviting third-party groups with no legal interests in the case to file amicus briefs addressing the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the false-statements charge against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national-security adviser.

    The cantankerous jurist is stoking opposition to the dismissal. He knows the law calls for him to accede to attorney general Bill Barr’s decision. But Barr can’t stop Sullivan from turning the dismissal into anti-Trump group therapy — and who knows, maybe the grieving Legal Left will figure out some way for the judge to convict Flynn despite DOJ’s retreat.

    Flynn’s counsel relates that on 24 prior occasions, Judge Sullivan has summarily refused to entertain input from non-parties to the case. No federal criminal rule authorizes such interventions. Yet Sullivan now encourages them.

    There is no complex legal issue to be resolved. DOJ’s dismissal motion may be politically controversial, but legally it is pro forma. The only branch of government constitutionally authorized to proceed with a criminal prosecution is the executive. The Justice Department has declined to prosecute. There is nothing for the judge to do besides the ministerial task of ending the case on the court’s records.

    Lest we forget, the primary function of the federal judiciary is to protect the accused from overbearing government action, not to agitate for the prosecution of Americans. Even if he’s convinced Flynn is as guilty as the day is long, one might expect Judge Sullivan to be disturbed by the FBI’s perjury trap, by its editing of and misrepresentations about the “302 report” of Flynn’s interview. By the prosecution’s withholding of exculpatory evidence and concealment from the court of its threat to prosecute Flynn’s son. By the derelictions of Flynn’s original counsel, who took the case notwithstanding a deep conflict-of-interest, and who appear to have counseled Flynn to plead guilty without ever reviewing rudimentary discovery — we know they never inspected the 302 (which is mind-boggling in a false-statements case); did they ever demand that Mueller’s prosecutors produce the recording of the Flynn–Kislyak “sanctions” conversation that is the heart of the case?

    Those are the kinds of questions a responsible judge would be posing, not, “How do I sentence this guy if DOJ won’t prosecute?” Regardless of what the DNC and CNN have to say on the matter, Flynn is supposed to be presumed innocent as far as Judge Sullivan is concerned.

    If there is anything legally dubious here, it is the proposition that a judge may deny a dismissal motion filed by the Justice Department. Rule 48 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure purports to require “leave of the court” before prosecutors may dismiss an indictment. Yet a statutorily enacted rule cannot amend the Constitution, which vests solely in the executive the power to prosecute.

    In the federal system, the Justice Department’s discretion to charge or proceed with a criminal case is unreviewable. The judiciary has no more power to compel the executive branch to prosecute an indicted case than it has to force the executive to indict the case in the first place. If the public believes the Trump administration is abusing prosecutorial discretion, it may vote the president out of office. But a judge has no authority to order the executive to investigate, indict, or try a criminal case. None.

    Moreover, Congress prescribed Rule 48 to protect defendants — exactly the opposite of what Sullivan is doing. Lawmakers were concerned about the potential for prosecutorial misconduct: They wanted to prevent strategic dismissals, where a prosecutor pulled the plug on a case that was not going well for the government, only to recharge it later; they wanted to forbid such abuses as repeatedly charging then dismissing an indictment, exhausting an accused’s resources and capacity to defend himself.

    The objective to protect defendants is elucidated by Rule 48’s requirement that, after a trial has started, the prosecutor must obtain the defendant’s consent before dismissing the case. Once a criminal trial starts, a defendant’s double-jeopardy protection is triggered. The rule thus ensures that, if the trial is going badly for the government, the prosecutor cannot get a do-over unless the accused agrees. Most defendants would prefer to continue a trial that appears headed to acquittal rather than to risk a retrial at which prosecutors can shore up their case.

    How perverse, then, that Judge Sullivan sees Rule 48 not as a safeguard for defendants but an artifice to pressure the executive against dropping a case.

    Note that Justice Department’s motion seeks to dismiss the charge against Flynn with prejudice. That means once the case is dismissed, the government would be prohibited from re-indicting Flynn on the same charge. There is no possibility of the gamesmanship Rule 48 was enacted to prevent.

    Judge Sullivan knows this. He is a highly experienced judge. He knows he has no authority to stop the Justice Department from dropping the case. He knows if he tried to do that, he would be reversed by the Court of Appeals. He knows he could not force prosecutors to participate in the sentencing of Flynn, or in any other proceedings in a case that the Justice Department has decided is not worthy of prosecution. The judge knows the question of whether the case should be prosecuted is not his call.

    So what does he do? Rather than just doing his job and dismissing the case, he invites amicus briefs. He can’t compel the Justice Department to further hound Flynn, but he figures he can encourage the legal establishment to trumpet the political theme that Trump’s Justice Department is undermining the rule of law. Without a hint of irony, Sullivan’s blatantly political directive is designed to frame the Justice Department as politicized.

    In criminal cases, the accused is already pitted against the awesome resources of the government. Forcing the accused to bear the additional burden of defending against amicus briefs is unfair. A good judge would never encourage such a thing. A good judge would assume he could figure out what the law requires, without fear or favor. And if leave to file a brief were sought by an unsolicited amicus curiae — i.e., a true “friend of the court,” a non-party who might help the court do justice in a complex case — a good judge would at that point weigh whether such a brief might be helpful. A good judge never signals: I just don’t know what to do here — help!

    Alas, in the Flynn case, we are dealing with a judge who prefers bloviation to preparation.

    “I’m not hiding my disgust, my disdain, for this criminal offense,” he railed in his first appearance in the case. “This criminal offense” was actually a relatively low-level process crime: a false-statements charge against a career military officer, brought even though the FBI did not think Flynn made intentional misstatements, the bureau was not obstructed in any way, and the prosecutors originally recommended no jail time. Sullivan, however, was not up to speed, but could not contain himself: He inveighed that Flynn, a decorated U.S. combat commander, had sold out his country and committed treason, a death-penalty offense.

    Judge Sullivan’s order inviting amicus briefs is a travesty. Sad to say, it is not a surprise.
#15091589
Having trouble telling fiction from reality?

"U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan appointed Gleeson to present the argument that neither Flynn nor the Justice Department will make — namely that Barr cannot now swoop in to dismiss a well-founded case in which a guilty plea has already been entered. Even more tantalizing, Sullivan ordered Gleeson to “address whether the Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury.

Second, Barr’s attempt to dismiss the case is not a slam dunk. Far from it. Former prosecutor Renato Mariotti observes, “Sullivan’s decision here means that he’s seriously considering denying DOJ’s motion and he wants to consider whether that decision is wise and what the implications of that decision are. . . . Today’s order by Judge Sullivan is very bad news for the DOJ. Their motion was highly unusual, and they will have to be prepared to answer many difficult questions about the odd positions that they’ve taken."

Third, Gleeson is a wise pick, which means trouble for the Justice Department lawyers. Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe — who said, “Retired U.S. District Court Judge John Gleeson is a strong choice for the task assigned to him by Judge [Emmet] Sullivan” — and multiple former prosecutors with whom I spoke attest to Gleeson’s skills as a prosecutor and his integrity. His interest here is in preventing the sort of perversion of the courts that Barr cavalierly undertakes in service to Trump..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/14/judge-sullivan-shows-awesome-power-federal-judges/
#15091594
Flynn? Who gives a shit about one more dirt bag other than the dirt bag himself. Any mob chief worth a damn has an endless supply of fall guys like Flynn at his disposal. Flynn is simply one more of trump's fall guys. The only issue here is that America's Atty General is now trump's Roy Cohn …… his personal attorney who obeyed his boss and decided not to press charges against a sewer rat who pleaded guilty twice thus making a rather obvious mockery of America's pretend legal system. It always has been a pretend legal system with a double standard where "special" people are above the law while the law is, at the same time, used to keep the suckers in line. What the trump soap opera (little boys in a pizza parlor basement notwithstanding) has changed is that the crime gang running the country no longer needs to go through the annoyance of pretending.
#15091599
"Attorney General Bill Barr may not care about lying to law enforcement any more, having moved on to offering shadow support to his Republican cronies trying to make “unmasking” a scandal, which anyone with two brain cells and basic research skills can piece together isn’t a scandal, but maintaining the sanctity of the federal court as a place where people don’t lie willy-nilly is still a valid concern. The judge could, of course, just accept Barr’s half-hearted excuse and let this whole case disappear. That’s certainly the easy way out. But the federal judiciary used to have a backbone and Judge Sullivan managed to find it somewhere in the wreckage of the Trump tax case oral argument. There’s a good argument that federal judges wield too much power in this world, but “punishing people who lie to them” is exactly the power they need to prevent the whole system from becoming a joke.

Fox News has already started pretending that this is a crisis of the separation of powers, but it’s not. Unlike the Supreme Court keeping non-justiciable claims alive to please Tucker Carlson, Judge Sullivan is explicitly asking Debevoise to brief out whether or not he should use the judiciary’s contempt power to penalize someone who, if the Department of Justice is to be believed, lied to the court under oath. Because as I pointed out on Twitter as soon as the Flynn decision got announced, either he’s guilty or he perjured himself but it’s one or the other."

https://abovethelaw.com/2020/05/judge-puts-debevoise-in-charge-of-michael-flynn-case-because-bill-barr-cant-do-his-job-right/
#15091698
Doug64 wrote:No federal criminal rule authorizes such interventions. Yet Sullivan now encourages them.

General amicus briefs aren't allowed in criminal prosecutions. It would be interesting to see if DoJ or Flynn's attorneys petition for a writ of prohibition.

late wrote:Having trouble telling fiction from reality?

Amicus briefs aren't generally allowed in criminal proceedings. Gleeson has no material interest in the outcome of the case, which is generally true of anybody in criminal proceedings.

late wrote:Far from it. Former prosecutor Renato Mariotti observes, “Sullivan’s decision here means that he’s seriously considering denying DOJ’s motion and he wants to consider whether that decision is wise and what the implications of that decision are. . . .

Sullivan can deny the motion, but he will be overturned on appeal. So nobody cares what Gleeson has to say.

jimjam wrote:Flynn is simply one more of trump's fall guys.

No. He's not. He could have accepted 6 weeks in jail like Papadopolous. Instead, he's blowing a big chunk of the deep state to smithereens. Someone is financing Flynn's legal bills. The deep staters aren't destroying Flynn here. They're destroying themselves, and they don't realize it.

late wrote: having moved on to offering shadow support to his Republican cronies trying to make “unmasking” a scandal,

That's Ric Grennell at the NSC. It should be your clue that Flynn has found a benefactor to pay his legal bills, and they are blowing up a significant segment of the deep state.
#15091732
blackjack21 wrote:

Amicus briefs aren't generally allowed in criminal proceedings. Gleeson has no material interest in the outcome of the case, which is generally true of anybody in criminal proceedings.


Sullivan can deny the motion, but he will be overturned on appeal. So nobody cares what Gleeson has to say.


The deep staters aren't destroying Flynn here. They're destroying themselves, and they don't realize it.



And who exactly gets to make the decision about amicus briefs? Yeah, Sullivan...

While the Supreme Court occasionally makes kooky Right wing decisions, they aren't going to be disemboweling their authority. But that did give me my first sardonic smile of the day.

News flash, Trump is working towards being a dictator, and that's as deep as it gets.
#15091800
Finfinder wrote:
News Flash ..... Sullivan is Clinton appointed activist who is a complete disgrace to the justice system. I wouldn't be bragging about this.



That was wonderful, thanks, first good belly laugh of the day.
#15091846
ingliz wrote:It's a lot simpler than that.

The FBI had a prima facie case against him and his son on FARA violations. The lies were a bonus, another criminal act, that gave them greater leverage. They traded both for 'cooperation' in the Russia investigation and cooperate he did. See the prosecutor's recommended sentence. Only 3 months in a holiday camp; out in a month or so, if he's a good boy. I could do that standing on my head. Typically, if you are convicted of making a false statement (He made four) you are looking at up to five years in federal prison.


:lol:


No that is complete fiction. Flynn didn't lied about sanctions because he was never asked about sanctions in the first place. That was a result of the first time they tried and failed at setting him up and determined he did not lie. Further more Flynn was never unmasked by the FBI until January 4th, the phone called occurred on December 28th. The FBI didn't request a phone surveillance warrant or criminal warrant prior to the phone call. So the question you need to be asking is how could the FBI (legally) possible know Flynn was on the call with the Russian ambassador on December 28th?
#15091944
late wrote:And who exactly gets to make the decision about amicus briefs? Yeah, Sullivan...

Considering Ruth Bader Ginsburg just wrote the holding in a 9-0 decision slapping down lower court judges for precisely this type of behavior, I see little reason to believe that Sullivan isn't going to get spanked for this.

UNITED STATES v. SINENENG-SMITH

If Sullivan doesn't adjudicate the case as presented by both interested parties, and instead goes against the very fresh UNITED STATES v. SINENENG-SMITH, he's going to get a smackdown from on high.

As developed more completely hereinafter, we now hold that the appeals panel departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion. We therefore vacate the Ninth Circuit's judgment and remand the case for an adjudication of the appeal attuned to the case shaped by the parties rather than the case designed by the appeals panel.

Sullivan is going to get a smackdown.

late wrote:News flash, Trump is working towards being a dictator, and that's as deep as it gets.

People are too busy fighting with unlawful lockdown orders from their governors to notice. Wisconsin's high court overturned the governor's orders. I'm guessing we're going to start seeing more of that.

Finfinder wrote:No that is complete fiction.

Ingliz is watching too much TV. The DoJ is a party with standing, and they are essentially arguing there was no criminal case against Flynn upon which the FBI could warrant their line of questioning, and that even if Flynn lied, it was immaterial as it had no probabative value because the FBI already had a verbatim transcript. It's worth reading the Motion to Dismiss.
DoJ's motion to dismiss Flynn case
#15091951
blackjack21 wrote:The DoJ is a party with standing, and they are essentially arguing there was no criminal case against Flynn upon which the FBI could warrant their line of questioning, and that even if Flynn lied, it was immaterial as it had no probabative value because the FBI already had a verbatim transcript. It's worth reading the Motion to Dismiss.
DoJ's motion to dismiss Flynn case

That Judge Sullivan seems like a real evil dude to me. I suppose that General Flynn's legal fees will continue to mount the longer this continues. After selling his home for over $800 thousand to pay on his legal bills, it was reported last year that he still had $4.6 million in unpaid legal bills. How is he going to come up with that much money? This is definitely a miscarriage of justice for General Flynn even if the case is dismissed like it should be. No wonder he wanted to go ahead and plead guilty and be sentence on promise of no jail time while his legal bills were lower.
#15091955
Hindsite wrote:After selling his home for over $800 thousand to pay on his legal bills, it was reported last year that he still had $4.6 million in unpaid legal bills. How is he going to come up with that much money?

He will be an even bigger celebrity in the aftermath than Oliver North, I'm guessing. Anyone that gets the establishment that riled up is going to be in a position to cash in.

Hindsite wrote:No wonder he wanted to go ahead and plead guilty and be sentence on promise of no jail time while his legal bills were lower.

The charge against him was even less serious than the charge against Papadopolous, as the latter's lies were material and the questions probative. The FBI already knew all the answers to the questions they were asking Flynn. Yet, they didn't want to give him six weeks or less.

The irony is that they aren't destroying Flynn's reputation. They're building it up unwittingly and destroying their own reputations.
#15091970
It's really cool watching racist reactionaries suddenly wake up to the idea that plea deals are bullshit where the state leverages its power over the individual, but only when it affects the most obviously guilty white loser whose career is a flaming dumpster fire and someone who has no accomplishments to speak of other than hitching on to Trump's coattails.

Good on you guys. I totally don't believe Trump supporters aren't racist powermongers who only see political issues as sports. Please continue rallying around your unaccomplished loser simply because he angrily shouts about how much he loves daddy fake tan.

blackjack21 wrote:He will be an even bigger celebrity in the aftermath than Oliver North, I'm guessing.


This seems really insulting to Oliver North, who actually took a (metaphorical) bullet for Reagan. Flynn is just a loser who got fired for lying to the VP. For lying to Pence! Lmfao. He didn't even shred documents or have a Fawn Hall to spice up his lame ass story. All Flynn has is a bunch of loser Q cultists whose families won't talk to them anymore.

Just imagine how much of an unhinged Islamophobic dumbass you have to be to get fired from the Obama administration while we were starting drone warfare against rando farmers in the Middle East. Truly, Flynn is a gentleman and a scholar who shall be proven right by history, lmfao.
#15091976
blackjack21 wrote:
Considering Ruth Bader Ginsburg just wrote the holding in a 9-0 decision slapping down lower court judges for precisely this type of behavior, I see little reason to believe that Sullivan isn't going to get spanked for this.




You should have included a link to your source. Forbes has it, if anyone is interested.

I laughed at the way you kept repeating your assertion. You actually had something that potentially had some grounding in reality, and you sure didn't want me to miss it.

Personally, I can't wait to see what happens when it gets to the SC. I doubt RBG will ignore the differences, but we will see.
#15092043
SpecialOlympian wrote:It's really cool watching racist reactionaries suddenly wake up to the idea that plea deals are bullshit where the state leverages its power over the individual, but only when it affects the most obviously guilty white loser whose career is a flaming dumpster fire and someone who has no accomplishments to speak of other than hitching on to Trump's coattails.

He was a three-star general and head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. I guess that doesn't compare to running a gay bar for some people who are legends in their own minds, but some would consider being a three-star general and running the DIA accomplished.

late wrote:You should have included a link to your source.

I included a link the the case. Maybe you need to get your eyes checked.

late wrote:Personally, I can't wait to see what happens when it gets to the SC. I doubt RBG will ignore the differences, but we will see.

Sullivan is ignoring the common wishes of both parties, which suggests prejudice. This is precisely the sort of thing that appellate jurisdictions slap down all the time.
#15092062
blackjack21 wrote:

Sullivan is ignoring the common wishes of both parties, which suggests prejudice. This is precisely the sort of thing that appellate jurisdictions slap down all the time.



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.
#15092065
late wrote:You should have included a link to your source. Forbes has it, if anyone is interested.

I laughed at the way you kept repeating your assertion. You actually had something that potentially had some grounding in reality, and you sure didn't want me to miss it.

Personally, I can't wait to see what happens when it gets to the SC. I doubt RBG will ignore the differences, but we will see.


Trump has stacked the Supreme Court with his cronies. It is going to be horrifically conservative law for the next thirty years. Two of the judges are liberals but extremely old and can croak or retire at any moment. 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.

I think at that point? Nothing will serve for change but some violent ugly revolution and it will collapse the US and PRC will with time? Take over. They ripped the pages out of the Yankee playbook and will start building little satellite spy stations all over the world. Their presence in Mexico and with the oil is notoriously obvious here. They are also much better at let's make a deal that favors both of us versus some Yankee arrogant I only care about me style that USA gov't has?

Once the Chinese gov't is in? They intend to stay and play hardball. Of the worst kind. So? With their far Right inconsistencies they will lose power. I won't cry. They are not a benelovent force in Latin America. So I won't cry at all. Just say "Another one bites the dust in Empire."

I don't care who is into Empire and abuse. They need to stop that shit or be kicked out of power due to arrogant far Right schemes from hell....like neoliberalism is.
#15092097
blackjack21 wrote:He was a three-star general and head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. I guess that doesn't compare to running a gay bar for some people who are legends in their own minds, but some would consider being a three-star general and running the DIA accomplished.


Wow, he was fired from a really impressive job. I didn't know the standard for success was so low that failing upward until you hit your ceiling is now laudable. He was also fired by a black man. I'm sure that as a racist you consider that to be a huge mark of success.

I have no idea what you are talking about in the rest of your post. Please seek help, blackjack, you may be confusing me with a friend, relative, or past lover. As a boomer you should always be on the watch for the inital signs of dementia. Have you noticed yourself becoming more forgetful around sunset?
#15092100
On Feb. 13, after Mr. Priebus told Mr. Flynn that he must resign, he brought him into the Oval Office. There, Mr. Flynn and the president hugged, and Mr. Trump said he would give Mr. Flynn a good recommendation. “You’re a good guy,” the president said, according to the account Mr. Priebus gave to the Mueller team. “We’ll take care of you.”

promises made ….. promises kept. :lol:
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10
Who is right?

You can't make legal claims based on bible refere[…]

Election 2020

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i[…]

@James Redford @ckaihatsu Here is a website […]

Trump and Russiagate

Don the Con commuted the sentence of Roger Stone o[…]