A Writ of Mandamus

[task0778]

A federal criminal case has only two parties, the defendant and the federal prosecutors, for very fundamental reasons. The enforcement of federal law is a function of only the executive branch under Article 2 of the Constitution. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enable some interested parties to intervene to protect their interests in civil cases. There is no analogous provision in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, again, because the prosecutor stands for all the public and its interests.

Sullivan has appointed former U.S. district court judge John Gleeson to oppose the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss and, reportedly, to argue that Sullivan should hold Flynn guilty of perjury for falsely confessing to crimes he didn’t commit. That is unconstitutional under the controlling precedents because it violates the Separation of Powers doctrine of constitutional law which mandates that the power of one branch of government cannot be seized and used by another branch. In other words, it is unconstitutional — and, thus, illegal — for Sullivan to appoint Gleeson to stand in the place of the federal prosecutors in the Flynn case and pursue Flynn for alleged perjury.
.
.
The law doesn’t provide a remedy for every wrong, but there is a remedy available to the Justice Department — not to Flynn — to correct Sullivan’s outrageous conduct. It’s called a writ of mandamus and should be filed by DoJ forthwith to block Gleeson’s participation and compel dismissal of the charges against Flynn. (Flynn can appeal to a higher court.)

A writ of mandamus, under Title 28 U.S. Code Section 1651. According to the Department of Justice’s manual:

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249 (1957); United States v. McGarr, 461 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1972). The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), confers the power of mandamus on federal appellate courts. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., supra. Mandamus may be appropriately issued to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of prescribed jurisdiction, or when there is an usurpation of judicial power.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb “usurp” to mean taking a position or a power illegally or by force. By refusing to dismiss immediately the charges against Flynn and appointing Gleeson to take the place of the federal prosecutor, Sullivan is guilty of a usurpation of judicial power. The proper remedy is for DoJ to file a writ of mandamus against Sullivan with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

Rogue Judge Sullivan - The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

Emmet Sullivan, the U.S. District Court judge presiding over the Michael Flynn criminal trial, has delayed ruling on the Justice Department’s motion to

spectator.org

Mandamus: Mandamus ( /ˈmænˈdeɪməs/; lit. 'we command') is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the nature of public duty,...

IOW, The DC Court of Appeals tells Sullivan that he can't do that. The Judicial Branch should not be in the business of looking for a crime to charge somebody with. Actually, no agency or gov't entity should be doing that, our justice requires the crime to be committed first, THEN you go looking for who did it. In this case, there was no crime.

 

[Rambunctious]

Sullivan is not doing his dem friends any favors....he is putting TDS on display for the nation to get a good look at....

 

[task0778]

Sullivan is not doing his dem friends any favors....he is putting TDS on display for the nation to get a good look at....

I was thinking the same thing. Keeping this sorry episode of investigative and prosecutorial misconduct alive and in the public eye can't be good for Biden since he was among those who requesting Flynn's unmasking, or for the Dems in general. But as you say it does emphasize the TDS on the Left and their near-maniacal need to destroy Trump and anyone who supports him. It's hard for me to see any rational, fair-minded person who can see all this shit going on and still vote for the Dems.

 

[Billy_Bob]

A federal criminal case has only two parties, the defendant and the federal prosecutors, for very fundamental reasons. The enforcement of federal law is a function of only the executive branch under Article 2 of the Constitution. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enable some interested parties to intervene to protect their interests in civil cases. There is no analogous provision in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, again, because the prosecutor stands for all the public and its interests.

Sullivan has appointed former U.S. district court judge John Gleeson to oppose the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss and, reportedly, to argue that Sullivan should hold Flynn guilty of perjury for falsely confessing to crimes he didn’t commit. That is unconstitutional under the controlling precedents because it violates the Separation of Powers doctrine of constitutional law which mandates that the power of one branch of government cannot be seized and used by another branch. In other words, it is unconstitutional — and, thus, illegal — for Sullivan to appoint Gleeson to stand in the place of the federal prosecutors in the Flynn case and pursue Flynn for alleged perjury.
.
.
The law doesn’t provide a remedy for every wrong, but there is a remedy available to the Justice Department — not to Flynn — to correct Sullivan’s outrageous conduct. It’s called a writ of mandamus and should be filed by DoJ forthwith to block Gleeson’s participation and compel dismissal of the charges against Flynn. (Flynn can appeal to a higher court.)

A writ of mandamus, under Title 28 U.S. Code Section 1651. According to the Department of Justice’s manual:

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249 (1957); United States v. McGarr, 461 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1972). The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), confers the power of mandamus on federal appellate courts. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., supra. Mandamus may be appropriately issued to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of prescribed jurisdiction, or when there is an usurpation of judicial power.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb “usurp” to mean taking a position or a power illegally or by force. By refusing to dismiss immediately the charges against Flynn and appointing Gleeson to take the place of the federal prosecutor, Sullivan is guilty of a usurpation of judicial power. The proper remedy is for DoJ to file a writ of mandamus against Sullivan with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

Rogue Judge Sullivan - The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

Emmet Sullivan, the U.S. District Court judge presiding over the Michael Flynn criminal trial, has delayed ruling on the Justice Department’s motion to

spectator.org

Mandamus: Mandamus ( /ˈmænˈdeɪməs/; lit. 'we command') is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the nature of public duty,...

IOW, The DC Court of Appeals tells Sullivan that he can't do that. The Judicial Branch should not be in the business of looking for a crime to charge somebody with. Actually, no agency or gov't entity should be doing that, our justice requires the crime to be committed first, THEN you go looking for who did it. In this case, there was no crime.

As read this statute Flynn and the DOJ have the ability to file this motion. Its my understanding that it will be filed today by Flynn's attorney to the court and if necessary to the Appeals court..

 

[PoliticalChic]

A federal criminal case has only two parties, the defendant and the federal prosecutors, for very fundamental reasons. The enforcement of federal law is a function of only the executive branch under Article 2 of the Constitution. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enable some interested parties to intervene to protect their interests in civil cases. There is no analogous provision in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, again, because the prosecutor stands for all the public and its interests.

Sullivan has appointed former U.S. district court judge John Gleeson to oppose the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss and, reportedly, to argue that Sullivan should hold Flynn guilty of perjury for falsely confessing to crimes he didn’t commit. That is unconstitutional under the controlling precedents because it violates the Separation of Powers doctrine of constitutional law which mandates that the power of one branch of government cannot be seized and used by another branch. In other words, it is unconstitutional — and, thus, illegal — for Sullivan to appoint Gleeson to stand in the place of the federal prosecutors in the Flynn case and pursue Flynn for alleged perjury.
.
.
The law doesn’t provide a remedy for every wrong, but there is a remedy available to the Justice Department — not to Flynn — to correct Sullivan’s outrageous conduct. It’s called a writ of mandamus and should be filed by DoJ forthwith to block Gleeson’s participation and compel dismissal of the charges against Flynn. (Flynn can appeal to a higher court.)

A writ of mandamus, under Title 28 U.S. Code Section 1651. According to the Department of Justice’s manual:

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249 (1957); United States v. McGarr, 461 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1972). The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), confers the power of mandamus on federal appellate courts. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., supra. Mandamus may be appropriately issued to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of prescribed jurisdiction, or when there is an usurpation of judicial power.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb “usurp” to mean taking a position or a power illegally or by force. By refusing to dismiss immediately the charges against Flynn and appointing Gleeson to take the place of the federal prosecutor, Sullivan is guilty of a usurpation of judicial power. The proper remedy is for DoJ to file a writ of mandamus against Sullivan with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

Rogue Judge Sullivan - The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

Emmet Sullivan, the U.S. District Court judge presiding over the Michael Flynn criminal trial, has delayed ruling on the Justice Department’s motion to

spectator.org

Mandamus: Mandamus ( /ˈmænˈdeɪməs/; lit. 'we command') is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the nature of public duty,...

IOW, The DC Court of Appeals tells Sullivan that he can't do that. The Judicial Branch should not be in the business of looking for a crime to charge somebody with. Actually, no agency or gov't entity should be doing that, our justice requires the crime to be committed first, THEN you go looking for who did it. In this case, there was no crime.

I am familiar with the term, and saw that Turley recommended its use to push Sullivan to do what he is authorized to do, but if these guys can ignore the Constitution, why would we think they would honor the writ?

I know you're correct, and you know you're correct......but, really, do we expect jail time for any of these crooks?

 

[Billy_Bob]

A federal criminal case has only two parties, the defendant and the federal prosecutors, for very fundamental reasons. The enforcement of federal law is a function of only the executive branch under Article 2 of the Constitution. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enable some interested parties to intervene to protect their interests in civil cases. There is no analogous provision in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, again, because the prosecutor stands for all the public and its interests.

Sullivan has appointed former U.S. district court judge John Gleeson to oppose the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss and, reportedly, to argue that Sullivan should hold Flynn guilty of perjury for falsely confessing to crimes he didn’t commit. That is unconstitutional under the controlling precedents because it violates the Separation of Powers doctrine of constitutional law which mandates that the power of one branch of government cannot be seized and used by another branch. In other words, it is unconstitutional — and, thus, illegal — for Sullivan to appoint Gleeson to stand in the place of the federal prosecutors in the Flynn case and pursue Flynn for alleged perjury.
.
.
The law doesn’t provide a remedy for every wrong, but there is a remedy available to the Justice Department — not to Flynn — to correct Sullivan’s outrageous conduct. It’s called a writ of mandamus and should be filed by DoJ forthwith to block Gleeson’s participation and compel dismissal of the charges against Flynn. (Flynn can appeal to a higher court.)

A writ of mandamus, under Title 28 U.S. Code Section 1651. According to the Department of Justice’s manual:

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249 (1957); United States v. McGarr, 461 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1972). The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), confers the power of mandamus on federal appellate courts. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., supra. Mandamus may be appropriately issued to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of prescribed jurisdiction, or when there is an usurpation of judicial power.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb “usurp” to mean taking a position or a power illegally or by force. By refusing to dismiss immediately the charges against Flynn and appointing Gleeson to take the place of the federal prosecutor, Sullivan is guilty of a usurpation of judicial power. The proper remedy is for DoJ to file a writ of mandamus against Sullivan with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

Rogue Judge Sullivan - The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

Emmet Sullivan, the U.S. District Court judge presiding over the Michael Flynn criminal trial, has delayed ruling on the Justice Department’s motion to

spectator.org

Mandamus: Mandamus ( /ˈmænˈdeɪməs/; lit. 'we command') is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the nature of public duty,...

IOW, The DC Court of Appeals tells Sullivan that he can't do that. The Judicial Branch should not be in the business of looking for a crime to charge somebody with. Actually, no agency or gov't entity should be doing that, our justice requires the crime to be committed first, THEN you go looking for who did it. In this case, there was no crime.

I am familiar with the term, and saw that Turley recommended its use to push Sullivan to do what he is authorized to do, but if these guys can ignore the Constitution, why would we think they would honor the writ?

I know you're correct, and you know you're correct......but, really, do we expect jail time for any of these crooks?

In a system that has equal justice under the law I would expect no less. For some reason our two tier justice system needs a swift kick in the ass and that can only happen if we hold these people accountable. (Not holding my breath)

At first I thought Sullivan was respectable but no longer, I think he is corrupt.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A federal criminal case has only two parties, the defendant and the federal prosecutors, for very fundamental reasons. The enforcement of federal law is a function of only the executive branch under Article 2 of the Constitution. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enable some interested parties to intervene to protect their interests in civil cases. There is no analogous provision in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, again, because the prosecutor stands for all the public and its interests.

Sullivan has appointed former U.S. district court judge John Gleeson to oppose the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss and, reportedly, to argue that Sullivan should hold Flynn guilty of perjury for falsely confessing to crimes he didn’t commit. That is unconstitutional under the controlling precedents because it violates the Separation of Powers doctrine of constitutional law which mandates that the power of one branch of government cannot be seized and used by another branch. In other words, it is unconstitutional — and, thus, illegal — for Sullivan to appoint Gleeson to stand in the place of the federal prosecutors in the Flynn case and pursue Flynn for alleged perjury.
.
.
The law doesn’t provide a remedy for every wrong, but there is a remedy available to the Justice Department — not to Flynn — to correct Sullivan’s outrageous conduct. It’s called a writ of mandamus and should be filed by DoJ forthwith to block Gleeson’s participation and compel dismissal of the charges against Flynn. (Flynn can appeal to a higher court.)

A writ of mandamus, under Title 28 U.S. Code Section 1651. According to the Department of Justice’s manual:

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249 (1957); United States v. McGarr, 461 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1972). The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), confers the power of mandamus on federal appellate courts. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., supra. Mandamus may be appropriately issued to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of prescribed jurisdiction, or when there is an usurpation of judicial power.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb “usurp” to mean taking a position or a power illegally or by force. By refusing to dismiss immediately the charges against Flynn and appointing Gleeson to take the place of the federal prosecutor, Sullivan is guilty of a usurpation of judicial power. The proper remedy is for DoJ to file a writ of mandamus against Sullivan with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

Rogue Judge Sullivan - The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

Emmet Sullivan, the U.S. District Court judge presiding over the Michael Flynn criminal trial, has delayed ruling on the Justice Department’s motion to

spectator.org

Mandamus: Mandamus ( /ˈmænˈdeɪməs/; lit. 'we command') is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the nature of public duty,...

IOW, The DC Court of Appeals tells Sullivan that he can't do that. The Judicial Branch should not be in the business of looking for a crime to charge somebody with. Actually, no agency or gov't entity should be doing that, our justice requires the crime to be committed first, THEN you go looking for who did it. In this case, there was no crime.

I am familiar with the term, and saw that Turley recommended its use to push Sullivan to do what he is authorized to do, but if these guys can ignore the Constitution, why would we think they would honor the writ?

I know you're correct, and you know you're correct......but, really, do we expect jail time for any of these crooks?

In a system that has equal justice under the law I would expect no less. For some reason our two tier justice system needs a swift kick in the ass and that can only happen if we hold these people accountable. (Not holding my breath)

Sorry, Billy.......the best we can expect is the sort of exposure going on these days.


"Forget About Seeing Any Justice For Obamagate
Allow me to disabuse you of your naïve delusion that we still live in a country with a justice system and break it to you that no one is going to jail for what was done to Flynn, or for the unmasking business, or for the Russia hoax or, for that matter, for any of the corrupt Dem/foreigner collaborations exemplified by the payoffs received by stripperphile and Bolivian folk medicine enthusiast Hoover Biden.

We have two justice systems, one for them and one for us, meaning we have no justice system at all. "

Forget About Seeing Any Justice For Obamagate

townhall.com

They go from exposure to jobs at CNN and MSNBC.

 

[justinacolmena]

The enforcement of federal law is a function of only the executive branch under Article 2 of the Constitution. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

GUILTY AS CHARGED! It's the maximum possible punishment under the statute. The judge is banging the gavel so hard I can't hear anything else.

enable some interested parties to intervene to protect their interests in civil cases.

You've got to have big money for that. Old money. Family money. Connections to royalty. Real estate. All the right political connections. You can't be a pauper in federal court. Get off the property before the judge charges you with loitering or trespassing or petty theft. Looking for a job? Not in this district. You're not trying taking a paying job away from a good family man, are you? Get the fuck away from the courthouse and off federal property before the guard shoots you.

 

[task0778]

FYI:

While these writs are extraordinary in nature, there is controlling precedent that Judge Sullivan appears to have considered, yet ignored. In U.S. v. Fokker Services B.V., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted mandamus when a judge refused a government charging decision. That decision emphasized that the executive branch, represented by the Justice Department, has prosecutorial discretion and that “‘judicial authority is . . . at its most limited’ when reviewing the Executive’s exercise of discretion over charging determinations.”

Most importantly, the court ruled in Fokker that a judge “cannot deny leave of court because of a view that the defendant should stand trial notwithstanding the prosecution’s desire to dismiss the charges.”

In light of Fokker, Judge Sullivan’s decision in Flynn’s case is head-scratching. Putting aside the apparent and grotesque scheme that led to the eventual charges against Flynn, the decision of whether or not to prosecute was the government’s, not Sullivan’s.

In refusing to simply dismiss the case, Sullivan seemingly placed his subjective opinion about the case and/or the defendant above everyone else’s, including those prosecuting the case. Not only is this against established case law, it also appears to exceed the scope of his judicial authority.

Moreover, this decision appears to politicize Flynn’s case, as does the open call for amicus briefs and the judge’s decision to appoint a retired judge to argue against dismissal and to consider whether Flynn should face a perjury charge. By calling for such briefs, Sullivan opened the floodgates whereby special interest groups and others opposing Flynn could help to “fan the anti-Flynn flames” and continue to “tarnish” Flynn’s good name.

More importantly, as the law is clear regarding the judge’s discretion when the government seeks to dismiss charges, there is no real purpose for amicus briefs other than to delay the case and potentially to force President Trump’s hand in pardoning Flynn. As the Washington Times reports, “An amicus brief is usually submitted when a third party could be affected by the court’s decision or has unique information not previously presented in the case. It is very rare for a judge to request such motions in a criminal case.”

Should Flynn’s Team Seek a Writ of Mandamus? › American Greatness

After the Department of Justice decided to drop the case against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, it seemed like the presiding judge’s signature was a mere formality. Unfortunately…

amgreatness.com

I am not sure that Flynn can ask the DC Court of Appeals for the Writ of Mandamus, on the grounds of Usurpation. Flynn has the right to appeal any verdict against him and as I understand it, the Writ is supposed to be for cases where there is no other means of relief for the petitioner. But Flynn can ask the DOJ to petition the DC CoA for the Writ, as they really should. Possibly Sullivan would back down, cuz he's setting a very bad judicial precedent.

RE the question of justice for Obamagate, it's a little off-topic but I think most if not all of the people at the very top will not be indicted or convicted because I think there will be insufficient evidence of a crime committed. These guys are just too good at hiding or destroying the evidence, such as the missing original 302. It's just too easy to say "I don't remember", or "I take the 5th", and escape true justice. But that is the justice system we have, or are supposed to have. It ain't right that these guys don't go to jail, BUT - the fat lady hasn't sung yet either. Remember the lawyer that changed the wording on one of the FISA applications? I think they have that guy by the balls. I wouldn't be surprised in they don't have a few people on Obstruction or Lying charges, but again knowing somebody is guilty is not the same thing as proving it in Court.

 

[PoliticalChic]

FYI:

While these writs are extraordinary in nature, there is controlling precedent that Judge Sullivan appears to have considered, yet ignored. In U.S. v. Fokker Services B.V., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted mandamus when a judge refused a government charging decision. That decision emphasized that the executive branch, represented by the Justice Department, has prosecutorial discretion and that “‘judicial authority is . . . at its most limited’ when reviewing the Executive’s exercise of discretion over charging determinations.”

Most importantly, the court ruled in Fokker that a judge “cannot deny leave of court because of a view that the defendant should stand trial notwithstanding the prosecution’s desire to dismiss the charges.”

In light of Fokker, Judge Sullivan’s decision in Flynn’s case is head-scratching. Putting aside the apparent and grotesque scheme that led to the eventual charges against Flynn, the decision of whether or not to prosecute was the government’s, not Sullivan’s.

In refusing to simply dismiss the case, Sullivan seemingly placed his subjective opinion about the case and/or the defendant above everyone else’s, including those prosecuting the case. Not only is this against established case law, it also appears to exceed the scope of his judicial authority.

Moreover, this decision appears to politicize Flynn’s case, as does the open call for amicus briefs and the judge’s decision to appoint a retired judge to argue against dismissal and to consider whether Flynn should face a perjury charge. By calling for such briefs, Sullivan opened the floodgates whereby special interest groups and others opposing Flynn could help to “fan the anti-Flynn flames” and continue to “tarnish” Flynn’s good name.

More importantly, as the law is clear regarding the judge’s discretion when the government seeks to dismiss charges, there is no real purpose for amicus briefs other than to delay the case and potentially to force President Trump’s hand in pardoning Flynn. As the Washington Times reports, “An amicus brief is usually submitted when a third party could be affected by the court’s decision or has unique information not previously presented in the case. It is very rare for a judge to request such motions in a criminal case.”

Should Flynn’s Team Seek a Writ of Mandamus? › American Greatness

After the Department of Justice decided to drop the case against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, it seemed like the presiding judge’s signature was a mere formality. Unfortunately…

amgreatness.com

I am not sure that Flynn can ask the DC Court of Appeals for the Writ of Mandamus, on the grounds of Usurpation. Flynn has the right to appeal any verdict against him and as I understand it, the Writ is supposed to be for cases where there is no other means of relief for the petitioner. But Flynn can ask the DOJ to petition the DC CoA for the Writ, as they really should. Possibly Sullivan would back down, cuz he's setting a very bad judicial precedent.

RE the question of justice for Obamagate, it's a little off-topic but I think most if not all of the people at the very top will not be indicted or convicted because I think there will be insufficient evidence of a crime committed. These guys are just too good at hiding or destroying the evidence, such as the missing original 302. It's just too easy to say "I don't remember", or "I take the 5th", and escape true justice. But that is the justice system we have, or are supposed to have. It ain't right that these guys don't go to jail, BUT - the fat lady hasn't sung yet either. Remember the lawyer that changed the wording on one of the FISA applications? I think they have that guy by the balls. I wouldn't be surprised in they don't have a few people on Obstruction or Lying charges, but again knowing somebody is guilty is not the same thing as proving it in Court.

Informative.


Well, either he will accede to the writ, or he will simply demand that Flynn be arrested forthwith.

OR...as I suspect, he has no intention of doing either.....he simply wants to keep this going until....he hopes.....the Democrats win in November.

Heaven forfend!

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

I am not somebody who usually takes partisan interest in such matters, nor am I a judicial or Constitutional expert. Flynn may have been too zealously prosecuted, but he is not at all some poor, defenseless, innocent babe in the woods. He is backed by extremely powerful forces. Nobody forced him either to lie or confess. The American Spectator attack on “Rogue Judge Sullivan” is itself troubling. Judge Sullivan, at least by my cursory readings, has had a remarkable legal career. He has, I strongly suspect, his own considered legal grounds to question the dropping of charges in this unusual case. If he is eventually stymied by a “writ of mandamus” that would not surprise me in the least. In any case this is all shadow boxing in a sense, as the legal proceedings in large part are the result of the Trump administration simply preferring to avoid negative political fallout that might arise from a pardon. Judge Sullivan, as the American Spectator article (rather misleadingly) admits, previously played a major role in vindicating Republican Senator Stevens. He dismissed a partisan, politically inspired, prejudicial prosecutorial miscarriage of justice in that rather well-known case.

 

[Care4all]

Sullivan is not doing his dem friends any favors....he is putting TDS on display for the nation to get a good look at....

I was thinking the same thing. Keeping this sorry episode of investigative and prosecutorial misconduct alive and in the public eye can't be good for Biden since he was among those who requesting Flynn's unmasking, or for the Dems in general. But as you say it does emphasize the TDS on the Left and their near-maniacal need to destroy Trump and anyone who supports him. It's hard for me to see any rational, fair-minded person who can see all this shit going on and still vote for the Dems.

How did Biden request Flynn's unmasking, if he did not know who the intelligence report regarding Kislyak was talking to..... thus requesting the unmasking, to find out?

Biden did not ask for FLYNN'S UNMASKING, he put in a legal request with the NSA to find out who the mystery man was, that Kislyak was speaking to in the transcript he received from the NSA intel briefing....so to understand the intelligence brief, and the NSA legal team approved that request, then he obtained that unmasking of the individual Kislyak was communicating with..., in a top secret SCIF, not via email etc.....

IT SO HAPPENED TO BE Flynn.... it could have been anyone.....?

 

[task0778]

I am not somebody who usually takes partisan interest in such matters, nor am I a judicial or Constitutional expert. Flynn may have been too zealously prosecuted, but he is not at all some poor, defenseless, innocent babe in the woods. He is backed by extremely powerful forces. Nobody forced him either to lie or confess. The American Spectator attack on “Rogue Judge Sullivan” is itself troubling. Judge Sullivan, at least by my cursory readings, has had a remarkable legal career. He has, I strongly suspect, his own considered legal grounds to question the dropping of charges in this unusual case. If he is eventually stymied by a “writ of mandamus” that would not surprise me in the least. In any case this is all shadow boxing in a sense, as the legal proceedings in large part are the result of the Trump administration simply preferring to avoid negative political fallout that might arise from a pardon. Judge Sullivan, as the American Spectator article (rather misleadingly) admits, previously played a major role in vindicating Republican Senator Stevens. He dismissed a partisan, politically inspired, prejudicial prosecutorial miscarriage of justice in that rather well-known case.

"Nobody forced him either to lie or confess." There seems to be some disagreement about that. You don't think it's possible that somebody directly or indirectly let him know that if he doesn't confess that they'll go after his son? Doesn't matter whether the son was or wasn't totally innocent, as a father would you think about entering a plea deal to spare him and your family of a long and tortuous ordeal? The man had to sell his home to pay the mounting legal bills. with no end in sight. Maybe he thought it was the honorable thing to do, to spare his family further distress, not to mention bankruptcy. And one more thing: the interviewing FBI agents did not believe Flynn lied, but the original 302s that documented the interview have gone missing. What does that sound like to you?

Are you aware of the DOJ's claim that in order for lying to the FBI to be a crime it has to be material to a legitimate investigation? IOW, a crime has to have been committed, that s the law. The FBI did not have a basis for a counterintelligence investigation against Flynn at that stage, AND THEY KNEW IT AT THE TIME. Recent documents revealed that the Crossfire Hurricane team, was closing it and determined they had found nothing to justify continuing with that investigation against Flynn. And yet somebody, probably Strzok reopened it in an attempt to entrap Flynn. You don't call that a prejudicial miscarriage of justice? I do.


"He dismissed a partisan, politically inspired, prejudicial prosecutorial miscarriage of justice in that rather well-known case." So why didn't he do that in the Flynn case? Do you believe Flynn's investigation/prosecution wasn't every bit a a partisan, politically inspired, prejudicial prosecutorial miscarriage of justice that the Stevens case was? Everything about the Flynn case from beginning to end stinks. The prosecution withheld exculpatory information from the defense FOR YEARS. Are you okay with that?

 

[Care4all]

I am not somebody who usually takes partisan interest in such matters, nor am I a judicial or Constitutional expert. Flynn may have been too zealously prosecuted, but he is not at all some poor, defenseless, innocent babe in the woods. He is backed by extremely powerful forces. Nobody forced him either to lie or confess. The American Spectator attack on “Rogue Judge Sullivan” is itself troubling. Judge Sullivan, at least by my cursory readings, has had a remarkable legal career. He has, I strongly suspect, his own considered legal grounds to question the dropping of charges in this unusual case. If he is eventually stymied by a “writ of mandamus” that would not surprise me in the least. In any case this is all shadow boxing in a sense, as the legal proceedings in large part are the result of the Trump administration simply preferring to avoid negative political fallout that might arise from a pardon. Judge Sullivan, as the American Spectator article (rather misleadingly) admits, previously played a major role in vindicating Republican Senator Stevens. He dismissed a partisan, politically inspired, prejudicial prosecutorial miscarriage of justice in that rather well-known case.

"Nobody forced him either to lie or confess." There seems to be some disagreement about that. You don't think it's possible that somebody directly or indirectly let him know that if he doesn't confess that they'll go after his son? Doesn't matter whether the son was or wasn't totally innocent, as a father would you think about entering a plea deal to spare him and your family of a long and tortuous ordeal? The man had to sell his home to pay the mounting legal bills. with no end in sight. Maybe he thought it was the honorable thing to do, to spare his family further distress, not to mention bankruptcy. And one more thing: the interviewing FBI agents did not believe Flynn lied, but the original 302s that documented the interview have gone missing. What does that sound like to you?

Are you aware of the DOJ's claim that in order for lying to the FBI to be a crime it has to be material to a legitimate investigation? IOW, a crime has to have been committed, that s the law. The FBI did not have a basis for a counterintelligence investigation against Flynn at that stage, AND THEY KNEW IT AT THE TIME. Recent documents revealed that the Crossfire Hurricane team, was closing it and determined they had found nothing to justify continuing with that investigation against Flynn. And yet somebody, probably Strzok reopened it in an attempt to entrap Flynn. You don't call that a prejudicial miscarriage of justice? I do.


"He dismissed a partisan, politically inspired, prejudicial prosecutorial miscarriage of justice in that rather well-known case." So why didn't he do that in the Flynn case? Do you believe Flynn's investigation/prosecution wasn't every bit a a partisan, politically inspired, prejudicial prosecutorial miscarriage of justice that the Stevens case was? Everything about the Flynn case from beginning to end stinks. The prosecution withheld exculpatory information from the defense FOR YEARS. Are you okay with that?

If coercing happened, it was long after the interview, of which Flynn directly and intentionally lied.

He spoke with Kislyak on Dec 29th and was interviewed about it by the FBI on January 17th.

18 days later.

He was not charged with any crimes or coerced or entrapped to lie in his interview.... he actually was not charged with anything until the end of 2017, I believe?

The Prosecution originally recommended no jail time, it was not until Flynn decided to play games, that they changed their stance for their recommendation.

I do not think that the judge would have put him away....

This case is strange because I do not believe what happened has ever happened before in USA history.... Flynn plead guilty, twice, and said twice that he was not entrapped or coerced, under oath, in the Judge's court. Wasting the judges time and court time and costs for over two years because Flynn chose to perjure himself by pleading guilty, was a new crime he committed.

He was found guilty in court, already....through his confession. Only the sentencing remained. The prosecution dropping the case AFTER it was already settled on guilt is highly highly highly unusual and unheard of, for the most part. It appears to be lawlessness, committed by the DOJ.

the judge or any judge alive today, has likely never had a case like this and the judge needs to make certain, no shenanigans is going on or if this is even kosher.....

All of this occurred because Trump was afraid to pardon him, before his election... so he got the DOJ to drop it..... which seems strange to drop a case that had already been settled in court, of his guilt?

 

[Olde Europe]

If coercing happened, it was long after the interview, of which Flynn directly and intentionally lied.

All right, of course, but for pity's sake. Flynn, entering the plea deal, got the assurance that his criminal son - accessory to dad's crimes, among them negotiating the kidnapping and rendition of a U.S. resident - would not be prosecuted. And then, whiny Rightardia goes on a whining spree about so-called threats to Flynn's family.

Flynn swore not one but two oaths affirming he committed the crime of lying to the FBI during a properly predicated investigation, thereby negatively impacting this investigation. In any sane reality, upon announcing he would withdraw his plea, Flynn should be prosecuted for all his crimes (his eagerly participating son as well), and for perjury in two separate cases on top of that. Yeah, fat chance...

 

[Care4all]

If coercing happened, it was long after the interview, of which Flynn directly and intentionally lied.

All right, of course, but for pity's sake. Flynn, entering the plea deal, got the assurance that his criminal son - accessory to dad's crimes, among them negotiating the kidnapping and rendition of a U.S. resident - would not be prosecuted. And then, whiny Rightardia goes on a whining spree about so-called threats to Flynn's family.

Flynn swore not one but two oaths affirming he committed the crime of lying to the FBI during a properly predicated investigation, thereby negatively impacting this investigation. In any sane reality, upon announcing he would withdraw his plea, Flynn should be prosecuted for all his crimes (his eagerly participating son as well), and for perjury in two separate cases on top of that. Yeah, fat chance...

You are right, in hindsight, they should have never made a plea deal with him, charging him with the least crime, that he and his son committed for his cooperation in other prosecutions of his allies in crime.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Generally speaking, I “would be OK” if a whole lot of politicians in Washington in both parties went to jail for breaking the law. But there is something very disingenuous about the American Spectator article, particularly its attack on the “rogue” Judge Sullivan.

I’m not interested in researching this crap. Flynn will end like Oliver North, who I hope everybody admits was guilty of committing crimes.

Everybody remembers Michael Flynn famously calling for the jailing of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Republican convention. Everybody knows President Barack Obama repeatedly warned Trump against hiring him, citing "profound concerns" that he and security agencies had.

I’m no lover of the intelligence community. But Flynn never struck me as being principled. His “loyalty” only seemed partisan, his anger personal. The 6 month term for Flynn, who admitted lying about his contacts, was just a slap on the wrist. Why on earth he lied I have no idea. I don’t know and don’t much care what motivates him, but I do note he appealed against his own confession only after Trump publicly announced he might pardon him, and after it became clear the DOJ winds were shifting. He is no heroic symbol of resistance to “government overreach.”

This is a political, not a legal case. The “National Security Advisor” who echoed the President in calling to “lock up” Hillary Clinton even before the election, like his boss contributed to the madness of partisanship, even if he was innocent of suspected dirty dealings with Russia. I don’t buy that he was “tortured” and had to sell his house in the D.C. suburbs, which he had bought just 2 years earlier. I don’t buy any of that “poor Michael Flynn” crap. From the first, when his brother announced his defense fund, it was clear there was money galore behind his defense. I just don’t feel his pain, or that this is any more than a political football Trump is using to attack his own enemies and paint his personal supporters, no matter how compromised, as victims of “Deep State” persecution. There is a lot that “stinks” in this case, and in Washington in general, but it sure as hell ain’t just on the Democratic side.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A federal criminal case has only two parties, the defendant and the federal prosecutors, for very fundamental reasons. The enforcement of federal law is a function of only the executive branch under Article 2 of the Constitution. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enable some interested parties to intervene to protect their interests in civil cases. There is no analogous provision in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, again, because the prosecutor stands for all the public and its interests.

Sullivan has appointed former U.S. district court judge John Gleeson to oppose the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss and, reportedly, to argue that Sullivan should hold Flynn guilty of perjury for falsely confessing to crimes he didn’t commit. That is unconstitutional under the controlling precedents because it violates the Separation of Powers doctrine of constitutional law which mandates that the power of one branch of government cannot be seized and used by another branch. In other words, it is unconstitutional — and, thus, illegal — for Sullivan to appoint Gleeson to stand in the place of the federal prosecutors in the Flynn case and pursue Flynn for alleged perjury.
.
.
The law doesn’t provide a remedy for every wrong, but there is a remedy available to the Justice Department — not to Flynn — to correct Sullivan’s outrageous conduct. It’s called a writ of mandamus and should be filed by DoJ forthwith to block Gleeson’s participation and compel dismissal of the charges against Flynn. (Flynn can appeal to a higher court.)

A writ of mandamus, under Title 28 U.S. Code Section 1651. According to the Department of Justice’s manual:

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249 (1957); United States v. McGarr, 461 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1972). The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), confers the power of mandamus on federal appellate courts. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., supra. Mandamus may be appropriately issued to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of prescribed jurisdiction, or when there is an usurpation of judicial power.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb “usurp” to mean taking a position or a power illegally or by force. By refusing to dismiss immediately the charges against Flynn and appointing Gleeson to take the place of the federal prosecutor, Sullivan is guilty of a usurpation of judicial power. The proper remedy is for DoJ to file a writ of mandamus against Sullivan with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

Rogue Judge Sullivan - The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

Emmet Sullivan, the U.S. District Court judge presiding over the Michael Flynn criminal trial, has delayed ruling on the Justice Department’s motion to

spectator.org

Mandamus: Mandamus ( /ˈmænˈdeɪməs/; lit. 'we command') is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the nature of public duty,...

IOW, The DC Court of Appeals tells Sullivan that he can't do that. The Judicial Branch should not be in the business of looking for a crime to charge somebody with. Actually, no agency or gov't entity should be doing that, our justice requires the crime to be committed first, THEN you go looking for who did it. In this case, there was no crime.

I am familiar with the term, and saw that Turley recommended its use to push Sullivan to do what he is authorized to do, but if these guys can ignore the Constitution, why would we think they would honor the writ?

I know you're correct, and you know you're correct......but, really, do we expect jail time for any of these crooks?

In a system that has equal justice under the law I would expect no less. For some reason our two tier justice system needs a swift kick in the ass and that can only happen if we hold these people accountable. (Not holding my breath)

Sorry, Billy.......the best we can expect is the sort of exposure going on these days.


"Forget About Seeing Any Justice For Obamagate
Allow me to disabuse you of your naïve delusion that we still live in a country with a justice system and break it to you that no one is going to jail for what was done to Flynn, or for the unmasking business, or for the Russia hoax or, for that matter, for any of the corrupt Dem/foreigner collaborations exemplified by the payoffs received by stripperphile and Bolivian folk medicine enthusiast Hoover Biden.

We have two justice systems, one for them and one for us, meaning we have no justice system at all. "

Forget About Seeing Any Justice For Obamagate

townhall.com

They go from exposure to jobs at CNN and MSNBC.

"Barr, at odds with Trump, does not expect criminal investigation of Obama and Biden"

Barr, at odds with Trump, does not expect criminal investigation of Obama and Biden

Attorney General William Barr said Monday he doesn't expect a criminal investigation of former President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.

abc7news.com

 

[Olde Europe]

The Abundant Indicia of Impropriety in the Flynn Case

In the Flynn case, such red flags [reasons for concerns about the prosecutor’s motivations] are abundant. To begin, there are concrete reasons for concern about improper political influence. Flynn was a close associate of the current President of the United States, who has repeatedly weighed in on the case, both publicly and privately with the Department of Justice. Many of the President’s other closest political associates were subjects of related aspects of the investigation, which involved Russian interference in the 2016 election and allegations of coordination between Russian agents and the Trump campaign. For these reasons, the President’s first Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, who was himself a potential subject of the investigation, recused himself from overseeing the matter and the Department of Justice ultimately appointed a special counsel, Robert Mueller, to oversee it. Mueller’s team brought the false statements charge against Flynn that Sessions’ replacement, William Barr, now seeks to dismiss.

Although incoming prosecutors do sometimes revisit the charging decisions of their predecessors, what makes this case so unusual is that Barr is overriding the charging decision of a special counsel, appointed expressly to assuage concerns about political influence. The larger context of Barr’s reversal of decisions reached by the Special Counsel’s team – for example in the sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone – exacerbates this concern. That none of the members of the Special Counsel’s team signed the motion to dismiss – nor indeed any non-political appointee – also should set off warning bells. As if that were not enough, the last member of the Special Counsel’s team who was still working on the Flynn case withdrew from it just before the motion to dismiss was filed. Prosecutors do not withdraw from cases or refuse to sign memoranda simply because they disagree with the wisdom of a particular decision their superiors have reached.

In addition, the fact that Flynn pleaded guilty to the crime that he and the Department of Justice now say never occurred makes this case highly unusual. Dismissals do sometimes occur after a guilty plea has been entered, but normally not because (without any intervening change in the law) both parties have suddenly decided that there was no crime (unless, of course compelling fresh evidence comes to light, which is not the case here). Instead, such pleas may be set aside because the prosecution agrees with the defense that the punishment is too severe or other consequences (such as deportation) would not be in the public interest. The rarity of motions to dismiss convictions based upon guilty pleas is attributable in part to the requirement in federal court that a judge can only accept a plea if the court finds that there is an adequate factual basis to support it. That requirement helps protect defendants from succumbing to pressure to plead guilty to crimes of which they are factually innocent and courts from being complicit in such distortions of justice.

As additional protections against distortion of the truth, defendants’ factual “allocutions” at their guilty pleas, as they are called in federal court, setting forth the basis for defendants’ belief that they are guilty, are made under oath, under penalty of perjury, with defense counsel present. In this case, Michael Flynn, assisted by very able defense counsel, affirmed under penalty of perjury that he willfully lied to federal agents. In fact, he did so twice, because Judge Sullivan gave Flynn the opportunity to reconsider his guilty plea when his case was transferred from another judge. But now the Department of Justice effectively argues that Flynn committed perjury at his guilty plea proceedings, without seeking any redress for it.​

 

[task0778]

"To begin, there are concrete reasons for concern about improper political influence."

No kidding, you are aware I assume that recently unsealed internal FBI documents inicate that Peter Strzok — the now-disgraced anti-Trump former head of FBI counterintelligence — ordered the investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn to remain open even after it was slated to be closed due to a lack of so-called “derogatory” information. IOW, there was no crime to lie about, which is in fact one of the mandatory requirements to charge somebody with lying. You saw this memo, right?

“What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” reads the note, written by the FBI’s then-director of counterintelligence. “If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide. Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address it.”

No ifs, ands, or buts, the FBI was out to get Flynn from the getgo.

"what makes this case so unusual is that Barr is overriding the charging decision of a special counsel, appointed expressly to assuage concerns about political influence"

This is BS, we already know about the improper political influence in this case, and the Special Counsel found NOTHING to indicate the Flynn did anything wrong. Let me tell you about justice in this country, or at least the way it is supposed to work. If there is evidence to support an investigation of wrong-doing, then you investigate. Leaving aside the fact that there was no such evidence in the first place, the FBI went after Flynn anyway - NOT to assuage concerns about political influence, they had nothing at all to support that - no, they went after Flynn to CREATE a crime, which they did. News flash, that is not how our justice system is supposed to work, that's called entrapment and criminal cases across the country get thrown out of court for that reason.

"Dismissals do sometimes occur after a guilty plea has been entered, but normally not because (without any intervening change in the law) both parties have suddenly decided that there was no crime (unless, of course compelling fresh evidence comes to light, which is not the case here)"

Uh, excuse me, but compelling fresh evidence DID come to light, such as the fact that the prosecution withheld exculpatory information from the Defense for 2 years. That right there is prosecutorial misconduct, which again results in criminal cases being dismissed anywhere in this country.


"Why on earth he lied I have no idea."

Please read my post #13, the 1st paragraph where I provided some possible reasons. Remember, the original FBI agents who actually did the Flynn interview stated they did not believe he lied or was being deceptive. Notice also that the original 302s used to document that interview went missing, now why do you think that happened? Bottom line: justice was not served in this case and Barr was right to drop the charges. Such practices that were done against Flynn cannot be allowed to become acceptable, in this country we do not go after someone without evidence of a crime and we are required to follow certain principles that guarantee an individual's civil rights. In short, the FBI fucked up and they did on purpose to get at Trump or anyone close to him. To deny that is to deny reality.