What a 1924 case from Montana says about dismissing the Flynn prosecution

[westwall]

I understand why the whole article can't be pasted here but one needs to read it in its entirety to understand the point being made. I'll try to pull out the salient points.

"Franklin Woody was accused of embezzling federal funds. His grandfather was Missoula’s first mayor and a district judge, while Woody’s father was close friends with the governor and had served as Montana’s assistant attorney general. After Woody’s indictment, the federal prosecutor argued that the case against him should be dismissed.

The judge deciding whether to grant the government’s motion to dismiss the prosecution found his hands tied. The government’s reasons for dropping the case, he said in a 1924 ruling, “savor altogether too much of some variety of prestige and influence (family, friends, or money) that too often enables their possessors to violate the laws with impunity.” Nonetheless, he acknowledged, “the district attorney has absolute control over criminal prosecutions.”

That case helped lead to the federal rule that is at issue in Flynn’s case, Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Ultimately, the Supreme Court adopted the requirement currently found in Rule 48(a) — that the government obtain “leave of court” for a dismissal. That change, as Frampton observes, “armed the district judge with a powerful tool to halt corrupt or politically motivated dismissals of cases."

A three-judge panel of the appeals court voted, 2-1, to order the immediate dismissal of the case; on Tuesday, the full appeals court will reconsider that ruling. The outcome should be clear. The “leave of court” requirement in Rule 48(a) was designed to protect against corrupt or politically motivated dismissals that could undermine our nation’s criminal justice system — arguably the very kind of dismissal sought here."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/10/what-1924-case-montana-says-about-dismissing-flynn-prosecution/?hpid=hp_save-opinions-float-right-4-0_opinion-card-d-right%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans

Given the facts of the case it's obvious the appeals court should deny the government's motion for dismissal for the very reasons Rule 48(a) was adopted. To prevent cases being dropped "to halt corrupt or politically motivated dismissals of cases."

Did Franklin talk to a Russian on the phone?

No, he embezzled funds. I am unaware of whether he lied to federal officers investigating the case as Flynn did.

The agents stipulated that he didn't lie. The government is the entity that HAS provably lied in this case.

Your facts are fabricated.

That makes them lies.

How did the agents stipulate he wasn’t lying?

Their 302s specifically say they didn't believe he lied to them.

Here’s the 302.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5633260/12-17-18-Redacted-Flynn-Interview-302.pdf

I don’t see that in there. Do you?

They altered them. Or didn't you see that in the IG report? Or are you selectively cherry picking like it seems most progressives do.

 

[westwall]

The kind of judicial review blocked by the lower appeals court.

What about dismissing the charges completely?

"The Government has urged (and some commentators have opined) that Judge Sullivan has little choice but to grant the motion. The conventional view holds that it is necessary to distinguish between two types of motions to dismiss: (1) those where dismissal would benefit the defendant, and (2) those where dismissal might give the Government a tactical advantage against the defendant, perhaps because prosecutors seek to dismiss the case and then file new charges. The Government argues that Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement applies exclusively to the latter category of motions to dismiss; where the dismissal accrues to the benefit of the defendant, judicial meddling is unwarranted and improper. In support, the Government relies in part on forty-year-old dicta in the sole Supreme Court case interpreting Rule 48(a). There, the Court stated that the “leave of court” language was added to Rule 48(a) “without explanation,” but “apparently” this verbiage had as its “principal object . . . to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment.”

But the Government’s position—and the Supreme Court language upon which it is based—is simply wrong. In fact, the “principal object” of Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement was not to protect the interests of individual defendants, but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants. In other words, it was drafted precisely to deal with the situation that has arisen in United States v. Flynn: Its purpose was to empower a district judge to halt a dismissal where the court suspects some impropriety has prompted prosecutors’ attempt to abandon a case."

Why Do Rule 48(a) Dismissals Require ‘Leave of Court’? | Stanford Law Review

On May 7, 2020, the Department of Justice asked District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to dismiss the felony charge against President Trump's former Na

www.stanfordlawreview.org

but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases

Dubious cases should be dismissed.

It's far from a dubious case. Flynn pled guilty after all.

Because Mueller extorted him. Extortion is a crime for everyone except DAs. Sounds like a rule that needs to be rescinded.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The kind of judicial review blocked by the lower appeals court.

What about dismissing the charges completely?

"The Government has urged (and some commentators have opined) that Judge Sullivan has little choice but to grant the motion. The conventional view holds that it is necessary to distinguish between two types of motions to dismiss: (1) those where dismissal would benefit the defendant, and (2) those where dismissal might give the Government a tactical advantage against the defendant, perhaps because prosecutors seek to dismiss the case and then file new charges. The Government argues that Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement applies exclusively to the latter category of motions to dismiss; where the dismissal accrues to the benefit of the defendant, judicial meddling is unwarranted and improper. In support, the Government relies in part on forty-year-old dicta in the sole Supreme Court case interpreting Rule 48(a). There, the Court stated that the “leave of court” language was added to Rule 48(a) “without explanation,” but “apparently” this verbiage had as its “principal object . . . to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment.”

But the Government’s position—and the Supreme Court language upon which it is based—is simply wrong. In fact, the “principal object” of Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement was not to protect the interests of individual defendants, but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants. In other words, it was drafted precisely to deal with the situation that has arisen in United States v. Flynn: Its purpose was to empower a district judge to halt a dismissal where the court suspects some impropriety has prompted prosecutors’ attempt to abandon a case."

Why Do Rule 48(a) Dismissals Require ‘Leave of Court’? | Stanford Law Review

On May 7, 2020, the Department of Justice asked District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to dismiss the felony charge against President Trump's former Na

www.stanfordlawreview.org

but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases

Dubious cases should be dismissed.

It's far from a dubious case. Flynn pled guilty after all.

What was the crime they were investigating again?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I understand why the whole article can't be pasted here but one needs to read it in its entirety to understand the point being made. I'll try to pull out the salient points.

"Franklin Woody was accused of embezzling federal funds. His grandfather was Missoula’s first mayor and a district judge, while Woody’s father was close friends with the governor and had served as Montana’s assistant attorney general. After Woody’s indictment, the federal prosecutor argued that the case against him should be dismissed.

The judge deciding whether to grant the government’s motion to dismiss the prosecution found his hands tied. The government’s reasons for dropping the case, he said in a 1924 ruling, “savor altogether too much of some variety of prestige and influence (family, friends, or money) that too often enables their possessors to violate the laws with impunity.” Nonetheless, he acknowledged, “the district attorney has absolute control over criminal prosecutions.”

That case helped lead to the federal rule that is at issue in Flynn’s case, Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Ultimately, the Supreme Court adopted the requirement currently found in Rule 48(a) — that the government obtain “leave of court” for a dismissal. That change, as Frampton observes, “armed the district judge with a powerful tool to halt corrupt or politically motivated dismissals of cases."

A three-judge panel of the appeals court voted, 2-1, to order the immediate dismissal of the case; on Tuesday, the full appeals court will reconsider that ruling. The outcome should be clear. The “leave of court” requirement in Rule 48(a) was designed to protect against corrupt or politically motivated dismissals that could undermine our nation’s criminal justice system — arguably the very kind of dismissal sought here."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/10/what-1924-case-montana-says-about-dismissing-flynn-prosecution/?hpid=hp_save-opinions-float-right-4-0_opinion-card-d-right%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans

Given the facts of the case it's obvious the appeals court should deny the government's motion for dismissal for the very reasons Rule 48(a) was adopted. To prevent cases being dropped "to halt corrupt or politically motivated dismissals of cases."

Did Franklin talk to a Russian on the phone?

No, he embezzled funds. I am unaware of whether he lied to federal officers investigating the case as Flynn did.

The agents stipulated that he didn't lie. The government is the entity that HAS provably lied in this case.

Your facts are fabricated.

That makes them lies.

How did the agents stipulate he wasn’t lying?

Their 302s specifically say they didn't believe he lied to them.

Here’s the 302.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5633260/12-17-18-Redacted-Flynn-Interview-302.pdf

I don’t see that in there. Do you?

They altered them. Or didn't you see that in the IG report? Or are you selectively cherry picking like it seems most progressives do.

They altered them.

Exactly! Were some of those redactions the initials of Strzok's girlfriend?

 

[colfax_m]

I understand why the whole article can't be pasted here but one needs to read it in its entirety to understand the point being made. I'll try to pull out the salient points.

"Franklin Woody was accused of embezzling federal funds. His grandfather was Missoula’s first mayor and a district judge, while Woody’s father was close friends with the governor and had served as Montana’s assistant attorney general. After Woody’s indictment, the federal prosecutor argued that the case against him should be dismissed.

The judge deciding whether to grant the government’s motion to dismiss the prosecution found his hands tied. The government’s reasons for dropping the case, he said in a 1924 ruling, “savor altogether too much of some variety of prestige and influence (family, friends, or money) that too often enables their possessors to violate the laws with impunity.” Nonetheless, he acknowledged, “the district attorney has absolute control over criminal prosecutions.”

That case helped lead to the federal rule that is at issue in Flynn’s case, Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Ultimately, the Supreme Court adopted the requirement currently found in Rule 48(a) — that the government obtain “leave of court” for a dismissal. That change, as Frampton observes, “armed the district judge with a powerful tool to halt corrupt or politically motivated dismissals of cases."

A three-judge panel of the appeals court voted, 2-1, to order the immediate dismissal of the case; on Tuesday, the full appeals court will reconsider that ruling. The outcome should be clear. The “leave of court” requirement in Rule 48(a) was designed to protect against corrupt or politically motivated dismissals that could undermine our nation’s criminal justice system — arguably the very kind of dismissal sought here."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/10/what-1924-case-montana-says-about-dismissing-flynn-prosecution/?hpid=hp_save-opinions-float-right-4-0_opinion-card-d-right%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans

Given the facts of the case it's obvious the appeals court should deny the government's motion for dismissal for the very reasons Rule 48(a) was adopted. To prevent cases being dropped "to halt corrupt or politically motivated dismissals of cases."

Did Franklin talk to a Russian on the phone?

No, he embezzled funds. I am unaware of whether he lied to federal officers investigating the case as Flynn did.

The agents stipulated that he didn't lie. The government is the entity that HAS provably lied in this case.

Your facts are fabricated.

That makes them lies.

How did the agents stipulate he wasn’t lying?

Their 302s specifically say they didn't believe he lied to them.

Here’s the 302.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5633260/12-17-18-Redacted-Flynn-Interview-302.pdf

I don’t see that in there. Do you?

They altered them. Or didn't you see that in the IG report? Or are you selectively cherry picking like it seems most progressives do.

That’s not in the IG report. In fact, I don’t remember Flynn being mentioned at all in the IG report.

 

[colfax_m]

The kind of judicial review blocked by the lower appeals court.

What about dismissing the charges completely?

"The Government has urged (and some commentators have opined) that Judge Sullivan has little choice but to grant the motion. The conventional view holds that it is necessary to distinguish between two types of motions to dismiss: (1) those where dismissal would benefit the defendant, and (2) those where dismissal might give the Government a tactical advantage against the defendant, perhaps because prosecutors seek to dismiss the case and then file new charges. The Government argues that Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement applies exclusively to the latter category of motions to dismiss; where the dismissal accrues to the benefit of the defendant, judicial meddling is unwarranted and improper. In support, the Government relies in part on forty-year-old dicta in the sole Supreme Court case interpreting Rule 48(a). There, the Court stated that the “leave of court” language was added to Rule 48(a) “without explanation,” but “apparently” this verbiage had as its “principal object . . . to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment.”

But the Government’s position—and the Supreme Court language upon which it is based—is simply wrong. In fact, the “principal object” of Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement was not to protect the interests of individual defendants, but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants. In other words, it was drafted precisely to deal with the situation that has arisen in United States v. Flynn: Its purpose was to empower a district judge to halt a dismissal where the court suspects some impropriety has prompted prosecutors’ attempt to abandon a case."

Why Do Rule 48(a) Dismissals Require ‘Leave of Court’? | Stanford Law Review

On May 7, 2020, the Department of Justice asked District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to dismiss the felony charge against President Trump's former Na

www.stanfordlawreview.org

but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases

Dubious cases should be dismissed.

It's far from a dubious case. Flynn pled guilty after all.

What was the crime they were investigating again?

Counterintelligence investigations don’t need crimes. It’s not a law enforcement action.

 

[colfax_m]

The kind of judicial review blocked by the lower appeals court.

What about dismissing the charges completely?

"The Government has urged (and some commentators have opined) that Judge Sullivan has little choice but to grant the motion. The conventional view holds that it is necessary to distinguish between two types of motions to dismiss: (1) those where dismissal would benefit the defendant, and (2) those where dismissal might give the Government a tactical advantage against the defendant, perhaps because prosecutors seek to dismiss the case and then file new charges. The Government argues that Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement applies exclusively to the latter category of motions to dismiss; where the dismissal accrues to the benefit of the defendant, judicial meddling is unwarranted and improper. In support, the Government relies in part on forty-year-old dicta in the sole Supreme Court case interpreting Rule 48(a). There, the Court stated that the “leave of court” language was added to Rule 48(a) “without explanation,” but “apparently” this verbiage had as its “principal object . . . to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment.”

But the Government’s position—and the Supreme Court language upon which it is based—is simply wrong. In fact, the “principal object” of Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement was not to protect the interests of individual defendants, but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants. In other words, it was drafted precisely to deal with the situation that has arisen in United States v. Flynn: Its purpose was to empower a district judge to halt a dismissal where the court suspects some impropriety has prompted prosecutors’ attempt to abandon a case."

Why Do Rule 48(a) Dismissals Require ‘Leave of Court’? | Stanford Law Review

On May 7, 2020, the Department of Justice asked District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to dismiss the felony charge against President Trump's former Na

www.stanfordlawreview.org

but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases

Dubious cases should be dismissed.

It's far from a dubious case. Flynn pled guilty after all.

Because Mueller extorted him. Extortion is a crime for everyone except DAs. Sounds like a rule that needs to be rescinded.

The DoJ doesn’t think that Mueller extorted Flynn so it cannot be a cause for their motion to dismiss.

 

[berg80]

As Sally Yates tried to explain during her testimony last week (when Trump sock puppet L. Graham wasn't cutting her off) the investigation that ended up catching Flynn in a lie was directed at trying to find out why Russia did not retaliate for Obama's sanctions after publicly saying they would.

Flynn's interview came as a result of concern over Flynn being compromised by Russia after it was learned he had lied to admin officials about what he and Kislyak spoke about.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The kind of judicial review blocked by the lower appeals court.

What about dismissing the charges completely?

"The Government has urged (and some commentators have opined) that Judge Sullivan has little choice but to grant the motion. The conventional view holds that it is necessary to distinguish between two types of motions to dismiss: (1) those where dismissal would benefit the defendant, and (2) those where dismissal might give the Government a tactical advantage against the defendant, perhaps because prosecutors seek to dismiss the case and then file new charges. The Government argues that Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement applies exclusively to the latter category of motions to dismiss; where the dismissal accrues to the benefit of the defendant, judicial meddling is unwarranted and improper. In support, the Government relies in part on forty-year-old dicta in the sole Supreme Court case interpreting Rule 48(a). There, the Court stated that the “leave of court” language was added to Rule 48(a) “without explanation,” but “apparently” this verbiage had as its “principal object . . . to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment.”

But the Government’s position—and the Supreme Court language upon which it is based—is simply wrong. In fact, the “principal object” of Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement was not to protect the interests of individual defendants, but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants. In other words, it was drafted precisely to deal with the situation that has arisen in United States v. Flynn: Its purpose was to empower a district judge to halt a dismissal where the court suspects some impropriety has prompted prosecutors’ attempt to abandon a case."

Why Do Rule 48(a) Dismissals Require ‘Leave of Court’? | Stanford Law Review

On May 7, 2020, the Department of Justice asked District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to dismiss the felony charge against President Trump's former Na

www.stanfordlawreview.org

but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases

Dubious cases should be dismissed.

It's far from a dubious case. Flynn pled guilty after all.

What was the crime they were investigating again?

Counterintelligence investigations don’t need crimes. It’s not a law enforcement action.

Was the investigation harmed by his supposed lies?
Would it have been helped if he had told the truth?

 

[colfax_m]

The kind of judicial review blocked by the lower appeals court.

What about dismissing the charges completely?

"The Government has urged (and some commentators have opined) that Judge Sullivan has little choice but to grant the motion. The conventional view holds that it is necessary to distinguish between two types of motions to dismiss: (1) those where dismissal would benefit the defendant, and (2) those where dismissal might give the Government a tactical advantage against the defendant, perhaps because prosecutors seek to dismiss the case and then file new charges. The Government argues that Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement applies exclusively to the latter category of motions to dismiss; where the dismissal accrues to the benefit of the defendant, judicial meddling is unwarranted and improper. In support, the Government relies in part on forty-year-old dicta in the sole Supreme Court case interpreting Rule 48(a). There, the Court stated that the “leave of court” language was added to Rule 48(a) “without explanation,” but “apparently” this verbiage had as its “principal object . . . to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment.”

But the Government’s position—and the Supreme Court language upon which it is based—is simply wrong. In fact, the “principal object” of Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement was not to protect the interests of individual defendants, but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants. In other words, it was drafted precisely to deal with the situation that has arisen in United States v. Flynn: Its purpose was to empower a district judge to halt a dismissal where the court suspects some impropriety has prompted prosecutors’ attempt to abandon a case."

Why Do Rule 48(a) Dismissals Require ‘Leave of Court’? | Stanford Law Review

On May 7, 2020, the Department of Justice asked District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to dismiss the felony charge against President Trump's former Na

www.stanfordlawreview.org

but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases

Dubious cases should be dismissed.

It's far from a dubious case. Flynn pled guilty after all.

What was the crime they were investigating again?

Counterintelligence investigations don’t need crimes. It’s not a law enforcement action.

Was the investigation harmed by his supposed lies?
Would it have been helped if he had told the truth?

Dunno if it did or not. But it had the capability to do so, which is all the law requires.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But it had the capability to do so, which is all the law requires.

How? It's not like they didn't already have the transcript in front of them.

 

[colfax_m]

But it had the capability to do so, which is all the law requires.

How? It's not like they didn't already have the transcript in front of them.

I could be mistaken. 18 USC 1001 may not need that. The fact that the FBI knew he was lying does not make it okay.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But it had the capability to do so, which is all the law requires.

How? It's not like they didn't already have the transcript in front of them.

I could be mistaken. 18 USC 1001 may not need that. The fact that the FBI knew he was lying does not make it okay.

And the fact that he lied (supposedly) about something non-material does not make it a crime.

 

[colfax_m]

But it had the capability to do so, which is all the law requires.

How? It's not like they didn't already have the transcript in front of them.

I could be mistaken. 18 USC 1001 may not need that. The fact that the FBI knew he was lying does not make it okay.

And the fact that he lied (supposedly) about something non-material does not make it a crime.

How could the content of his discussions with Russian officials not be material to an investigation of Russian involvement with the Trump campaign?

 

[esalla]

I understand why the whole article can't be pasted here but one needs to read it in its entirety to understand the point being made. I'll try to pull out the salient points.

"Franklin Woody was accused of embezzling federal funds. His grandfather was Missoula’s first mayor and a district judge, while Woody’s father was close friends with the governor and had served as Montana’s assistant attorney general. After Woody’s indictment, the federal prosecutor argued that the case against him should be dismissed.

The judge deciding whether to grant the government’s motion to dismiss the prosecution found his hands tied. The government’s reasons for dropping the case, he said in a 1924 ruling, “savor altogether too much of some variety of prestige and influence (family, friends, or money) that too often enables their possessors to violate the laws with impunity.” Nonetheless, he acknowledged, “the district attorney has absolute control over criminal prosecutions.”

That case helped lead to the federal rule that is at issue in Flynn’s case, Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Ultimately, the Supreme Court adopted the requirement currently found in Rule 48(a) — that the government obtain “leave of court” for a dismissal. That change, as Frampton observes, “armed the district judge with a powerful tool to halt corrupt or politically motivated dismissals of cases."

A three-judge panel of the appeals court voted, 2-1, to order the immediate dismissal of the case; on Tuesday, the full appeals court will reconsider that ruling. The outcome should be clear. The “leave of court” requirement in Rule 48(a) was designed to protect against corrupt or politically motivated dismissals that could undermine our nation’s criminal justice system — arguably the very kind of dismissal sought here."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/10/what-1924-case-montana-says-about-dismissing-flynn-prosecution/?hpid=hp_save-opinions-float-right-4-0_opinion-card-d-right%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans

Given the facts of the case it's obvious the appeals court should deny the government's motion for dismissal for the very reasons Rule 48(a) was adopted. To prevent cases being dropped "to halt corrupt or politically motivated dismissals of cases."

Stick with aborting babies

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But it had the capability to do so, which is all the law requires.

How? It's not like they didn't already have the transcript in front of them.

I could be mistaken. 18 USC 1001 may not need that. The fact that the FBI knew he was lying does not make it okay.

And the fact that he lied (supposedly) about something non-material does not make it a crime.

How could the content of his discussions with Russian officials not be material to an investigation of Russian involvement with the Trump campaign?

Material to the investigation of what crime........?

Pretending that the Russians beat Hillary with a few memes and ads on Facebook is silly.

If the call was evidence of "collusion", charge him with collusion.

If the call was evidence of any crime, charge him.

No evidence in the call, or anywhere else, then a lie about the call is not material.

 

[colfax_m]

But it had the capability to do so, which is all the law requires.

How? It's not like they didn't already have the transcript in front of them.

I could be mistaken. 18 USC 1001 may not need that. The fact that the FBI knew he was lying does not make it okay.

And the fact that he lied (supposedly) about something non-material does not make it a crime.

How could the content of his discussions with Russian officials not be material to an investigation of Russian involvement with the Trump campaign?

Material to the investigation of what crime........?

Pretending that the Russians beat Hillary with a few memes and ads on Facebook is silly.

If the call was evidence of "collusion", charge him with collusion.

If the call was evidence of any crime, charge him.

No evidence in the call, or anywhere else, then a lie about the call is not material.

Material to the counterintelligence investigation. Why do I have to repeat myself?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But it had the capability to do so, which is all the law requires.

How? It's not like they didn't already have the transcript in front of them.

I could be mistaken. 18 USC 1001 may not need that. The fact that the FBI knew he was lying does not make it okay.

And the fact that he lied (supposedly) about something non-material does not make it a crime.

How could the content of his discussions with Russian officials not be material to an investigation of Russian involvement with the Trump campaign?

Material to the investigation of what crime........?

Pretending that the Russians beat Hillary with a few memes and ads on Facebook is silly.

If the call was evidence of "collusion", charge him with collusion.

If the call was evidence of any crime, charge him.

No evidence in the call, or anywhere else, then a lie about the call is not material.

Material to the counterintelligence investigation. Why do I have to repeat myself?

If there was no crime in the call there is no crime in a supposed lie about the call.

 

[colfax_m]

But it had the capability to do so, which is all the law requires.

How? It's not like they didn't already have the transcript in front of them.

I could be mistaken. 18 USC 1001 may not need that. The fact that the FBI knew he was lying does not make it okay.

And the fact that he lied (supposedly) about something non-material does not make it a crime.

How could the content of his discussions with Russian officials not be material to an investigation of Russian involvement with the Trump campaign?

Material to the investigation of what crime........?

Pretending that the Russians beat Hillary with a few memes and ads on Facebook is silly.

If the call was evidence of "collusion", charge him with collusion.

If the call was evidence of any crime, charge him.

No evidence in the call, or anywhere else, then a lie about the call is not material.

Material to the counterintelligence investigation. Why do I have to repeat myself?

If there was no crime in the call there is no crime in a supposed lie about the call.

That’s not a requirement of the law. Just an excuse.

 

[westwall]

I understand why the whole article can't be pasted here but one needs to read it in its entirety to understand the point being made. I'll try to pull out the salient points.

"Franklin Woody was accused of embezzling federal funds. His grandfather was Missoula’s first mayor and a district judge, while Woody’s father was close friends with the governor and had served as Montana’s assistant attorney general. After Woody’s indictment, the federal prosecutor argued that the case against him should be dismissed.

The judge deciding whether to grant the government’s motion to dismiss the prosecution found his hands tied. The government’s reasons for dropping the case, he said in a 1924 ruling, “savor altogether too much of some variety of prestige and influence (family, friends, or money) that too often enables their possessors to violate the laws with impunity.” Nonetheless, he acknowledged, “the district attorney has absolute control over criminal prosecutions.”

That case helped lead to the federal rule that is at issue in Flynn’s case, Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Ultimately, the Supreme Court adopted the requirement currently found in Rule 48(a) — that the government obtain “leave of court” for a dismissal. That change, as Frampton observes, “armed the district judge with a powerful tool to halt corrupt or politically motivated dismissals of cases."

A three-judge panel of the appeals court voted, 2-1, to order the immediate dismissal of the case; on Tuesday, the full appeals court will reconsider that ruling. The outcome should be clear. The “leave of court” requirement in Rule 48(a) was designed to protect against corrupt or politically motivated dismissals that could undermine our nation’s criminal justice system — arguably the very kind of dismissal sought here."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/10/what-1924-case-montana-says-about-dismissing-flynn-prosecution/?hpid=hp_save-opinions-float-right-4-0_opinion-card-d-right%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans

Given the facts of the case it's obvious the appeals court should deny the government's motion for dismissal for the very reasons Rule 48(a) was adopted. To prevent cases being dropped "to halt corrupt or politically motivated dismissals of cases."

Did Franklin talk to a Russian on the phone?

No, he embezzled funds. I am unaware of whether he lied to federal officers investigating the case as Flynn did.

The agents stipulated that he didn't lie. The government is the entity that HAS provably lied in this case.

Your facts are fabricated.

That makes them lies.

How did the agents stipulate he wasn’t lying?

Their 302s specifically say they didn't believe he lied to them.

Here’s the 302.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5633260/12-17-18-Redacted-Flynn-Interview-302.pdf

I don’t see that in there. Do you?

They altered them. Or didn't you see that in the IG report? Or are you selectively cherry picking like it seems most progressives do.

They altered them.

Exactly! Were some of those redactions the initials of Strzok's girlfriend?

Why yes! Yes they were! Amazing how colfax et all are so willing to ignore government lies to persecute an innocent man.

These are feckless scum.