More on the Flynn case

[Pookie]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/us/politics/michael-flynn-appeals-court.html?auth=login-google

Court Seems Open to Allowing Judge to Scrutinize Bid to Drop Flynn Case

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court panel appeared inclined on Friday to permit a trial judge to complete his review of the Justice Department’s attempt to drop a criminal case against President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, as all three judges asked skeptical questions about a request that they intervene and order the case dismissed.


Much more at the above link.

 

[Lazaran]

I don't know if Trump sees it that way.

Trump doesn't like to get too involved with Flynn because Flynn was directly involved with trying to remove sanctions on Russia and lied to Pence and others about his conversations with Russian ambassador Kislyak. I'm guessing Trump knew exactly what Flynn was up to but had to maintain plausible deniability.

The one common thread between Trump and his inner circle is that they all seem to be liars and criminals.

 

[Rightguide]

Trump doesn't like to get too involved with Flynn because Flynn was directly involved with trying to remove sanctions on Russia and lied to Pence and others about his conversations with Russian ambassador Kislyak. I'm guessing Trump knew exactly what Flynn was up to but had to maintain plausible deniability.

The one common thread between Trump and his inner circle is that they all seem to be liars and criminals.

The above is a gratuitous lie. A common thread between you and the truth doesn't exist.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

The above is a gratuitous lie. A common thread between you and the truth doesn't exist.

You've lost this issue. Give it up.


https://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxpj6grFIe1qcaomb.gif

 

[Rightguide]

You've lost this issue. Give it up.

In what way?

 

[Adre]

Watch for furious backpedaling, goalpost moving, and Outright denial from GB’s legal “experts” about these developments. I seem to recall them smirking over Sullivan’s stupidity.

 

[Conager]

There were "developments?"

When?

 

[HisArpy]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/us/politics/michael-flynn-appeals-court.html?auth=login-google

Court Seems Open to Allowing Judge to Scrutinize Bid to Drop Flynn Case

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court panel appeared inclined on Friday to permit a trial judge to complete his review of the Justice Department’s attempt to drop a criminal case against President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, as all three judges asked skeptical questions about a request that they intervene and order the case dismissed.


Much more at the above link.

To me it looks like the appeals court has decided to not decide.

All indicators seem to point to the appeals court taking it's sweet time and not issuing a decision before the July hearing. If Sullivan dismisses, then the appeals court doesn't need to do anything. If Sullivan continues on with his hearings about determining whether the dismissal isn't the result of anything nefarious by the Government rather than trying to punish Flynn for the court created "crimes", then no extraordinary relief is necessary.

 

[Rightguide]

Watch for furious backpedaling, goalpost moving, and Outright denial from GB’s legal “experts” about these developments. I seem to recall them smirking over Sullivan’s stupidity.

I think we were complaining about his corruption and culpability in this case. He is an eye witness to the corruption in this case and a possible perpetrator of that corruption. You may recall, weeks ago I suggested a Writ of Prohibition as opposed to Mandamus as it goes to the Court's jurisdiction, ie no case or controversy when both parties oppose further action, so no further jurisdiction. It is similar to writs of certiorari.

Remember Judge Sullivan has yet to rule on the Rule 48(a) motion. The respondent before the Circuit Court is Judge Sullivan, not Flynn.

 

[Lazaran]

I think we were complaining about his corruption and culpability in this case. He is an eye witness to the corruption in this case and a possible perpetrator of that corruption. You may recall, weeks ago I suggested a Writ of Prohibition as opposed to Mandamus as it goes to the Court's jurisdiction, ie no case or controversy when both parties oppose further action, so no further jurisdiction. It is similar to writs of certiorari.

Remember Judge Sullivan has yet to rule on the Rule 48(a) motion. The respondent before the Circuit Court is Judge Sullivan, not Flynn.

Do you really think the judge would risk his career over a justified request by DOJ to drop the Flynn prosecution????

Quit pretending you don't recognize that Barr is acting as Trumps personal lawyer.

He has almost admitted as much.

 

[Conager]

Idiot. FakeSpyPilot-level conspiracy theories aside, how do you "risk" one's career with a lifetime appointment?

 

[Lazaran]

Idiot. FakeSpyPilot-level conspiracy theories aside, how do you "risk" one's career with a lifetime appointment?

I was responding to a fuckwit saying Sullivan was corrupt and culpable in relation to his decisions in the Flynn case. If Sullivan has conducted himself in a corruptl manner as some are accusing, then yes, his career would be in jeopardy.

Fuckwit.

 

[Rightguide]

Do you really think the judge would risk his career over a justified request by DOJ to drop the Flynn prosecution????

Quit pretending you don't recognize that Barr is acting as Trumps personal lawyer.

He has almost admitted as much.

^^^
Two gratuitous lies one after the other.

The judge knows his career isn't in danger. He's just a complicit partisan in this case, an actual witness to the government malpractice committed against Flynn in this case, the ultimate sin for a judge. He actions are an attempt to defend himself and his reputation.

 

[Lazaran]

^^^
Two gratuitous lies one after the other.

The judge knows his career isn't in danger. He's just a complicit partisan in this case, an actual witness to the government malpractice committed against Flynn in this case, the ultimate sin for a judge. He actions are an attempt to defend himself and his reputation.

When he flollows through with sentencing Flynn, and blows up the myth of government malpractice, Barr is going to have a lot of explaining to do.

From what I hear, the prosecutors who wouldn't sign off on Barrs decision to drop the Flynn case will be called in to testify why they refused to sign off.

This should be fun.

Barr is going to be left sitting with a full diaper and no one to change him.

 

[Rightguide]

When he flollows through with sentencing Flynn, and blows up the myth of government malpractice, Barr is going to have a lot of explaining to do.

From what I hear, the prosecutors who wouldn't sign off on Barrs decision to drop the Flynn case will be called in to testify why they refused to sign off.

This should be fun.

Barr is going to be left sitting with a full diaper and no one to change him.

^^^
Pure fantasy. Those prosecutors will be lucky if they're still employed by the DOJ when the case against Flynn is dismissed. There is no precedent for what Sullivan is doing. The DOJ has dismissed cases even after judgment has been made in the case.

 

[Conager]

I was responding to a fuckwit saying Sullivan was corrupt and culpable in relation to his decisions in the Flynn case. If Sullivan has conducted himself in a corruptl manner as some are accusing, then yes, his career would be in jeopardy.

Fuckwit.

What part of lifetime appointment is confusing to you?

 

[Lazaran]

What part of lifetime appointment is confusing to you?

Judges can be impeached. The last Federal judge to be impeached happened in 2010.

Just like Trump was proven to not be above the law and is now impeached forever, a judge is not above the law.

Judge Sullivan is not in any danger of impeachment IMO, but other fuckwits seem to think he is corrupt, and thus could be impeached for violating his judicial oath.

Just like being Grand Wizard for life is only relevant as long as the person is true to their oath. That might help explain it to some on the GB.

 

[Conager]

You could just admit you had no idea they arei lifetime apointments.

 

[Lazaran]

You could just admit you had no idea they arei lifetime apointments.

What the fuck did I say that made you think I didn't know they were lifetime appointments???

A federal judge that is being accused of knowingly, and corruptly obstructing the DOJ from lawfully dropping a case would be a prime candidate for impeachment.

You do realize how unprecedented this whole thing is right???

Somebody is going to face some serious investigations when Flynn is ultimately sentenced.

Flynn is the only one who doesn't have to worry, because the corrupter in chief will pardon him on his way out of office this coming January.

 

[HisArpy]

What the fuck did I say that made you think I didn't know they were lifetime appointments???

A federal judge that is being accused of knowingly, and corruptly obstructing the DOJ from lawfully dropping a case would be a prime candidate for impeachment.

You do realize how unprecedented this whole thing is right???

Somebody is going to face some serious investigations when Flynn is ultimately sentenced.

Flynn is the only one who doesn't have to worry, because the corrupter in chief will pardon him on his way out of office this coming January.

This is you flailing to try to support a narrative that has no foundation.

Query: In which Chamber of Congress do you think the impeachment of a Federal judge is done? Which party currently controls that Chamber? And, for a friendly reminder, which party is it that's been concocting false statements and evidence for the past 3 1/2 years?

Yeah that party in that Chamber. Sullivan won't be impeached any time soon no matter WHAT he does.

Currently, the 'serious investigation" is taking place., Durham is going to get to the bottom of what's been happening. Speaking for myself, I'm hoping a few Congresscritters get indicted for what they've been doing. Anyone heard from Schifty Schiff lately?

 

[Lazaran]

This is you flailing to try to support a narrative that has no foundation.

Query: In which Chamber of Congress do you think the impeachment of a Federal judge is done? Which party currently controls that Chamber? And, for a friendly reminder, which party is it that's been concocting false statements and evidence for the past 3 1/2 years?

Yeah that party in that Chamber. Sullivan won't be impeached any time soon no matter WHAT he does.

Currently, the 'serious investigation" is taking place., Durham is going to get to the bottom of what's been happening. Speaking for myself, I'm hoping a few Congresscritters get indicted for what they've been doing. Anyone heard from Schifty Schiff lately?

Ah, I see why you're confused. Democrats aren't like republicans and IF Judge Sullivan was corrupt they would impeach him, just like they impeached Trump. Your confusion is even more evident from the rest of your comment. Durhams investigation is a big nothing burger. No one is getting convicted of anything, unlike the members of Trumps criminal cabal who have gone to jail or are awaiting sentencing. John Brennan has VOLUNTEERED to sit down with Durhams investigators because he knows what a joke the investigation is.

You are really setting yourself up for a series of disappointments come this November.

 

[HisArpy]

Ah, I see why you're confused. Democrats aren't like republicans and IF Judge Sullivan was corrupt they would impeach him, just like they impeached Trump. Your confusion is even more evident from the rest of your comment. Durhams investigation is a big nothing burger. No one is getting convicted of anything, unlike the members of Trumps criminal cabal who have gone to jail or are awaiting sentencing. John Brennan has VOLUNTEERED to sit down with Durhams investigators because he knows what a joke the investigation is.

You are really setting yourself up for a series of disappointments come this November.

We shall see after the election results are tallied and/or the investigation ends.

Brennan's desire to try to cover his ass is a rather interesting ploy. Most people understand that when a suspect "volunteers" to assist the cops, it's usually because they know they're dirty and they're trying to misdirect the investigation away from themselves. In this, Brennan's offer is patently obvious as to it's motives.

You can disagree all you like at this point. In the end, only Durham can say who does and doesn't get charged with criminal activity.

As for Flynn, if he's sentenced, the appeals court will have no other choice except to reverse and vacate his conviction. That's the law as determined by the US Supreme Court. Sullivan's personally motivated machinations notwithstanding, all he can really do is obey the law. That he has not is where the problem lies. And why he was requested to explain himself.

Something he didn't really do in his reply to the appeals court. The question presented isn't why he believed that Flynn committed perjury or contempt, it was; WHY THE HELL AREN'T YOU OBEYING ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT? His brief discussing the non-charged offenses he believes occurred doesn't address that question at all.

 

[cjh]

We shall see after the election results are tallied and/or the investigation ends.

Brennan's desire to try to cover his ass is a rather interesting ploy. Most people understand that when a suspect "volunteers" to assist the cops, it's usually because they know they're dirty and they're trying to misdirect the investigation away from themselves. In this, Brennan's offer is patently obvious as to it's motives.

You can disagree all you like at this point. In the end, only Durham can say who does and doesn't get charged with criminal activity.

As for Flynn, if he's sentenced, the appeals court will have no other choice except to reverse and vacate his conviction. That's the law as determined by the US Supreme Court. Sullivan's personally motivated machinations notwithstanding, all he can really do is obey the law. That he has not is where the problem lies. And why he was requested to explain himself.

Something he didn't really do in his reply to the appeals court. The question presented isn't why he believed that Flynn committed perjury or contempt, it was; WHY THE HELL AREN'T YOU OBEYING ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT? His brief discussing the non-charged offenses he believes occurred doesn't address that question at all.

So why does Rule 48(a) require leave of court to dismiss an indictment?

 

[Rightguide]

So why does Rule 48(a) require leave of court to dismiss an indictment?

It's an implied admission of the court's jurisdiction.

 

[cjh]

It's an implied admission of the court's jurisdiction.

That's the can-you-Google-law-dictionary answer.

Here's SCOTUS' answer in the context of Rule 48a.

The words "leave of court" were inserted in Rule 48 (a) without explanation. While they obviously vest some discretion in the court, the circumstances in which that discretion may properly be exercised have not been delineated by this Court. The principal object of the "leave of court" requirement is apparently to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment, e.g., charging, dismissing, and recharging, when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant's objection. See, e.g., United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 171 (CA5), cert. denied, sub nom. Cox v. Hauberg, 381 U.S. 935 (1965); Woodring v. United States, 311 F.2d 417, 424 (CA8), cert. denied, sub nom. Felice v. United States, 373 U.S. 913 (1963). But the Rule has also been held to permit the court to deny a Government dismissal motion to which the defendant has consented if the motion is prompted by considerations clearly contrary to the public interest. See United States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d 504 (CA5 1975); United States v. Ammidown, 162 U.S. App. D.C. 28, 33, 497 F.2d 615, 620 (1973). It is unnecessary to decide whether the court has discretion under these circumstances, since, even assuming it does, the result in this case remains the same.

Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 29 n.15, 98 S. Ct. 81, 85 (1977).

Maybe the issue will ultimately be decided in Flynn's favor. There are dicta in some opinions suggesting that. But there's dictum suggesting Flynn is screwed, too.