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

[task0778]

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.

 

[Asclepias]

The crooked motha fucka lied to the judge. Thats a crime within itself.

 

[Shelzin]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[the other mike]

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)

 

[the other mike]

Of course so were Saddam and Osama.

 

[San Souci]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[the other mike]

e FBI is a crime. So is lying to a judge. If you dont believe me look it up. Flynn fucked himself either way.

Hmmm....and how many times did Hillary lie before this coup started ?

 

[Asclepias]

e FBI is a crime. So is lying to a judge. If you dont believe me look it up. Flynn fucked himself either way.

Hmmm....and how many times did Hillary lie before this coup started ?

You tell me. How many times did she go to prison for lying?

 

[the other mike]

Democrats when confronted with truth.

 

[Shelzin]

e FBI is a crime. So is lying to a judge. If you dont believe me look it up. Flynn fucked himself either way.

Hmmm....and how many times did Hillary lie before this coup started ?

Off Topic... If Trey ran for president I'd vote for him.