Judge Sullivan Scrambles For A Lifeline To Bail HIMSELF Out Of Dropped Flynn Case

[easyt65]

By all appearances my guess is Sullivan is going to unload on Powell, Flynn, and the DoJ. If justice is to be served Flynn will get the maximum amount of time allowable, Powell will get a reprimand from the ABA for willful misconduct, and Barr will be excoriated (clearly he should be impeached or fired) for disgracing the DoJ.

Thank you for your comment about Sullivan and his actions.

So far, IMO, Sullivan's actions appear to be an attempt to ignore them and focus on Flynn....unless he is forced to address the FBI's and Mueller's lawyers' misconduct.

Barr was perfectly in his right to do what he did. You seem to want to continue to blame Barr when Barry did not do this - he appointed an independent federal US AG to review the case and make legal decisions based on what he found.

The anti-Trump ex-Judge Sullivan reached out to wrote an opinion years ago arguing the DOJ has almost unquestionable authority to drop cases like this and that Judges have almost no alternative but to agree. If he suddenly changes his mind and argues the complete opposite it will be a sure sign that it is due to his own personal political bias.

Of course, the Appellate Court has already ordered Judge Sullivan to address the DOJ dropping the case HIMSELF BEFORE the date Sullivan set to hear arguments, something Sullivan adamantly declared he would not do 24 times during the case. It appears Sullivan is preparing to defy that order, which is why he lawyered up. If he does so, Sullivan himself potentially risks being punished, possibly even disbarred.

 

[Faun]

By all appearances my guess is Sullivan is going to unload on Powell, Flynn, and the DoJ. If justice is to be served Flynn will get the maximum amount of time allowable, Powell will get a reprimand from the ABA for willful misconduct, and Barr will be excoriated (clearly he should be impeached or fired) for disgracing the DoJ.

Thank you for your comment about Sullivan and his actions.

So far, IMO, Sullivan's actions appear to be an attempt to ignore them and focus on Flynn....unless he is forced to address the FBI's and Mueller's lawyers' misconduct.

Barr was perfectly in his right to do what he did. You seem to want to continue to blame Barr when Barry did not do this - he appointed an independent federal US AG to review the case and make legal decisions based on what he found.

The anti-Trump ex-Judge Sullivan reached out to wrote an opinion years ago arguing the DOJ has almost unquestionable authority to drop cases like this and that Judges have almost no alternative but to agree. If he suddenly changes his mind and argues the complete opposite it will be a sure sign that it is due to his own personal political bias.

Of course, the Appellate Court has already ordered Judge Sullivan to address the DOJ dropping the case HIMSELF BEFORE the date Sullivan set to hear arguments, something Sullivan adamantly declared he would not do 24 times during the case. It appears Sullivan is preparing to defy that order, which is why he lawyered up. If he does so, Sullivan himself potentially risks being punished, possibly even disbarred.

Nonsense...

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

Our conclusion is clear: Sullivan does not merely have the authority to review the department’s motion to dismiss. As courts have described it, he has a “duty” to ensure that the dismissal is in “the public interest” and is not “tainted by impropriety” or “bad faith.” And if, after careful review, he finds that the motion is in fact tainted, his duty is equally clear: He must deny it.​

 

[sakinago]

BULLSHIT - the focus of your last posts has been solely on the FBI and its case THAT HAS BEEN DROPPED

"Key to the Justice Department’s argument in its motion to dismiss is the fact that, after four months of investigation without finding any derogatory information, the FBI was prepared to close its case on Flynn. A draft internal FBI document dated Jan. 4, 2017, shows that the bureau had sketched out a memo closing the probe, though the document includes the usual caveat that if new information were identified, the FBI would consider reopening the investigation.

But before the case was actually closed, the FBI learned that Flynn had spoken to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in late December 2016. According to the Justice Department’s motion, the FBI had transcripts of the relevant calls, likely obtained through surveillance of Kislyak authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. By this time, Flynn had been named as Trump’s national security adviser.

In those calls, Flynn had asked Russia not to retaliate for sanctions imposed by the Obama administration as punishment for election interference. Flynn had also asked Russia to vote against a United Nations resolution regarding Israeli settlements. On their face, these calls potentially undermined the foreign policy of the United States. What’s more, on Jan. 15, 2017, Mike Pence, then the vice president-elect, made public statements that contradicted the transcripts of Flynn’s calls— a fact that, as documented in the Mueller report, “alarmed senior DOJ [Department of Justice] officials.” And so, the FBI decided to keep the investigation open. FBI agents interviewed Flynn on Jan. 24, four days after Trump took office. During that interview, Flynn falsely denied his statements regarding sanctions and the U.N. vote. He later pleaded guilty to one count of false statements for telling these lies."

Why the Flynn Interview Was Predicated

The Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is flawed in many ways, but one of its weakest arguments is that the investigation of Flynn was not properly “predicated.”

www.lawfareblog.com

You keep posting this BS from Mcgown at lawfareblog. Are you telling me it’s her point that it was in the US interest for russia to escalate, and or fuck over Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East? Also, she’s citing the Logan act as justification which even Paige knew at the time wasn’t a valid avenue for investigation. A. The transition is a legally recognized governmental entity since 1968, which Flynn was a part of. B. No one has been charged with the Logan act, despite many arguable violations of it, since the law was passed in 1799. So all that blows apart her argument. She knows this. You know this. Yet you keep throwing it out there.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I was talking about the DOJ'S motion and your lies about it, dope. here's your outrage over others bickering about whether the FBI'S investigation was open or not. That's gone on for pages. We know you're just trying to silence me because you can't handle me.

Once AGAIN you are attempting to make the focus of the thread about something that has already happened - the DOJ has dropped the case. It's a dead issue. Sullivan and his anti-Trump thugs can not change that. What SULLIVAN is attempting to do, however, is to do whatever he can to continue to target and punish Flynn....to include ignore the Appellate Court's order and lawyer up.

Once AGAIN you are attempting to make the focus of the thread about something that has already happened - the DOJ has dropped the case. It's a dead issue. Sullivan and his anti-Trump thugs can not change that. What SULLIVAN is attempting to do, however, is to do whatever he can to continue to target and punish Flynn....to include ignore the Appellate Court's order and lawyer up.

Derp....
Nothing is dropped until he rules so. Hence the petition for him to do so.

It's his job to do what's in the best interest of the American people.

 

[sakinago]

By all appearances my guess is Sullivan is going to unload on Powell, Flynn, and the DoJ. If justice is to be served Flynn will get the maximum amount of time allowable, Powell will get a reprimand from the ABA for willful misconduct, and Barr will be excoriated (clearly he should be impeached or fired) for disgracing the DoJ.

Thank you for your comment about Sullivan and his actions.

So far, IMO, Sullivan's actions appear to be an attempt to ignore them and focus on Flynn....unless he is forced to address the FBI's and Mueller's lawyers' misconduct.

Barr was perfectly in his right to do what he did. You seem to want to continue to blame Barr when Barry did not do this - he appointed an independent federal US AG to review the case and make legal decisions based on what he found.

The anti-Trump ex-Judge Sullivan reached out to wrote an opinion years ago arguing the DOJ has almost unquestionable authority to drop cases like this and that Judges have almost no alternative but to agree. If he suddenly changes his mind and argues the complete opposite it will be a sure sign that it is due to his own personal political bias.

Of course, the Appellate Court has already ordered Judge Sullivan to address the DOJ dropping the case HIMSELF BEFORE the date Sullivan set to hear arguments, something Sullivan adamantly declared he would not do 24 times during the case. It appears Sullivan is preparing to defy that order, which is why he lawyered up. If he does so, Sullivan himself potentially risks being punished, possibly even disbarred.

Nonsense...

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

Our conclusion is clear: Sullivan does not merely have the authority to review the department’s motion to dismiss. As courts have described it, he has a “duty” to ensure that the dismissal is in “the public interest” and is not “tainted by impropriety” or “bad faith.” And if, after careful review, he finds that the motion is in fact tainted, his duty is equally clear: He must deny it.​

This is judge Sullivan creating powers that don’t exist for himself. Judge Sullivan doesn’t have the power to initiate prosecution under common law. Just like any judge in America can’t say, “this guy assaulted me, I order you to come into court, and face trial for assault.” That’s not how common law works. Ipso facto a judge cannot commence a prosecution. This would be like the judge summoning members of Congress to explain a law to him. He cannot do this. Just like Congress is a co-equal branch to the judiciary, so is the executive. The executive having the power to prosecute is a check specifically built into the system. This is why the appellate court responded so fast to the writ of mandamus, that should be telling. The appellate courts ruling, although humiliating, gave him a lifeline for him to check himself be he wrecked himself.

 

[easyt65]

Derp....Nothing is dropped until he rules so. Hence the petition for him to do so.

Bwuhahahahaha

Educate yourself. The case has been dropped. Sullivan can not change that. He is attempting to still punish Sullivan through a contempt of court order - or more if he can (which he can't). He can NOT force the DOJ to UN-DROP the case.

 

[Faun]

BULLSHIT - the focus of your last posts has been solely on the FBI and its case THAT HAS BEEN DROPPED

"Key to the Justice Department’s argument in its motion to dismiss is the fact that, after four months of investigation without finding any derogatory information, the FBI was prepared to close its case on Flynn. A draft internal FBI document dated Jan. 4, 2017, shows that the bureau had sketched out a memo closing the probe, though the document includes the usual caveat that if new information were identified, the FBI would consider reopening the investigation.

But before the case was actually closed, the FBI learned that Flynn had spoken to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in late December 2016. According to the Justice Department’s motion, the FBI had transcripts of the relevant calls, likely obtained through surveillance of Kislyak authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. By this time, Flynn had been named as Trump’s national security adviser.

In those calls, Flynn had asked Russia not to retaliate for sanctions imposed by the Obama administration as punishment for election interference. Flynn had also asked Russia to vote against a United Nations resolution regarding Israeli settlements. On their face, these calls potentially undermined the foreign policy of the United States. What’s more, on Jan. 15, 2017, Mike Pence, then the vice president-elect, made public statements that contradicted the transcripts of Flynn’s calls— a fact that, as documented in the Mueller report, “alarmed senior DOJ [Department of Justice] officials.” And so, the FBI decided to keep the investigation open. FBI agents interviewed Flynn on Jan. 24, four days after Trump took office. During that interview, Flynn falsely denied his statements regarding sanctions and the U.N. vote. He later pleaded guilty to one count of false statements for telling these lies."

Why the Flynn Interview Was Predicated

The Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is flawed in many ways, but one of its weakest arguments is that the investigation of Flynn was not properly “predicated.”

www.lawfareblog.com

You keep posting this BS from Mcgown at lawfareblog. Are you telling me it’s her point that it was in the US interest for russia to escalate, and or fuck over Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East? Also, she’s citing the Logan act as justification which even Paige knew at the time wasn’t a valid avenue for investigation. A. The transition is a legally recognized governmental entity since 1968, which Flynn was a part of. B. No one has been charged with the Logan act, despite many arguable violations of it, since the law was passed in 1799. So all that blows apart her argument. She knows this. You know this. Yet you keep throwing it out there.

"No one has been charged with the Logan act, despite many arguable violations of it, since the law was passed in 1799. So all that blows apart her argument."

Bullshit.

2 people have been charged.

 

[Faun]

Derp....Nothing is dropped until he rules so. Hence the petition for him to do so.

Bwuhahahahaha

Educate yourself. The case has been dropped. Sullivan can not change that. He is attempting to still punish Sullivan through a contempt of court order - or more if he can (which he can't). He can NOT force the DOJ to UN-DROP the case.

So what? Flynn is still a convicted felon. That's out of the hands of the DoJ.

 

[sakinago]

BULLSHIT - the focus of your last posts has been solely on the FBI and its case THAT HAS BEEN DROPPED

"Key to the Justice Department’s argument in its motion to dismiss is the fact that, after four months of investigation without finding any derogatory information, the FBI was prepared to close its case on Flynn. A draft internal FBI document dated Jan. 4, 2017, shows that the bureau had sketched out a memo closing the probe, though the document includes the usual caveat that if new information were identified, the FBI would consider reopening the investigation.

But before the case was actually closed, the FBI learned that Flynn had spoken to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in late December 2016. According to the Justice Department’s motion, the FBI had transcripts of the relevant calls, likely obtained through surveillance of Kislyak authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. By this time, Flynn had been named as Trump’s national security adviser.

In those calls, Flynn had asked Russia not to retaliate for sanctions imposed by the Obama administration as punishment for election interference. Flynn had also asked Russia to vote against a United Nations resolution regarding Israeli settlements. On their face, these calls potentially undermined the foreign policy of the United States. What’s more, on Jan. 15, 2017, Mike Pence, then the vice president-elect, made public statements that contradicted the transcripts of Flynn’s calls— a fact that, as documented in the Mueller report, “alarmed senior DOJ [Department of Justice] officials.” And so, the FBI decided to keep the investigation open. FBI agents interviewed Flynn on Jan. 24, four days after Trump took office. During that interview, Flynn falsely denied his statements regarding sanctions and the U.N. vote. He later pleaded guilty to one count of false statements for telling these lies."

Why the Flynn Interview Was Predicated

The Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is flawed in many ways, but one of its weakest arguments is that the investigation of Flynn was not properly “predicated.”

www.lawfareblog.com

You keep posting this BS from Mcgown at lawfareblog. Are you telling me it’s her point that it was in the US interest for russia to escalate, and or fuck over Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East? Also, she’s citing the Logan act as justification which even Paige knew at the time wasn’t a valid avenue for investigation. A. The transition is a legally recognized governmental entity since 1968, which Flynn was a part of. B. No one has been charged with the Logan act, despite many arguable violations of it, since the law was passed in 1799. So all that blows apart her argument. She knows this. You know this. Yet you keep throwing it out there.

"No one has been charged with the Logan act, despite many arguable violations of it, since the law was passed in 1799. So all that blows apart her argument."

Bullshit.

2 people have been charged.

Whatever, not convicted. They weren’t apart of the translation team, again a legally recognized governmental entity for half a century at this point. So how tf does the Logan act apply in this case? Lisa page knew she couldn’t use the Logan act at this time as well. It’s silly I’m having to make these points. Once again, the SCO decided to drop this case. Can we stop pretending like Barr is in his secret lair stroking a cat, laughing maniacally while giving an evil monologue to a captured agent 007, about his evil plan to drop charges on Flynn.

 

[Nostra]

So go back and read from the start where Mueller started and ended and when mueller said he couldn’t charge a sitting president.

CHARGE HIM WITH WHAT?????

.

That was said by Mueller investigation. So ask Mueller.

The SCO decided to drop after the Brady evidence came out. As in Muellers SCO. They then went to Barr, and Barr agreed with them to drop it. The only person who wants it to continue is Sullivan.

If Sullivan just willy nilly agrees with Barr then he is part of the corruption. I admired Sullivan for standing up against Barr. Barr dropping the case doesn’t make Flynn innocent or free from any wrong doing.

Barr wasn’t the one who initiated the drop. Muellers SCO prosecutors are the one who decided to drop. The very same one who brought up the charges in the first place. Sullivan broke his own rules to try to suppress the evidence that lead to the SCO deciding to drop charges. Now he’s making up powers for himself like the ability to prosecute, judges can’t do that. He wants to prosecute Flynn with perjury for withdrawing his guilty plea, which is completely unheard of. He’s so bad an appellate court gave him 10 days to explain himself. Appellate courts never respond that quickly. Sullivan is a political hack.

Nah! If SCO initiated it why Barr get involved? Happened to be a close friend of Trump.
It doesn’t matter what how these are twisted. It doesn’t look good and it doesn’t sound good.
Flynn is a traitor to begin with even he became part of this administration. Pleaded guilty twice under oath. Now Flynn wants to withdraw his guilty plea?? Now he is innocent????
That is not acceptable. Crooked Barr is also involved with Stone case.
.

Just because you say nah, doesn’t make it true. They went to Barr because...wait for it...he’s the attorney general. Ok, I’ll give you minute to let your jaw hit the floor and another to pick it back up off the floor after that shocking news about Barr. Flynn only took the plea, he didn’t want to take in the first place, and fired his original legal team over, because the SCO threatened to go after his son if he didn’t. And no Flynn was not a traitor, he did not what most intelligence officers do when they’re out of government, they start intelligence firms. There’s 100s of them out there. His firm worked with a NATO ally in Turkey, gasp*, I know, the gall of him. Notice how SCO never came after him for his “traitorous” endeavors? Because there wasn’t any. That’s why they came after him for a perfectly legal phone call. He wasn’t the target either, trump was.

Flynn didn't want to take it??? He took it 3 times.

Over 97% of criminal court cases are guilty pleas. Have you not watched any Netflix doc about how bad our system is with guilty pleas? Here’s how it works, the prosecution comes after you hard, often tacks on charges they know will never work. Then they tell you the judge will throw the book at you, maximum sentences all around if you decide to take it to trial, which yes judges will do that often. Then they offer you a guilty plea, and our system is 97% of lawyers negotiating the guilty pleas.

In Flynn’s case, they threatened to go after his son. Obviously they had nothing on his son or else they would’ve went after a conviction there, and offered to lighten the sentence if Flynn cooperated. This is how prosecutions just work, especially when you’re trying to turn someone. The full force of the federal government on top of a young man, even though they did nothing wrong, is a huge fucking ordeal for that person financially, socially, and emotionally. This is why Flynn, who was almost made bankrupt himself, decided to take the plea to spare his son. That and the fact his original legal team was god awful, and have serious ethical questions they should answer for, like convincing Flynn to sign a paper waiving any exculpatory evidence that may later come out. That should’ve set off loud, ear piercing, wake up Helen Keller from a dead sleep, alarm bells for his original legal team. Obviously the move to fire them and hire the shark he currently has payed off dividends. The SCO decided to drop its own case they just wouldn’t let go of.

Nothing you posted refutes what I posted.

The fact that innocent people plead guilty all the time because of how our system is set up doesn’t refute why Flynn plead guilty? The fact he fired his original legal team, and multiple reports came out from several sources close to Flynn that he wanted to fight the case until they threatened to go after his son. The fact that he hired a new lawyer and withdrew his plea somehow doesn’t show he wanted to fight this case? You people are fucking mental. If Flynn was a black dude, accused of being a drug dealer, this would be the biggest case in history. I mean for fuck sake meek mill got his own documentary and became a whole movement for far less.

He pleaded guilty because he is guilty. Nothing you post refutes that. Even his current defense isn't that he didn't lie to the FBI, it's that he was entrapped and/or his lies were immaterial anyway.

They were, he was, and for the “lies” to be prosecutable they have to be material to an investigation. They closed the investigation on Flynn. So what investigation was Flynn’s “lie” material too? Why were they continuing to investigate him when they found zero wrongdoing, knew they couldn’t use the Logan Act, and knew the call was a perfectly legal, and appropriate call? I keep putting quotes around lie, because it sounds like, from reports, that the FBI was conflating 2 different topics they did not specify and Flynn only talked about the one of them. I imagine that this is the case, they did go after popadapolus for “lying” too because he got the date of a conversation wrong. Not the fact there was a conversation, or what was discussed, but the date it happened...so. They also threatened to go after his son, something they wouldn’t need to do if they had him dead to rights for lying.

So why were they interviewing him for a perfectly legal and appropriate phone call that they had the complete transcripts for? CAN
SOMEONE
ON
THE
LEFT
PLEASE
ANSWER
ME
THAT

The answer is obvious, this just feels like playing where’s Waldo with a kid with Down syndrome, except waldos location is often way less obvious than this.

His call was potentially not legal and his lie was material.

Liberal dictionary:
==========================================
Potentially not legal - legal.

Fucking moron, it means it warranted investigation.

A thorough investigation they had already completed and concluded zero legality.

And then the investigation was reopened and Flynn was questioned by the FBI; to whom he lied.

It was reopened only because the coup plotter Strozk wanted to frame Flynn. The FBI said Flynn didn't lie, until Strozk doctored his 302s, that is.

LOL

Great, we're in agreement Flynn was questioned during an open investigation. And he did lie. He told his questioners he didn't speak about the sanctions with Kislyak -- but he did.

Flynn is gonna walk. Flynn is gonna sue the pants off the Obama regime goons.

The sooner you accept that fact the happier you will be.

 

[Nostra]

I was talking about the DOJ'S motion and your lies about it, dope. here's your outrage over others bickering about whether the FBI'S investigation was open or not. That's gone on for pages. We know you're just trying to silence me because you can't handle me.

Once AGAIN you are attempting to make the focus of the thread about something that has already happened - the DOJ has dropped the case. It's a dead issue. Sullivan and his anti-Trump thugs can not change that. What SULLIVAN is attempting to do, however, is to do whatever he can to continue to target and punish Flynn....to include ignore the Appellate Court's order and lawyer up.

LOL

Sullivan is proving it's not a dead issue. It matters not that the DoJ wants the case dismissed -- Flynn's already a convicted felon. All that remains is sentencing him. Hopefully, Sullivan commences with that rather than giving in to the DoJ's request.

Sullivan is lawyering up. The only thing he has proven is he doesn't follow the law.

 

[Nostra]

BULLSHIT - the focus of your last posts has been solely on the FBI and its case THAT HAS BEEN DROPPED

"Key to the Justice Department’s argument in its motion to dismiss is the fact that, after four months of investigation without finding any derogatory information, the FBI was prepared to close its case on Flynn. A draft internal FBI document dated Jan. 4, 2017, shows that the bureau had sketched out a memo closing the probe, though the document includes the usual caveat that if new information were identified, the FBI would consider reopening the investigation.

But before the case was actually closed, the FBI learned that Flynn had spoken to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in late December 2016. According to the Justice Department’s motion, the FBI had transcripts of the relevant calls, likely obtained through surveillance of Kislyak authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. By this time, Flynn had been named as Trump’s national security adviser.

In those calls, Flynn had asked Russia not to retaliate for sanctions imposed by the Obama administration as punishment for election interference. Flynn had also asked Russia to vote against a United Nations resolution regarding Israeli settlements. On their face, these calls potentially undermined the foreign policy of the United States. What’s more, on Jan. 15, 2017, Mike Pence, then the vice president-elect, made public statements that contradicted the transcripts of Flynn’s calls— a fact that, as documented in the Mueller report, “alarmed senior DOJ [Department of Justice] officials.” And so, the FBI decided to keep the investigation open. FBI agents interviewed Flynn on Jan. 24, four days after Trump took office. During that interview, Flynn falsely denied his statements regarding sanctions and the U.N. vote. He later pleaded guilty to one count of false statements for telling these lies."

Why the Flynn Interview Was Predicated

The Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is flawed in many ways, but one of its weakest arguments is that the investigation of Flynn was not properly “predicated.”

www.lawfareblog.com

You keep posting this BS from Mcgown at lawfareblog. Are you telling me it’s her point that it was in the US interest for russia to escalate, and or fuck over Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East? Also, she’s citing the Logan act as justification which even Paige knew at the time wasn’t a valid avenue for investigation. A. The transition is a legally recognized governmental entity since 1968, which Flynn was a part of. B. No one has been charged with the Logan act, despite many arguable violations of it, since the law was passed in 1799. So all that blows apart her argument. She knows this. You know this. Yet you keep throwing it out there.

"No one has been charged with the Logan act, despite many arguable violations of it, since the law was passed in 1799. So all that blows apart her argument."

Bullshit.

2 people have been charged.

2 people in over 200 years. ZERO convictions.

Next?

 

[berg80]

So far, IMO, Sullivan's actions appear to be an attempt to ignore them and focus on Flynn....unless he is forced to address the FBI's and Mueller's lawyers' misconduct.

What misconduct? If there had been any, especially of an egregious nature, Sullivan would have no option but to accept Powell's motion and dismiss the case.
But as the multiple articles I've posted on the subject show, Powell's motions are frivolous and have already been addressed by Sullivan as having no merit. Both from a legal and evidentiary basis. As for Barr's fictional rationale for dropping the charges, they have been completely dismantled as nothing more than partisan hackery designed to please Baby Donald.
Were pertinent documents withheld from the defense? No. Was Flynn railroaded? No. Was there ample reason to conduct the interview during which Flynn lied? Yes. Did he confess to the crimes he committed and take responsibility for them of his own free will? Yes.

 

[task0778]

BULLSHIT - the focus of your last posts has been solely on the FBI and its case THAT HAS BEEN DROPPED

"Key to the Justice Department’s argument in its motion to dismiss is the fact that, after four months of investigation without finding any derogatory information, the FBI was prepared to close its case on Flynn. A draft internal FBI document dated Jan. 4, 2017, shows that the bureau had sketched out a memo closing the probe, though the document includes the usual caveat that if new information were identified, the FBI would consider reopening the investigation.

But before the case was actually closed, the FBI learned that Flynn had spoken to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in late December 2016. According to the Justice Department’s motion, the FBI had transcripts of the relevant calls, likely obtained through surveillance of Kislyak authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. By this time, Flynn had been named as Trump’s national security adviser.

In those calls, Flynn had asked Russia not to retaliate for sanctions imposed by the Obama administration as punishment for election interference. Flynn had also asked Russia to vote against a United Nations resolution regarding Israeli settlements. On their face, these calls potentially undermined the foreign policy of the United States. What’s more, on Jan. 15, 2017, Mike Pence, then the vice president-elect, made public statements that contradicted the transcripts of Flynn’s calls— a fact that, as documented in the Mueller report, “alarmed senior DOJ [Department of Justice] officials.” And so, the FBI decided to keep the investigation open. FBI agents interviewed Flynn on Jan. 24, four days after Trump took office. During that interview, Flynn falsely denied his statements regarding sanctions and the U.N. vote. He later pleaded guilty to one count of false statements for telling these lies."

Why the Flynn Interview Was Predicated

The Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is flawed in many ways, but one of its weakest arguments is that the investigation of Flynn was not properly “predicated.”

www.lawfareblog.com

You keep posting this BS from Mcgown at lawfareblog. Are you telling me it’s her point that it was in the US interest for russia to escalate, and or fuck over Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East? Also, she’s citing the Logan act as justification which even Paige knew at the time wasn’t a valid avenue for investigation. A. The transition is a legally recognized governmental entity since 1968, which Flynn was a part of. B. No one has been charged with the Logan act, despite many arguable violations of it, since the law was passed in 1799. So all that blows apart her argument. She knows this. You know this. Yet you keep throwing it out there.

"No one has been charged with the Logan act, despite many arguable violations of it, since the law was passed in 1799. So all that blows apart her argument."

Bullshit.

2 people have been charged.

One person in 1802, the other in 1852, neither convicted. This is an antiquated bullshit law that no prosecutor would ever bring to court and no judge would ever allow. It's constitutionality is questionable at best, due to it's vagueness. Which is why no one has ever been convicted under that law.

 

[berg80]

Whatever, not convicted.

Yes, convicted and awaiting sentencing. He was almost sentenced once but judge Sullivan wasn't happy with Flynn's level of contrition so he delayed sentencing until he was satisfied Flynn had given the government all he could.

"A federal judge on Tuesday postponed the sentencing for Michael Flynn after he lambasted President Trump’s former national security adviser for trying to undermine the country and warned he might not spare Flynn from prison.
The stunning development means that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s engagement with Flynn will continue for some months, leaving Flynn to wonder whether he will lose his freedom. Flynn’s attorney requested the delay after the judge’s opinion became apparent, hoping further cooperation with law enforcement would earn the court’s mercy."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/michael-flynn-trumps-former-national-security-adviser-scheduled-to-be-sentenced/2018/12/17/19ce1bb4-0247-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html

It was the realization Flynn might serve time (along with Billy the Bagman's ascension to be AG) that caused Flynn to get more aggressive with seeking dismissal of the charges.

 

[berg80]

One person in 1802, the other in 1852, neither convicted. This is an antiquated bullshit law that no prosecutor would ever bring to court and no judge would ever allow. It's constitutionality is questionable at best, due to it's vagueness. Which is why no one has ever been convicted under that law.

Who gives a shit? He wasn't charged with violating the Logan Act though I suspect he knew he had broken it when he lied to the FBI. He was charged with, and admitted to, lying to cover up the subject of his conversation with Kislyak.

 

[task0778]

Derp....Nothing is dropped until he rules so. Hence the petition for him to do so.

Bwuhahahahaha

Educate yourself. The case has been dropped. Sullivan can not change that. He is attempting to still punish Sullivan through a contempt of court order - or more if he can (which he can't). He can NOT force the DOJ to UN-DROP the case.

So what? Flynn is still a convicted felon. That's out of the hands of the DoJ.

Since sentencing has no taken place, the DOJ has the power to drop the case. It most definitely is NOT out of their hands.

Serious question: in light of the many examples of investigatory and prosecutorial misconduct by the FBI and DOJ in the Flynn case, clearly his rights to due process were repeatedly violated. Criminal cases have been thrown out of court time and again across this country . More over, no judge has the right to assume the prosecution of a defendant, nor ask for 3rd party briefs in a criminal case. The Far Left Lawfare website can offer their opinions, but the truth is that Sullivan is usurping executive powers that the Constituion does not allow him to do. What was done to Flynn was a travesty of justice that never should ave happened and should be dropped, as AG Barr has done.

 

[berg80]

Educate yourself. The case has been dropped.

Sullivan can reject/ignore the DoJ's position and sentence Flynn for the crime he was convicted of and confessed to.

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

 

[berg80]

Serious question: in light of the many examples of investigatory and prosecutorial misconduct by the FBI and DOJ in the Flynn case,

That isn't a serious allegation. It's horseshit.

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

Why the Flynn Interview Was Predicated

The Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is flawed in many ways, but one of its weakest arguments is that the investigation of Flynn was not properly “predicated.”

www.lawfareblog.com

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

You can't credibly dispute a single word in any of these articles.

 

[easyt65]

What misconduct?

I see you still like playing the 'Stupid' game, in which you pretend not to know the documented, proven facts and choose instead to act 'ignorant'....

However, I will not be dragged into another snowflake attempt to hijack the thread with the intent of redirecting discussions and focus on issues that have already been resolved / covered.

If you want to start your own thread about US AG Jansen and his investigation, his findings, the recently released FBI documents and evidence, etc then go for it - I will meet you there and gladly discuss it with you.

The fact is Sullivan is now seemingly planning on disobeying the Appellate Court's order to PERSONALLLY address the DOJ dropping the case and has lawyered up in preparation to do so....

...WHILE DOING SO, JUDGE SULIVAN IS ALREADY DISREGARDING TWO (2) SET PRECEDENTS:

"U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan disregarded two controlling precedents from higher courts with his decision to appoint John Gleeson as amicus curiae in the U.S. v. Michael Flynn case this week. Judicial conduct similar to J. Sullivan’s in these prior, far less politically charged cases was roundly and unanimously condemned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan, and their colleagues across the ideological spectrum."

"One week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Ginsburg, that took judges to task for similar amicus antics. Her opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith upbraided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for violating a basic aspect of legal proceedings called the “party presentation principle.” In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for dragons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them. As J. Ginsburg put it: “

Judge Sullivan Disregards Two Controlling Precedents By Appointing Amicus In Flynn Case

Whether or not one agrees with DOJ’s call to drop its charges against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, there should be widespread agreement that Judge Emmet Sullivan has veered way out of line. His appointment of John Gleeson as amicus ignores two controlling higher court precedents.

www.forbes.com

So Sullivan has ignored 2 already established precedents, he has reversed his own decision he made 24 times in the trial - NOT to allow outside opinion briefs, AND is seemingly attempting to ignore the Appellate Court's order.

...and Oh by the way, the ex-judge he has reached out to wrote an article several years ago declaring the DOJ has almost an unquestionable / un-challengeable authority to drop cases like the DOJ has done here.

If this is not inappropriate, 'rogue' judicial activism from the Bench - which Justice Ginsburg has already made clear she does NOT approve of from any judge.