Politics FBI handwritten notes to get Flynn fired

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
magnifier661 said:
If the judge accepts the DOJ’s case drop. We’ve already been through this before.

mags
Click to expand...

Didn't realize you were just restating that.

barfo
 
Hoopguru said:
Hannity and Todd are biased shock jocks and would trade position quickly if the money was substantially better on the other side!
Click to expand...
The difference is Hannity is a commentator, Todd is supposed to be a news anchor. That’s apples to oranges.

Now if you compared Hannity and Maddow, that’s apples to apples.
 
magnifier661 said:
The difference is Hannity is a commentator, Todd is supposed to be a news anchor. That’s apples to oranges.

Now if you compared Hannity and Maddow, that’s apples to apples.
Click to expand...
I never really viewed Todd as a News Anchor as he seems so biased and arrogant.
 
Washington (CNN)A former Justice Department official says Attorney General William Barr "twisted" her words to justify the decision to drop the criminal case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Mary B. McCord, former acting assistant attorney general for national security, wrote in a New York Times op-ed Sunday that Barr cherry-picked from her 2017 testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller, which the DOJ cited more than 25 times in the motion to dismiss Flynn's case. She said her testimony is "no support for Mr. Barr's dismissal of the Flynn case."


"It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn," she wrote. "It does not suggest that the F.B.I.'s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn's false statements were not material."
McCord continued, "And it does not support the Justice Department's assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, 'would not serve the interests of justice.'"

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/11/politics/mary-mccord-william-barr-nyt/index.html
 
magnifier661 said:
Nope, the celebration will be guaranteed. Even if the judge doesn’t accept it, his ruling will be appealed in a higher court. Not swayed.

mags
Click to expand...

Appeals don't automatically win, you know.

barfo
 
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/12/politics/watergate-prosecutors-michael-flynn/index.html

(CNN)Sixteen former Watergate prosecutors have told a federal judge he has the authority to sentence former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn to prison despite the Justice Department's effort to toss the case.

The filings add prominent voices to the backlash against Attorney General William Barr's softening of criminal prosecutions against President Donald Trump's associates.
In legal memos sent to the court on Monday and obtained by CNN, the former prosecutors essentially laid out the legal footing they believe Judge Emmet Sullivan has to reject the dismissal request and sentence Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.
They compared the current situation at the Justice Department to Watergate, the scandal and criminal investigation that led to the President Richard Nixon's resignation.

The group, calling themselves friends of the court or "amici" in legal parlance, "experienced the 'Saturday Night Massacre,' during which an honorable Attorney General and an honorable Deputy Attorney General resigned or were dismissed rather than obey the instructions of a self-interested President to frustrate the work of an independent Special Prosecutor," they wrote to the judge.
 
I liked this part in their letter

"The Government’s Motion also does not adequately address questions of this Court’s
heightened Article III role in light of the posture of this case, with the Defendant having pled guilty
and awaiting sentencing. A guilty plea represents a turning point between “the Executive’s
traditional power over charging decisions and the Judiciary’s traditional authority over sentencing
decisions.” United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 746 (D.C. Cir. 2016). When a court
accepts a plea agreement, it “enters a judgment of conviction, which in turn carries immediate
sentencing implications.” Id.; see also United States v. Hector, 577 F.3d 1099, 1100 n.1 (9th Cir.
2009) (“[O]nce a guilty plea has been accepted, the defendant stands convicted.”); United States
v. Brayboy, 806 F. Supp. 1576, 1580 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (holding that government’s post-verdict Rule
48(a) motion was an attempt to “remove this Court’s sentencing authority” and “is exactly th[e]
type of absolute control by one branch over a power properly vested with another branch that the
constitutional scheme of separation of powers prohibits”)."


Trump is going to have to pardon him
 
Michael Flynn: judge pauses justice department effort to dismiss case

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/12/michael-flynn-case-justice-department-dismiss



Order paves way for legal experts to oppose Trump administration motion to exonerate former adviser


A federal judge has put the justice department’s decision to dismiss a criminal case against Michael Flynn, Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, on hold – opening the door for legal experts and other outside parties to oppose the administration’s motion to exonerate Flynn of lying to the FBI.

Judge Emmet Sullivan’s order is the latest development in the high-profile case, which has led critics, including Barack Obama and hundreds of former FBI and justice department officials, to question whether William Barr, the attorney general, was orchestrating favors for Trump.

Flynn, a retired general and a close Trump ally, pleaded guilty to a felony charge amid the special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 US election. The former administration official was charged with lying to the FBI about conversations with the Russian ambassador to the US during the presidential transition period. In exchange for leniency, Flynn cooperated with Mueller’s investigation as part of his plea agreement.

But Flynn sought to change his plea while awaiting sentencing, as the president floated the idea of a pardon.

The justice department said last week that the FBI had had no basis to question him, and federal prosecutors asked Sullivan to throw out their case against Flynn. None of the line prosecutors supervising the case signed the motion and one withdrew from the case.


Though lawyers for Flynn asked Sullivan to immediately toss out the charges, Sullivan said he wanted to hear more arguments. “Given the posture of the case,” he said, he anticipated that many outside parties would want to weigh in.

Sullivan has questioned Flynn in court before. During a 2018 hearing, he rejected a motion supported by the administration for probation, telling Flynn: “Arguably, you sold your country out.”

Flynn’s defense team said Sullivan’s order on Tuesday was prompted by a filing from a group that called itself “Watergate prosecutors” that questioned the justice department’s actions and suggested that political influence was at play.

Disputing the order, Flynn’s defense lawyer Sidney Powell and her co-counsel wrote in a court filing: “There is no place for third parties to meddle in the dispute, and certainly not to usurp the role of the government’s counsel.

“This travesty of justice has already consumed three or more years of an innocent man’s life – and that of his entire family,” Powell wrote. “No further delay should be tolerated.”

In a leaked web talk, Obama reportedly said the “rule of law is at risk” because the justice department dropped charges against Flynn. The chair of the House judiciary committee, Jerry Nadler, a New York Democrat, called the decision “outrageous” and said he intended to call Barr to testify about the handling of the case.

“We do not believe this case should have been brought, we are correcting that and we certainly hope that in the interest of true justice, that the judge ultimately agrees and drops the case against Gen Flynn,” said Kerri Kupec, a justice department spokesperson, in an interview Fox News on Tuesday evening.


The justice department did not immediately respond to the Guardian’s request for comment.
 
Well, it looks like Judge Sullivan appointed someone to argue the case against the DOJ. And he wants to know why Flynn shouldn't be "held in criminal contempt for perjury".


barfo
 
barfo said:
Well, it looks like Judge Sullivan appointed someone to argue the case against the DOJ. And he wants to know why Flynn shouldn't be "held in criminal contempt for perjury".


barfo
Click to expand...


So this appointed retired judge is essentially going to be an arbitrator?
 
magnifier661 said:
Click to expand...


perhaps DOJ doing their own creative editing to promote their own preferred conclusions.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ce-dept-effort-to-drop-flynn-case/ar-BB142Lmm
“If it is accurate that the F.B.I. official provided context around those notes, which is materially different from what they suggest, this could be a game changer in terms of how the court views the motivations behind the request to dismiss the case,” said Edward Y. Kim, a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan.
 
Last edited:
yankeesince59 said:
So this appointed retired judge is essentially going to be an arbitrator?
Click to expand...

It's more that since the prosecution decided to team up with the defense, this guy is now going to represent the other side, which was vacant after the DOJ went over to the dark side.

barfo
 
Michael Flynn could still face jail for perjury over his guilty plea as judge orders review of the case by former mafia prosecutor who said decision to drop the prosecution 'reeks of improper political influence'
  • U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan appointed a retired judge to investigate Flynn
  • It is latest sign that Sullivan is unwilling to accept DOJ dismissal of all charges
  • Former mob prosecutor will investigate whether Flynn lied in his guilty plea
  • Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI but later said he was tricked
  • Trump blasted Biden on Wednesday for request to 'unmask' Flynn in intel report
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8317637/Ex-judge-asked-evaluate-hold-Flynn-contempt.html
 
Kind of shocking. Trump's handpicked yes-man dropped all charges against Trump's ally, and this judge just ignores that? I think Barr would be a little more qualified to know whether Flynn should be prosecuted--he was appointed by Trump for this very type of situation.
 
barfo said:
It's more that since the prosecution decided to team up with the defense, this guy is now going to represent the other side, which was vacant after the DOJ went over to the dark side.

barfo
Click to expand...

Thanx for the info/clarification.
 
The Constitution Requires Judge Emmet Sullivan’s Lawless Amicus Order Against Michael Flynn Be Overturned
The U.S. Constitution makes clear that the judiciary has no business second-guessing prosecutorial decisions. That’s what Michael Flynn judge Emmet Sullivan decided to do.
Margot Cleveland
On May 13, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued a blatantly biased and unconstitutional order in the long-lasting Michael Flynn criminal case. To preserve the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers, the Department of Justice has no choice now but to seek a writ of mandamus from the D.C. Circuit Court ordering the criminal charge against Flynn dismissed and reassigning the case to another judge.

On Tuesday, Judge Sullivan shocked court watchers when he entered an order stating that, “at the appropriate time,” he intended to enter a scheduling order permitting “amicus curiae” or friend of the court briefs to be filed in Flynn case. Flynn, who more than a year ago pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI, was seeking to withdraw his guilty plea when the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charge against Flynn.

The government’s motion to dismiss highlighted new evidence uncovered by an outside U.S. attorney, Jeff Jensen, and detailed the government’s position that even if Flynn had made false statements to FBI agents about his conversations with the Russian ambassador, as a matter of law there was no crime because the false statements were not “material” to a legitimate investigation.

Another Jaw-Dropping Order
Soon after Judge Sullivan announced he would accept amicus briefs, a group of lawyers operating under the moniker Watergate Prosecutors filed a notice of its intent to file an amicus brief. That a group of left-leaning lawyers intended to relitigate Obamagate via the Flynn case wasn’t surprising. What was surprising—no, unbelievable—is what Judge Sullivan did on Wednesday: He entered an order “appoint[ing] The Honorable John Gleeson (Ret.) as amicus curiae to present arguments in opposition to the government’s Motion to Dismiss.”

This order was jaw-dropping for two reasons. First, the U.S. Constitution makes clear that the judiciary has no business second-guessing prosecutorial decisions. In fact, the very case Judge Sullivan cited for the proposition that he had the inherent authority to appoint an amicus curiae—United States v. Fokker—made clear Sullivan’s order was lawless.

cleveland5.14.a.jpg


In that case, the government had criminally charged Fokker Services with violations of export control laws. The government and defendant entered a deferred prosecution agreement, under which the government would dismiss the charges in exchange for Fokker Services agreeing to several compliance provisions. But when the parties went before a federal district court judge to formalize the arrangement and a waiver of the Speedy Trial Act, the presiding judge refused to accept the waiver—which in essence doomed the agreement—because he believed the agreement was too lenient on the business owners.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/1...us-order-against-michael-flynn-be-overturned/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top