Billy the Bagman's duplicity has convinced Trump supporters, but will it convinced the judge?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are going to vote for a senile rapist for President.

But so are you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Gleeson told Sullivan on Monday that he would like until June 10 to file his friend-of-the-court brief addressing the question of whether the court can deny the DOJ request to dismiss the case and if so, the legal standard for doing so.

Gleeson also said by then he’d lay out “any additional factual development I may need before finalizing my argument in opposition to the government’s motion in this case.”

Buckle Up For The Next Phase Of The Flynn Case

A proposal was filed Monday outlining potential next steps in cleaning up the mess in the Michael Flynn case. In the filing, John Gleeson, the retired judge who has been appointed to oppose the…

talkingpointsmemo.com

"In the immediate aftermath of the Justice Department’s motion, the early conventional wisdom—including on Lawfare—seemed to be that precedent allowed the judge virtually no leeway."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Gleeson told Sullivan on Monday that he would like until June 10 to file his friend-of-the-court brief addressing the question of whether the court can deny the DOJ request to dismiss the case and if so, the legal standard for doing so.

Gleeson also said by then he’d lay out “any additional factual development I may need before finalizing my argument in opposition to the government’s motion in this case.”

Buckle Up For The Next Phase Of The Flynn Case

A proposal was filed Monday outlining potential next steps in cleaning up the mess in the Michael Flynn case. In the filing, John Gleeson, the retired judge who has been appointed to oppose the…

talkingpointsmemo.com

"In the immediate aftermath of the Justice Department’s motion, the early conventional wisdom—including on Lawfare—seemed to be that precedent allowed the judge virtually no leeway."

And here is an article on Lawfare stating Sullivan can reject the dismissal:

Judge Sullivan Can Reject the Government’s Motion to Drop Flynn’s Case

If, after careful review, the judge finds that the government’s motion to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn is tainted, he has a duty to deny that motion.

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Gleeson told Sullivan on Monday that he would like until June 10 to file his friend-of-the-court brief addressing the question of whether the court can deny the DOJ request to dismiss the case and if so, the legal standard for doing so.

Gleeson also said by then he’d lay out “any additional factual development I may need before finalizing my argument in opposition to the government’s motion in this case.”

Buckle Up For The Next Phase Of The Flynn Case

A proposal was filed Monday outlining potential next steps in cleaning up the mess in the Michael Flynn case. In the filing, John Gleeson, the retired judge who has been appointed to oppose the…

talkingpointsmemo.com

you're are one of the fools around here who cant think on his own so cuts and pastes??
Why not get with your Mom and try to formulate some of your own thoughts??

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

you're are one of the fools around here who cant think on his own so cuts and pastes??

Uh...hey genius...your entire last post was a cut and paste. Just sayin'.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Gleeson told Sullivan on Monday that he would like until June 10 to file his friend-of-the-court brief addressing the question of whether the court can deny the DOJ request to dismiss the case and if so, the legal standard for doing so.

Gleeson also said by then he’d lay out “any additional factual development I may need before finalizing my argument in opposition to the government’s motion in this case.”

Buckle Up For The Next Phase Of The Flynn Case

A proposal was filed Monday outlining potential next steps in cleaning up the mess in the Michael Flynn case. In the filing, John Gleeson, the retired judge who has been appointed to oppose the…

talkingpointsmemo.com

"In the immediate aftermath of the Justice Department’s motion, the early conventional wisdom—including on Lawfare—seemed to be that precedent allowed the judge virtually no leeway."

And here is an article on Lawfare stating Sullivan can reject the dismissal:

Judge Sullivan Can Reject the Government’s Motion to Drop Flynn’s Case

If, after careful review, the judge finds that the government’s motion to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn is tainted, he has a duty to deny that motion.

www.lawfareblog.com

In the immediate aftermath of the Justice Department’s motion, the early conventional wisdom—including on Lawfare—seemed to be that precedent allowed the judge virtually no leeway.

It would be a clear separation of powers violation.

Also, FBI knew what Flynn said to Russians because they recorded conversation. They asked Flynn what he said only to entrap him not to investigate a past crime but to create a new crime. Then they arrested him for heroically encouraging the Russians not to attack us!!

Further, if the judiciary wants to play that game executive can move to dismiss many cases where similar violations took place ie where deep state withheld exculpatory information!.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Uh...hey genius...your entire last post was a cut and paste. Just sayin'.

Does the liberal care to tell us what post he is talking about???

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It would be a clear separation of powers violation

No, it clearly would not be that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Uh...hey genius...your entire last post was a cut and paste. Just sayin'.

Does the liberal care to tell us what post he is talking about???

i said, your last post. Those are all one syllable words. I cant dumb them down any further.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It would be a clear separation of powers violation

No, it clearly would not be that.

can the liberal tell us why??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

i said, your last post.
[/QUOTE]

how odd, the liberal is afraid to show us the post he claims is cut and paste

I guess the liberal left the room!! LOL

 

[OKTexas]

The law requires a plea be INFORMED and VOLUNTARY, Flynn's was neither.

Flynn was both, as he acknowledged in his signed confession.

I'm sure you'll be there to share Kleenexes with Sullivan when he dismisses the case.

Here's a SCOTUS cases to back up my assertion for your reading pleasure. Note it was 9-0 decision written by Ginsberg.

The unanimous opinion of the Court, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, held that the Circuit Court had committed an abuse of discretion by overstepping its bounds by "drastic departure from the principle of party presentation constituted an abuse of discretion", instead of "adjudicating the case presented", as established in Greenlaw v. United States (554 U.S. 237 (2008)).[2] Ginsburg wrote: "In the ensuing do over of the appeal, counsel for the parties were assigned a secondary role . . . Courts are essentially passive instruments of government. They do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. They wait for cases to come to them, and when cases arise, courts normally decide only questions presented by the parties .

United States v. Sineneng-Smith - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

 

[berg80]

The law requires a plea be INFORMED and VOLUNTARY, Flynn's was neither.

Flynn was both, as he acknowledged in his signed confession.

I'm sure you'll be there to share Kleenexes with Sullivan when he dismisses the case.

Here's a SCOTUS cases to back up my assertion for your reading pleasure. Note it was 9-0 decision written by Ginsberg.

The unanimous opinion of the Court, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, held that the Circuit Court had committed an abuse of discretion by overstepping its bounds by "drastic departure from the principle of party presentation constituted an abuse of discretion", instead of "adjudicating the case presented", as established in Greenlaw v. United States (554 U.S. 237 (2008)).[2] Ginsburg wrote: "In the ensuing do over of the appeal, counsel for the parties were assigned a secondary role . . . Courts are essentially passive instruments of government. They do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. They wait for cases to come to them, and when cases arise, courts normally decide only questions presented by the parties .

United States v. Sineneng-Smith - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

That precedent has already been addressed and rejected as inapplicable by Sullivan since there have been no misdeeds by the prosecutors. Only false accusations made by Flynn's attorney, ones Billy the Bagman tried and failed to substantiate in his explanation for dropping charges against a confessed liar.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The law requires a plea be INFORMED and VOLUNTARY, Flynn's was neither.

Flynn was both, as he acknowledged in his signed confession.

I'm sure you'll be there to share Kleenexes with Sullivan when he dismisses the case.

Here's a SCOTUS cases to back up my assertion for your reading pleasure. Note it was 9-0 decision written by Ginsberg.

The unanimous opinion of the Court, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, held that the Circuit Court had committed an abuse of discretion by overstepping its bounds by "drastic departure from the principle of party presentation constituted an abuse of discretion", instead of "adjudicating the case presented", as established in Greenlaw v. United States (554 U.S. 237 (2008)).[2] Ginsburg wrote: "In the ensuing do over of the appeal, counsel for the parties were assigned a secondary role . . . Courts are essentially passive instruments of government. They do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. They wait for cases to come to them, and when cases arise, courts normally decide only questions presented by the parties .

United States v. Sineneng-Smith - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

That precedent has already been addressed and rejected as inapplicable by Sullivan since there have been no misdeeds by the prosecutors. Only false accusations made by Flynn's attorney, ones Billy the Bagman tried and failed to substantiate in his explanation for dropping charges against a confessed liar.

It has nothing to do with misdeeds by the prosecutor. We have a party system and the judge responds to what the parties want in court. In this case those parties want the case against Flynn dropped. Under no circumstance is the judge to become a party in the case.If that happens the rule of law is totally undermined. The only issue in a case becomes who is the judge, not what is the law.

 

[colfax_m]

The law requires a plea be INFORMED and VOLUNTARY, Flynn's was neither.

Flynn was both, as he acknowledged in his signed confession.

I'm sure you'll be there to share Kleenexes with Sullivan when he dismisses the case.

Here's a SCOTUS cases to back up my assertion for your reading pleasure. Note it was 9-0 decision written by Ginsberg.

The unanimous opinion of the Court, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, held that the Circuit Court had committed an abuse of discretion by overstepping its bounds by "drastic departure from the principle of party presentation constituted an abuse of discretion", instead of "adjudicating the case presented", as established in Greenlaw v. United States (554 U.S. 237 (2008)).[2] Ginsburg wrote: "In the ensuing do over of the appeal, counsel for the parties were assigned a secondary role . . . Courts are essentially passive instruments of government. They do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. They wait for cases to come to them, and when cases arise, courts normally decide only questions presented by the parties .

United States v. Sineneng-Smith - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

That precedent has already been addressed and rejected as inapplicable by Sullivan since there have been no misdeeds by the prosecutors. Only false accusations made by Flynn's attorney, ones Billy the Bagman tried and failed to substantiate in his explanation for dropping charges against a confessed liar.

It has nothing to do with misdeeds by the prosecutor. We have a party system and the judge responds to what the parties want in court. In this case those parties want the case against Flynn dropped. Under no circumstance is the judge to become a party in the case.If that happens the rule of law is totally undermined. The only issue in a case becomes who is the judge, not what is the law.

What’s odd is that they want charges to be dropped because they can’t feel they can successfully prosecute the charges in court.

How can that be used as a justification to drop charges when the defendant has already pleaded guilty?

 

[skews13]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The notoriously independent-minded federal judge who once said he was disgusted by the conduct of Michael Flynn could block the administration’s bid to drop criminal charges against the former adviser to President Donald Trump, legal experts said.
The Department of Justice on Thursday told U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington it wants to drop the case against Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, following a pressure campaign by the Republican president and his political allies.
While judges typically sign off on such motions, Sullivan could refuse and instead demand answers from the DOJ about who requested the sudden about-face, said Seth Waxman, a former federal prosecutor now at the law firm Dickinson Wright.
“If Judge Sullivan wanted to he could conduct an inquiry and start asking a lot of questions,” said Waxman.

Skeptical judge could hold up Trump administration's bid to clear Flynn, legal experts say

The notoriously independent-minded federal judge who once said he was disgusted by the conduct of Michael Flynn could block the administration's bid to drop criminal charges against the former adviser to President Donald Trump, legal experts said.

www.reuters.com

Presumably, Judge Sullivan is intimately familiar with these facts.

Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show

A lot of people seem to be expecting Michael Flynn's sudden vindication. They should take a deep breath.

www.lawfareblog.com

"The president may well pardon Flynn, as he has long hinted. It’s possible—though for reasons we’ll explain, we think unlikely—that Judge Emmet G. Sullivan will allow Flynn to withdraw his plea. And it’s possible as well that Attorney General William Barr, who has already intervened in the case once before and has asked a U.S. attorney to review its handling, will intervene once again on Flynn’s behalf. (how prescient was that!!)

So far, however, nothing has emerged that remotely clears Flynn; nothing has emerged that would require Sullivan to allow him to withdraw his plea; and nothing has emerged that would justify the Justice Department’s backing off of the case—or prosecuting it aggressively if Flynn were somehow allowed out of the very generous deal Special Counsel Robert Mueller cut him."
...................................................................................................................................................
Facts which expose Barr's attempt to get another Trump crony off the hook for a crime he committed much more difficult to pull off than it is to convince Trumpleheads. Folks who are eager and willing to swallow all the horseshit the Trump admin can shovel their way.

The case needs to be dismissed without prejudice

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It would be a clear separation of powers violation

No, it clearly would not be that.

can the liberal tell us why??

You can defer to the judge. Thanks.

 

[OKTexas]

The law requires a plea be INFORMED and VOLUNTARY, Flynn's was neither.

Flynn was both, as he acknowledged in his signed confession.

I'm sure you'll be there to share Kleenexes with Sullivan when he dismisses the case.

Here's a SCOTUS cases to back up my assertion for your reading pleasure. Note it was 9-0 decision written by Ginsberg.

The unanimous opinion of the Court, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, held that the Circuit Court had committed an abuse of discretion by overstepping its bounds by "drastic departure from the principle of party presentation constituted an abuse of discretion", instead of "adjudicating the case presented", as established in Greenlaw v. United States (554 U.S. 237 (2008)).[2] Ginsburg wrote: "In the ensuing do over of the appeal, counsel for the parties were assigned a secondary role . . . Courts are essentially passive instruments of government. They do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. They wait for cases to come to them, and when cases arise, courts normally decide only questions presented by the parties .

United States v. Sineneng-Smith - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

That precedent has already been addressed and rejected as inapplicable by Sullivan since there have been no misdeeds by the prosecutors. Only false accusations made by Flynn's attorney, ones Billy the Bagman tried and failed to substantiate in his explanation for dropping charges against a confessed liar.

As I predicted the defense has already gone to the appellate court for a writ of mandamus. We'll see if they buy Sullivan bucking the supremes and the DC court of appeals, I don't think they will.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The law requires a plea be INFORMED and VOLUNTARY, Flynn's was neither.

Flynn was both, as he acknowledged in his signed confession.

I'm sure you'll be there to share Kleenexes with Sullivan when he dismisses the case.

Here's a SCOTUS cases to back up my assertion for your reading pleasure. Note it was 9-0 decision written by Ginsberg.

The unanimous opinion of the Court, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, held that the Circuit Court had committed an abuse of discretion by overstepping its bounds by "drastic departure from the principle of party presentation constituted an abuse of discretion", instead of "adjudicating the case presented", as established in Greenlaw v. United States (554 U.S. 237 (2008)).[2] Ginsburg wrote: "In the ensuing do over of the appeal, counsel for the parties were assigned a secondary role . . . Courts are essentially passive instruments of government. They do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. They wait for cases to come to them, and when cases arise, courts normally decide only questions presented by the parties .

United States v. Sineneng-Smith - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

That precedent has already been addressed and rejected as inapplicable by Sullivan since there have been no misdeeds by the prosecutors. Only false accusations made by Flynn's attorney, ones Billy the Bagman tried and failed to substantiate in his explanation for dropping charges against a confessed liar.

As I predicted the defense has already gone to the appellate court for a writ of mandamus. We'll see if they buy Sullivan bucking the supremes and the DC court of appeals, I don't think they will.

.

The difference being that the prosecution is trying to pull out. So, without these arguments in this case, there wouldn't be any adversarial case presented to the prosecution's motion. It's an important difference. Don't count on the editorial pages of Forbes and the WSJ to point this out.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The notoriously independent-minded federal judge who once said he was disgusted by the conduct of Michael Flynn could block the administration’s bid to drop criminal charges against the former adviser to President Donald Trump, legal experts said.
The Department of Justice on Thursday told U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington it wants to drop the case against Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, following a pressure campaign by the Republican president and his political allies.
While judges typically sign off on such motions, Sullivan could refuse and instead demand answers from the DOJ about who requested the sudden about-face, said Seth Waxman, a former federal prosecutor now at the law firm Dickinson Wright.
“If Judge Sullivan wanted to he could conduct an inquiry and start asking a lot of questions,” said Waxman.

Skeptical judge could hold up Trump administration's bid to clear Flynn, legal experts say

The notoriously independent-minded federal judge who once said he was disgusted by the conduct of Michael Flynn could block the administration's bid to drop criminal charges against the former adviser to President Donald Trump, legal experts said.

www.reuters.com

Presumably, Judge Sullivan is intimately familiar with these facts.

Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show

A lot of people seem to be expecting Michael Flynn's sudden vindication. They should take a deep breath.

www.lawfareblog.com

"The president may well pardon Flynn, as he has long hinted. It’s possible—though for reasons we’ll explain, we think unlikely—that Judge Emmet G. Sullivan will allow Flynn to withdraw his plea. And it’s possible as well that Attorney General William Barr, who has already intervened in the case once before and has asked a U.S. attorney to review its handling, will intervene once again on Flynn’s behalf. (how prescient was that!!)

So far, however, nothing has emerged that remotely clears Flynn; nothing has emerged that would require Sullivan to allow him to withdraw his plea; and nothing has emerged that would justify the Justice Department’s backing off of the case—or prosecuting it aggressively if Flynn were somehow allowed out of the very generous deal Special Counsel Robert Mueller cut him."
...................................................................................................................................................
Facts which expose Barr's attempt to get another Trump crony off the hook for a crime he committed much more difficult to pull off than it is to convince Trumpleheads. Folks who are eager and willing to swallow all the horseshit the Trump admin can shovel their way.

For the first time ever, the judge will take up the role of prosecutor.

Simply amazing.

The time for civility has passed. It is now time for lock-n-load.


.