Michael Flynn: judge pauses justice department effort to dismiss case

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Bush Lawyer, May 13, 2020.

  1. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unfortunate - this denial of Kangarooland :)
     
  2. rkhames

    rkhames Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    5,227
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A coerced Guilty plea is not valid. Further, when the Obama DOJ withdrew from the guilty plea, then Flynn should have been allowed withdraw the plea. But that political activist Judge would not allow it. So, Flynn's Constitutional rights were trampled on. Now this judge has hired a defense legal council firm that has Eric Holder as a partner. I think it is very possible that this judge was bribed by the Obama DOJ, and is trying to weasel his way out of being put in jail himself. It is funny that the Judge hired the defense council right after the Appeals Court sided with the Flynn defense team on a Writ of Mandamus. A Mandamus is used when a judge has usurped his authority, and hijacked the judicial system. Under Judicial rule 48, If the prosecution and defense agrees, they can drop the case. Yet, the judge, who has denied Amicus Briefs 124 times during the trial that were in support of Flynn, he has suddenly claimed that he will accept them on the limited spectrum of arguing that he can continue the case forcing the prosecution to proceed, and to add an additional charge of contempt of court for perjury. If this is not an usurpation of power, then nothing is.

    This judge is completely out of his element, not to mention his mind. He has to ask others to provide him with help in explaining the legal grounds for the actions that he has already taken. It is time that the judge admit that he is a paid political judicial stooge, and throw himself on the mercy of the court,
     
  3. Bush Lawyer

    Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    15,035
    Likes Received:
    9,493
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree that there is a fish out of water, but it is not Sullivan who is doing his job.

    That post of yours is full of silly conspiracy rubbish. Let's allow Flynn to get to the bottom of it. Why the angst? I want the truth revealed. You?
     
  4. rkhames

    rkhames Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    5,227
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At this point, what Sullivan gives a possum's piss about it irrelevant. Sullivan has been ordered to explain his actions to the Appeal court. When the Appeals court accepts, and sides with, a Writ of Mandamus it is a big thing. They are in essence telling the judge that he overstepped his duties as Judge, and usurped the court's authority. Now, it this was some kangaroo court country, then this would not be nothing new. But this isn't. This is the United States. Here we expect our judges to operate as an impartial mediator, but that is not what Sullivan has been doing in this case. He has chosen a side. When the prosecution pulled the rug out of this case, he is now trying to hold on to it, He has neither the right, nor the legal backing. So, why is he ding it? Because he was paid to? I'm sure we will eventually know.
     
    Giftedone likes this.
  5. Bush Lawyer

    Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    15,035
    Likes Received:
    9,493
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And when the Writ of Mandamus is denied, you can boast. My pretty informed opinion is that the Writ will be denied. Where will you leap then, Grasshopper?
     
  6. Bush Lawyer

    Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    15,035
    Likes Received:
    9,493
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And this 'choosing a side' thing. I guess you would be very pleased with him, lauding him, if you thought he was choosing your side.
     
  7. rkhames

    rkhames Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    5,227
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sullivan doing his job? Sullivan does not have a legal leg to stand on. Rule 48 allows the prosecution to withdraw charges even after a plea has been entered. The judge has to have extraordinary reasons to not allow the prosecution to withdraw the charges. In this case, there are none. The extraordinary in this case is against the prosecution proceeding. Did you even read AG Barr's brief that he filed in support of him withdrawing the charges? The FBI entrapped Flynn, and then coerced his plea. The one fact that you can not hide from is that the Obama DOJ was allowed to withdraw from a plea agreement, but Flynn was not allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. Why not? Normally, the Prosecution withdraws the sentencing protections contained in a plea agreement, it means that they are ready to proceed with a trial. The defense is then allowed withdraw their plea. In this case the Obama DOJ was given a judicial boon. They were allowed to withdraw the sentencing protections without having to go to trial. Flynn was bound by his plea without the benefit of the sentencing protections. Show me another case where that has happened.

    Then why don't you explain why the Judge hired the defense firm that has Eric Holder as a partner. In case you don't remember, Eric Holder was Obama's first AG. He was the one that pushed for Obama to attempt to withhold documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious by Executive Order. Even though him and Obama claimed that they had no knowledge of the operation. The Appeals Court has order Sullivan to explain his actions. They actually sided with Flynn's defense that Writ of Mandamus. This is a big deal. A Writ of Mandamus states that the Judge has overstepped his authority by usurping the court's authority. First Sullivan violates Criminal proceeding by calling for Amicus briefs. Third Party opinions are not allowed for in a criminal proceeding. He has usurped the Prosecution's authority to withdraw charges. Sullivan has violated rule 48 of the judicial code. That allows the Prosecution to withdraw the charges as long as the defense agrees. Now, he needs to get others to explain why he did what he did. Now, why don't you explain how this is a conspiracy theory, and not the actual facts of the case.

    I am not worried about anything coming out in this case. It just pisses me off when a judge operates like some judicial authority of a third world country. Political expediency trumps (no pun intended) a right for justice.
     
    BuckyBadger likes this.
  8. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,429
    Likes Received:
    51,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Logan Act was a pretext.

    Flynn Was Not Masked because the Corrupt FBI Framed Him as a Clandestine Agent of Russia.

    The point of all this was politics, not national security.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2020...-framed-him-as-a-clandestine-agent-of-russia/

    Of course, they had no proof that that he was a secret agent for Russia. And the corrupt FBI knew they had no proof. That’s why they never sought a FISA-court warrant targeting Flynn. Doing so would have required showing probable cause that he was an operative of Russia; and as to Flynn, they didn’t even have a fabulist “dossier” to rely on for such a smear.

    The Corrupt Obama administration was actively constructing the Trump–Russia collusion lie narrative. Corrupt Obama officials saw Putin’s “no retaliation” pose as an opportunity to float the fiction that the Kremlin had cut a sinister deal with Trump to gut Corrupt Obama’s sanctions as a reward for Russia’s hacking of Democrats during the campaign. Corrupt Obama officials and the Corrupt FBI hoped to conceal the Trump–Russia investigation from the incoming Trump administration for as long as possible, and to continue the investigation of Trump’s campaign — remember, by December 29, they had already gotten a FISA warrant based on the representation that Trump’s campaign had conspired with the Kremlin, and they were preparing to reaffirm that claim in order to get a second 90-day warrant (the second of what would eventually be four).

    The Flynn–Kislyak call was intercepted by the corrupt FBI. The corrupt Bureau and the corrupt Obama White House instantly recognized that hyping the call could advance all these objectives. Flynn’s days were numbered. By Valentine’s Day, he was cashiered as national-security advisor . . . no longer an obstacle to the Obama-driven strategy of continuing the Trump–Russia investigation after Trump took office.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2020
    BuckyBadger likes this.
  9. Bush Lawyer

    Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    15,035
    Likes Received:
    9,493
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hold it right there. No it does not. I can give you a litany of sites along the same lines as this one.

    https://reason.com/2020/05/17/why-do-rule-48a-dismissals-require-leave-of-court/
     
  10. rkhames

    rkhames Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    5,227
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unless you can find a post where I have backed a judicial ruling from a conservative judge that violates the constitutional rights of an individual, then you can make that claim. Otherwise you are talking out the side of your head. I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic. I have never renounced that oath. Even though I am no longer serving in the Marines, I still hold that oath sacred. I support the Constitution no matter which political side the political fence the defense sits on.
     
    BuckyBadger likes this.
  11. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,429
    Likes Received:
    51,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The intelligence community tells Americans it deeply respects their privacy and realizes that collecting information about them — under the guise of monitoring foreign actors — is something that can only be justified by national-security needs and strict adherence to privacy guidelines. To impress its sincerity on us, the ODNI maintains what it portentously calls its “Office of Civil Liberties, Privacy, and Transparency.” In late 2017, that office even published a pamphlet called: “Protecting U.S. Person Identities in Disseminations under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.”

    It is sweet-sounding twaddle. Sure, American identities are masked the majority of the time. On close reading, though, our intelligence agencies reserve the discretion to unmask pretty much whenever they wish. For all the talk, talk, talk about privacy, the pamphlet explains:

    As a general matter, a U.S. person’s actual identity may be included in an intelligence report at the time it is first prepared and disseminated if such inclusion meets the agency’s minimization standard (e.g., whether the identity is foreign intelligence, necessary to understand foreign intelligence or assess its importance, or is evidence of a crime).​

    This guideline makes it the Corrupt agency’s subjective call whether to mask a U.S. person’s identity. So, for example, even if the Corrupt FBI has no actual evidence that Mike Flynn is a clandestine foreign agent — in fact, even if the Corrupt Bureau has already decided to close a counterintelligence case on Flynn — it need not mask his name if it decides its baseless suspicion is reason enough to claim that Flynn’s conversations constitute “foreign intelligence.”

    Or even if the Corrupt FBI knows Flynn’s job as incoming national-security advisor is to consult with foreign counterparts, and even if the Corrupt FBI knows Flynn has said nothing improper in his conversation with Kislyak, the Corrupt Bureau is free to claim that Flynn’s name must be revealed in order to “assess the importance” of his conversations with Russia’s ambassador — something that is not done to other U.S. officials whose job is to consult with foreign emissaries, because the Corrupt FBI knows it has no business monitoring the conduct of American foreign policy.

    Or if the Corrupt FBI decides a conversation may be “evidence of a crime,” it need not mask a U.S. person’s name — even if the only conceivable crime is a violation of the Logan Act, which the Justice Department has never prosecuted in its 150-year history, which has not been invoked since before the Civil War, and which is so widely seen as unconstitutional that no one has ever been convicted of it since its enactment in 1799.

    Feel better now about how these corrupt lying spying political bastards "secure" your civil liberties?
     
    BuckyBadger likes this.
  12. Bush Lawyer

    Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    15,035
    Likes Received:
    9,493
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Great. When I lecture you about the Marines, feel free to lecture the Bush Lawyer on this legal matter. I'll stick to my turf. :)
     
  13. rkhames

    rkhames Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    5,227
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Taking a statement out of context is slimy even for a liberal. I went on to explain that a judge has to have extraordinary reasons to block the prosecution to withdraw charges against a defendant. That does not mean that the prosecution's authority is absolute, but it has to be based on facts. If this judge felt that he was justified in not allowing the prosecution to drop the charges, then he would not need Amicus Briefs, or to hire a defense council to help him explain why he did what he has done.

    The fact that the Appeals Court accepted a Writ Mandamus speaks volumes.
     
    BuckyBadger likes this.
  14. Bush Lawyer

    Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    15,035
    Likes Received:
    9,493
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Unless something happened today (unlikely given the long week-end over there) the Appeal Court has NOT 'accepted' a Writ of Mandamus at all. I say they won't for solid legal reasons.

    Stop concentrating on the likely corrupt DOJ/FBI. What Sullivan is looking at is whether Flynn has met legal thresholds in having his admission of guilt, made to Sullivan, recanted.
     
  15. Bush Lawyer

    Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    15,035
    Likes Received:
    9,493
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ya know, if people have been reading my posts on this matter, they will have seen that I have been asking for a transcript of the initial plea of guilty made by Flynn. This was dropped at my doorstep on an Australian Forum, so.....



    Well? What say ye? Did Sullivan do all he could to ensure Flynn knew what he was doing? His Lawyer made very direct admissions. I cannot imagine how anyone would seek to question why Sullivan now demands to know why he ought to allow them to recant from all that.

    Jayzuz!
     
  16. rkhames

    rkhames Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    5,227
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am not sure where you get your information from, but you need new sources. The Flynn defense team led by Susan Powers, Filed a Writ of Mandamus last Tuesday. This writ requested that Judge Sullivan be removed from the case immediately. The Appeals Court then sent Judge Sullivan an order requiring him to respond to the Prosecution's efforts to drop the case against General Flynn. The Appeals Court of the District of Columbia has directed Sullivan to respond to the defense and prosecution's motion to drop the case no later then 1 June. Also, the court stated that the Government has the right to enter their own briefs for court review. Sullivan, upon receiving the Appeal Court order, went out and hired a Defense law firm that has Eric Holder as a partner. Sullivan would not have done this without a good reason. The fact that he Appeals Court issued the order to Judge Sullivan shows that they have accepted the Writ, and is working to see if they will have to take the action of removing Sullivan from the case. I have not found a single article that supports your claim that the Appeal Court had denied the Writ.

    There are two facts that seem obvious to me. The first is that Sullivan can not justify his actions to date. This is why he has invited third parties to weigh in, and hired a defense attorney. He would not have done this unless he had no excuse for what he has done in regards to the Flynn Case. The second is that the Judge has stopped being an impartial mediator for this case. His statements to Flynn and his defense team shows that he is partial to the prosecution. Even after the AG has stated that the prosecution has made several egregious errors. Such as withholding exculpatory evidence from the court and defense. They even lied to Judge Sullivan about the existance of additional exculpatory evidence. It would seem to me that the judge would be hammering the Prosecution, but instead he is trying to be the judge, prosecution and Defense all at once. The judge has no legal grounds to stand on, and should be removed immediately.
     
  17. Texas Republican

    Texas Republican Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2015
    Messages:
    28,121
    Likes Received:
    19,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's racist to question minorities.
     
  18. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    All correct, but the facts are that Flynn in all likelihood did not commit the crime he pled guilty to, and it is axiomatic that it certainly wasn't with any mens rea.

    A judge that does not accept a recant for a crime that the prosecution withdrew can only be for animosity. There is no judicial reason whatsoever for not accepting such a recant. You are correct, he can appeal, assuming he has the money.

    If Sullivan does not accept the recant, what kind of sentence do you think he would impose? In the extreme, though not entirely out of the question, death, since Sullivan has already accused Flynn of treason????
     
  19. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    IMO it might actually be granted, though these Writs almost never are.
     
  20. rkhames

    rkhames Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    5,227
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If your going to stick to your turf, then why are you posting on this subject. You obviously do not understand the law. If you did, you would know that Sullivan is out of his element, and did not have a legal to stand on.
     
    BuckyBadger likes this.
  21. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Lying to a federal investigator while they are not investigating a case is not illegal. Secondly, if one lies while being investigated, that untruth must be material to be illegal.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2020
  22. Texas Republican

    Texas Republican Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2015
    Messages:
    28,121
    Likes Received:
    19,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He's been a judge for 30+ years and he needs assistance/advise?

    He's trying to revive the prosecution, and that's not his job.
     
  23. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Really???!!!??? Surely, you jest!
     
  24. jack4freedom

    jack4freedom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    19,874
    Likes Received:
    8,447
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think that the only “paid political stooge” in this case is Barr. Flynn pleaded guilty years ago and was a star informant for Mueller. (Let’s declassify and release all the documents regarding his cooperation with the prosecution) Trump fired Flynn for being a liar after only a few weeks. The bottom line in all of this is that Trump surrounded himself with a bunch of shady characters who had unsavory ties to foreign intel and criminal organizations. Our counterespionage and organized crime personnel (guys like Strzok and Ohr) rightly kept an eye on these people. Now Trump and Barr are attempting to flip the script with this “Obamagate” garbage. As always with these liars and crooks, the facts will get in the way once all of them come to light.
     
  25. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The sequence and timing of these shenanigans is interesting. Of the 49 requests for Flynn unmasking as released by Grennell only 8 were made after the Dec 29 call and all were on or after Jan 5, 2017, the date of the infamous Obama, Biden, Yates, Comey, and Rice meeting discussing Flynn. Six of the 8 requests were made before Jan 12, the date of the Ignatius WaPo article. These six requests were made by Powers, UN Ambassador; Clapper, DNI; McDonough, Chief of Staff; Dempsey, Deputy DNI; O'Sullivan, Deputy DNI; and unnamed CIA/CTMC. A little untangling of the woven web, maybe.
     

Share This Page