Arguments to dismiss Flynn case before DC Court of Appeals set for 12 June

task0778

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
5,599
Reaction score
2,065
Points
360
Location
Texas hill country
I do not understand this, how does a court of law argue to keep a criminal case going when the prosecution and the defense both agree it should be dismissed? It makes no sense to me, the whole point of a criminal trial is to examine the facts before the court and determine guilt. The defendant is fully entitled to due process which the prosecution (DOJ) has declared did not happen in this case. So where's the argument? If the prosecution determines that the case was improperly handled to the point where the defendant's rights were denied, then any admission of guilt is tainted and the case should be dismissed. So, WTF is going on? It isn't the judge's call, it's on the prosecution to decide when to bring charges and when to drop them.
 

Shelzin

Equal Opportunity Asshole
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
3,358
Reaction score
814
Points
98
I do not understand this, how does a court of law argue to keep a criminal case going when the prosecution and the defense both agree it should be dismissed? It makes no sense to me, the whole point of a criminal trial is to examine the facts before the court and determine guilt. The defendant is fully entitled to due process which the prosecution (DOJ) has declared did not happen in this case. So where's the argument? If the prosecution determines that the case was improperly handled to the point where the defendant's rights were denied, then any admission of guilt is tainted and the case should be dismissed. So, WTF is going on? It isn't the judge's call, it's on the prosecution to decide when to bring charges and when to drop them.
The judge thinks it's his call... I'm looking forward to the proverbial head slap he's going to get, and hopeful loss of his gavel.
 

White 6

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
5,533
Reaction score
2,027
Points
180
I do not understand this, how does a court of law argue to keep a criminal case going when the prosecution and the defense both agree it should be dismissed? It makes no sense to me, the whole point of a criminal trial is to examine the facts before the court and determine guilt. The defendant is fully entitled to due process which the prosecution (DOJ) has declared did not happen in this case. So where's the argument? If the prosecution determines that the case was improperly handled to the point where the defendant's rights were denied, then any admission of guilt is tainted and the case should be dismissed. So, WTF is going on? It isn't the judge's call, it's on the prosecution to decide when to bring charges and when to drop them.
Actually the court isn't making the motion it is the DOJ. They made a motion to dismiss, without even one of the prosecutors of the trial willing to sign on to the motion or attempting to submit new evidence to the court to support the request to dismiss. Once there is a guilty plea made, in writing, sworn to in court before the judge, accepted into court records and waiting for sentence, justice saying "never mind" like that lady in the early days of Saturday night live after her long rant, just don't get it. It just isn't how it works. Not a "Wax on / Wax off" type situation. It is pretty much without precident. Summary judgement of the appeals court DOJ is going for so the presiding judge cannot even rule on their motion to dismis, taking it out of his hands on their prosecution turned over to him, is unusual to say the least, by itself.
 

LittleNipper

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
4,321
Reaction score
448
Points
130
Don't you think that the best solution would have been to have tried to have saved Flynn's life during the event ---- rather than profiteering from his demise? Who among the crowd came forward to try to defuse that situation? I mean who attempted to intervene? Isn't the crowd just a guilty? Could they perhaps have made it any less stressful for the officer or was he taunted?
 

MACAULAY

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
5,101
Reaction score
2,340
Points
390
The O.P. asks good questions, but he/she is trying to understand the issue based on legal concepts....which would be entirely reasonable, if these were reasonable times.

The issue is entirely political.

The Judge is just a foot soldier for the Obama-Clinton Mafia, a crime cartel who never ever accepted the election of Don Trump. Best guess is the Judge is buying time, not sure for what just yet---because it doesn't seem possible that he (his handlers) could push the damning denouement past the election. Judge may not even know why. He is just doing what he is told by the political apparatchiks.

The Country is in the worst shape, internally, since early 1860...when it was the North against the South. This time, it is the Rotting Cities against the Heartland, and to a lesser extent, the Globalists against America First.

Most likely, at this point, the outcome will be bad.
 

Angelo

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
19,097
Reaction score
5,244
Points
290
Location
_Arkansas~_The Natural State_
I do not understand this, how does a court of law argue to keep a criminal case going when the prosecution and the defense both agree it should be dismissed? It makes no sense to me, the whole point of a criminal trial is to examine the facts before the court and determine guilt. The defendant is fully entitled to due process which the prosecution (DOJ) has declared did not happen in this case. So where's the argument? If the prosecution determines that the case was improperly handled to the point where the defendant's rights were denied, then any admission of guilt is tainted and the case should be dismissed. So, WTF is going on? It isn't the judge's call, it's on the prosecution to decide when to bring charges and when to drop them.
He's made it a personal matter for whatever reasons anyone can guess. I have reasonable suspicions he's a CIA agent. And if anyone thinks they don't have agents under cover as judges and hundreds of other arenas, they got another thing coming. The Clinton's are.
( I should say assets, not necessarily agents)
 
Last edited:

San Souci

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
861
Reaction score
496
Points
885
I do not understand this, how does a court of law argue to keep a criminal case going when the prosecution and the defense both agree it should be dismissed? It makes no sense to me, the whole point of a criminal trial is to examine the facts before the court and determine guilt. The defendant is fully entitled to due process which the prosecution (DOJ) has declared did not happen in this case. So where's the argument? If the prosecution determines that the case was improperly handled to the point where the defendant's rights were denied, then any admission of guilt is tainted and the case should be dismissed. So, WTF is going on? It isn't the judge's call, it's on the prosecution to decide when to bring charges and when to drop them.
Easy. A Democrat puppet Judge. Lib Presidents always put in "Activists". Which really means Judges who MAKE Law. Like the 1973 SCOTUS who made baby murder legal.
 

San Souci

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
861
Reaction score
496
Points
885
I do not understand this, how does a court of law argue to keep a criminal case going when the prosecution and the defense both agree it should be dismissed? It makes no sense to me, the whole point of a criminal trial is to examine the facts before the court and determine guilt. The defendant is fully entitled to due process which the prosecution (DOJ) has declared did not happen in this case. So where's the argument? If the prosecution determines that the case was improperly handled to the point where the defendant's rights were denied, then any admission of guilt is tainted and the case should be dismissed. So, WTF is going on? It isn't the judge's call, it's on the prosecution to decide when to bring charges and when to drop them.
Easy. A Democrat puppet Judge. Lib Presidents always put in "Activists". Which really means Judges who MAKE Law. Like the 1973 SCOTUS who made baby murder legal.
Far as Flynn ,he got caught up in the Coup.
 

Asclepias

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
105,331
Reaction score
12,378
Points
2,195
Location
Breathing rarified air.
I do not understand this, how does a court of law argue to keep a criminal case going when the prosecution and the defense both agree it should be dismissed? It makes no sense to me, the whole point of a criminal trial is to examine the facts before the court and determine guilt. The defendant is fully entitled to due process which the prosecution (DOJ) has declared did not happen in this case. So where's the argument? If the prosecution determines that the case was improperly handled to the point where the defendant's rights were denied, then any admission of guilt is tainted and the case should be dismissed. So, WTF is going on? It isn't the judge's call, it's on the prosecution to decide when to bring charges and when to drop them.
Easy. A Democrat puppet Judge. Lib Presidents always put in "Activists". Which really means Judges who MAKE Law. Like the 1973 SCOTUS who made baby murder legal.
Show me where its legal to murder a baby so I can laugh at how ignorant you are.
 

Asclepias

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
105,331
Reaction score
12,378
Points
2,195
Location
Breathing rarified air.
I do not understand this, how does a court of law argue to keep a criminal case going when the prosecution and the defense both agree it should be dismissed? It makes no sense to me, the whole point of a criminal trial is to examine the facts before the court and determine guilt. The defendant is fully entitled to due process which the prosecution (DOJ) has declared did not happen in this case. So where's the argument? If the prosecution determines that the case was improperly handled to the point where the defendant's rights were denied, then any admission of guilt is tainted and the case should be dismissed. So, WTF is going on? It isn't the judge's call, it's on the prosecution to decide when to bring charges and when to drop them.
Easy. A Democrat puppet Judge. Lib Presidents always put in "Activists". Which really means Judges who MAKE Law. Like the 1973 SCOTUS who made baby murder legal.
Far as Flynn ,he got caught up in the Coup.
Flynns just caught up in his confession.
 

San Souci

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
861
Reaction score
496
Points
885
I do not understand this, how does a court of law argue to keep a criminal case going when the prosecution and the defense both agree it should be dismissed? It makes no sense to me, the whole point of a criminal trial is to examine the facts before the court and determine guilt. The defendant is fully entitled to due process which the prosecution (DOJ) has declared did not happen in this case. So where's the argument? If the prosecution determines that the case was improperly handled to the point where the defendant's rights were denied, then any admission of guilt is tainted and the case should be dismissed. So, WTF is going on? It isn't the judge's call, it's on the prosecution to decide when to bring charges and when to drop them.
Easy. A Democrat puppet Judge. Lib Presidents always put in "Activists". Which really means Judges who MAKE Law. Like the 1973 SCOTUS who made baby murder legal.
Far as Flynn ,he got caught up in the Coup.
Flynns just caught up in his confession.
After being scourged and bankrupted and having his family threatened? But where is the CRIME? Lying is not a crime ,yet filthy Dems treat it like Murder One. Unless THEY get caught lying. Which is 100% of the time.
 

Asclepias

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
105,331
Reaction score
12,378
Points
2,195
Location
Breathing rarified air.
I do not understand this, how does a court of law argue to keep a criminal case going when the prosecution and the defense both agree it should be dismissed? It makes no sense to me, the whole point of a criminal trial is to examine the facts before the court and determine guilt. The defendant is fully entitled to due process which the prosecution (DOJ) has declared did not happen in this case. So where's the argument? If the prosecution determines that the case was improperly handled to the point where the defendant's rights were denied, then any admission of guilt is tainted and the case should be dismissed. So, WTF is going on? It isn't the judge's call, it's on the prosecution to decide when to bring charges and when to drop them.
Easy. A Democrat puppet Judge. Lib Presidents always put in "Activists". Which really means Judges who MAKE Law. Like the 1973 SCOTUS who made baby murder legal.
Far as Flynn ,he got caught up in the Coup.
Flynns just caught up in his confession.
After being scourged and bankrupted and having his family threatened? But where is the CRIME? Lying is not a crime ,yet filthy Dems treat it like Murder One. Unless THEY get caught lying. Which is 100% of the time.
Lying to the FBI is a crime. So is lying to a judge. If you dont believe me look it up. Flynn fucked himself either way.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top