Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

thelawlorfaithful

DOJ drops case against General Michael Flynn

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

There wasn’t. The FBI prosecutors said he lied, but even their own staff said they didn’t believe he lied. What he said had little bearing on anything much less committing a crime. He only pled guilty because they threatened to go after his family. Now a partisan judge doesn’t want to let it go because he was made to look bad by the prosecuters no less who withheld information. 

I guess I never really paid attention to this case.. I read the transcripts thinking I was gonna see some super corrupt shit, but I didn’t at all. I don’t have an issue with this case being dropped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

A former judge selected to advise on a path forward in the criminal case against Michael Flynn is accusing the Justice Department of exercising a “gross abuse of prosecutorial power” to protect an ally of President Donald Trump, distorting known facts and legal principles to shield Flynn from a jail sentence.

The former federal judge, John Gleeson, skewered Attorney General Bill Barr’s handling of the case, describing it as an “irregular” effort that courts would “scoff” at were the subject anyone other than an ally of Trump. The 82-page excoriation featured a painstaking reconstruction of the Flynn case and accused DOJ of contradicting its own arguments and precedents to justify dropping the case against Flynn.

“Even recognizing that the Government is entitled to deference in assessing the strength of its case, these claims are not credible,” Gleeson wrote. “Indeed, they are preposterous.”

Gleeson is recommending that the judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, instead proceed to sentence the former Trump national security adviser on the false-statement charge he admitted to two-and-a-half years ago — and later rescinded.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/10/gleeson-flynn-sullivan-barr-justice-department-311018

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2020 at 4:26 PM, IanforHeisman said:

I guess I never really paid attention to this case.. I read the transcripts thinking I was gonna see some super corrupt shit, but I didn’t at all. I don’t have an issue with this case being dropped.

It’s a circus. A judge has hired a lawyer to explain himself before a higher court about decisions he himself made in his own court. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

Good.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. My understanding is that if it goes en banc, the full appeals court would very, very likely rule in favor of letting Sullivan decide on his own. And that any judge on the full appeals court (not just Sullivan) can request it be heard en banc. 

Sullivan is going to accept the DOJ's request to drop the charges at the end of all this. He just wants them to explain why they've decided to serve as personal defense counsel for the president's friend. Seems reasonable. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole thing seems like broken windows policing and abuse of power by LE, just in a more white collar arena.

So, drain the swamp here, but back the badge where it's black people who aren't the President's friends getting their lives ruined over pretty matters.

It's the inequity in the institutions and government, folks. It always is. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, toonkee said:

This whole thing seems like broken windows policing and abuse of power by LE, just in a more white collar arena.

So, drain the swamp here, but back the badge where it's black people who aren't the President's friends getting their lives ruined over pretty matters.

It's the inequity in the institutions and government, folks. It always is. 

 

Broken windows policing is a really good analogy. I mean, I hate to be the one to say this but there's an argument (and believe me I'm not making it as much as saying it exists) that the specific statute about lying to the FBI is an effective tool at prosecuting white collar crimes. White collar crimes and crimes by public officials are notoriously difficult to prosecute because they require certain thresholds of intent that do not exist in other crimes like drug crimes or even property crimes. If you want to ease up on the statute (which is a reasonable position) then you don't get to complain about how no one went to jail after 2008 or whatever the next financial scandal is. And you can't be happy that Dennis Hastert went to prison, either.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

Not necessarily. My understanding is that if it goes en banc, the full appeals court would very, very likely rule in favor of letting Sullivan decide on his own. And that any judge on the full appeals court (not just Sullivan) can request it be heard en banc. 

Sullivan is going to accept the DOJ's request to drop the charges at the end of all this. He just wants them to explain why they've decided to serve as personal defense counsel for the president's friend. Seems reasonable. 

Hanging on to the last little bit of mileage you can get out if this are you. Persistence! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

Hanging on to the last little bit of mileage you can get out if this are you. Persistence! 

It wont be much mileage though... I didnt show much interest in here on this until DOJ decided it was Perry Mason. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Members of FBI should be prosecuted.

Newly released documents in the Michael Flynn case include a January 2017 DOJ draft memo that states “FBI leadership” decided against showing Flynn transcripts of his calls with the Russian ambassador in the White House interview that led to his guilty plea.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/new-flynn-notes-fbi-leadership-decided-not-to-provide-russian-call-transcripts-to-flynn-in-interview/

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bornontheblue said:

How do you keep a case going when the prosecution says we don't want to prosecute anymore. The judge can't be impartial if he is trying to also be the prosecutor. 

I think the issue for the Judge is that Flynn told him straight up that he was pleading guilty back in December 2018, that he had committed the crimes in question. Then the DoJ decided that they should just drop the case once it came time for sentencing again. This seems more like the Judge saying "WTF" rather than trying to be the prosecutor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...