fbi handwritten notes - Michael Flynn

[JohnRoberts]

The judge in charge of the Flynn case is ignoring the fact that both parties in the Flynn case want to abandon it, and is bringing in an outside third party to argue against (what both parties want.)

Coincidentally about a week ago SCOTUS recently decided a similar case "U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith"  9-0 (authored by Ginsburg),  another precedent "U.S. v. Fokker Servs. B.V." resulted in a spank down from SCOTUS, This could make strike 3 for activist 9th circuit if Judge Sullivan continues to ignore precedent.

I won't pretend to read his mind, but the political agenda seems pretty apparent.

Interesting times...

JR

 

 

[Matador]

Indeed, both sides want it dropped:  Barr wants it dropped, because Trump wants it dropped, and Flynn certainly wants it dropped.

Speaking of precedent:  Rule 48 has never been invoked to drop charges against a defendant after that defendant has pleaded guilty.  As in, not once...in the history of the United States.

So what precedent is he ignoring, exactly?

 

[fazer]

Entrapment is entrapment.  It’s used by DOJ, FBI and Congress.  So this is the precedent case I guess.  In the past 2 wrongs make a right when it comes to political agendas .  It all smells funny.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Indeed, both sides want it dropped:  Barr wants it dropped, because Trump wants it dropped, and Flynn certainly wants it dropped.

Speaking of precedent:  Rule 48 has never been invoked to drop charges against a defendant after that defendant has pleaded guilty.  As in, not once...in the history of the United States.

So what precedent is he ignoring, exactly?

I cited two....  maybe I wasn't clear...

JR

 

[fazer]

Judge Sullivan has become a non bias judge in this case.  It obvious he has a political agenda refusing to drop the case with both prosecutor and defense wanting to drop and is creating a precedent that threatens everybody’s rights as a defendant if allowed to go further.  IMO it looks like he is hoping to drag this past the election in hopes of a new president and new appointed AG to prosecute again.  How would you like to have this happen to you in a trial.  If it’s a political answer you wish for wait till it becomes precedence to allow judges to use for there own prejudgment.  It’s a terrible precedent for are rights. 

 

[Gold]

IMO it looks like he is hoping to drag this past the election in hopes of a new president and new appointed AG to prosecute again. 

He plead guilty to lobbying violations for being an unregistered foreign agent while also being the  incoming head of the NSA.  He wasn’t charged with those crimes.  If these charges are dropped he can be charged with the other stuff he pled guilty to.

 

[JohnRoberts]

He plead guilty to lobbying violations for being an unregistered foreign agent while also being the  incoming head of the NSA.  He wasn’t charged with those crimes.  If these charges are dropped he can be charged with the other stuff he pled guilty to.

Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.

Beria was Soviet government official under Stalin...
====
I am repeating an old theme of mine about process crimes that the federal government uses to harangue citizens (like Scooter Libby, even Martha Stewart). In my ideal world, politicians would be liable for perjury penalties for lying to the public. One pretty revealing thing about the declassified testimony released recently is how many high profile government officials, and politicians were saying one thing publicly, and then denying it when under oath. 

If they want to put us in jail for lying to them, they need to go to jail for lying to us (for years).

JR

 

[Gold]

If they want to put us in jail for lying to them, they need to go to jail for lying to us (for years).

You don't have to be a high ranking government official to know it's wrong to lie to the police. Be carful what you wish for, some don't discount our President as a "blowhard", some see it as "lies".

 

[JohnRoberts]

You don't have to be a high ranking government official to know it's wrong to lie to the police. Be carful what you wish for, some don't discount our President as a "blowhard", some see it as "lies".

That is a popular characterization coming from your team. Opinions vary, but keep trying.

I stand by my irritation at politicians and high ranking government officials saying one thing publicly and another when under oath.  Apparently that is not illegal, but it sure is wrong.

JR

 

[Gold]

Opinions vary, but keep trying.

I wasn't aware of anyone arguing it's just fine to lie to law enforcement. I understand the argument is some sort of entrapment. A high ranking government official not knowing what's going on when being interviewed by law enforcement is a stretch.

 

[fazer]

To me the bigger problem is the judge  and the precedent this would set.  He is no longer a judge but a operative.  This needs supreme court intervention or it becomes like JR says  " Show me the man and i'll find the Crime"  only the Judge is the DA for the Party not the people.

 

[Matador]

People are citing 'precedent' without actually looking at the underlying cases.

Again: Rule 48 requires 'leave of the judge' when being used.  Rule 48 HAS NEVER BEEN INVOKED to drop charges against someone who pled guilty to a crime.  As in IT'S NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.

 

[hodad]

"U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith"  9-0 (authored by Ginsburg), 
JR

I'm not a lawyer, but you seem to be attributing something to this case that isn't there.  It does not invalidate Matador's point at all.  And in the matter of judicial overreach (which it actually does seem to deal with), I don't think it's dealing with the same issues that are at hand in the Flynn case. 

 

[Matador]

This all begs an interesting question:  what "shoe is going to drop"?  What "big things are on the horizon"?

Let's game theory this: assume Obama (and for fun, Biden) knew exactly what was happening.  There's a video of them ordering the DOJ to investigate Trump to gain political traction. 

What exactly is the outcome that the right will be outraged about?  What will the right demand in response?

Here's a few previewed arguments:

1) Trump tweeted: "When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total. And that's the way it's got to be. It's total."
2) At a speech, Trump said: "I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president."
3) Dershowitz argued that if a president used executive power to aid in an election effort, it wasn't impeachable (e.g. a crime, in his opinion).
4) If subpoenaed, Obama can just refuse to show, right?  So can Biden?

I can't wait to see what the argument against Biden and Obama is going to be, after listening for two years that 'president's can do whatever they want, fire whomever they want'.

 

[Gold]

If the Republicans insist on frothing up the Hunter Biden thing the Dems should go after Ivanka mercilessly. She has been involved in so many shady deals in the last few years it's hard to keep track. Like all the Chineese patents awarded to her. An enterprising Dem could make a lot of hay about that. Along with papa's Chineese loans coming due soon. There is very little media coverage. It would also have the distinct benefit of driving Trump nuts.

 

[JohnRoberts]

People are citing 'precedent' without actually looking at the underlying cases.

Again: Rule 48 requires 'leave of the judge' when being used.  Rule 48 HAS NEVER BEEN INVOKED to drop charges against someone who pled guilty to a crime.  As in IT'S NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.

I don't know what rule 48 means but my search engine does

Rule 48. Dismissal

(a) By the Government. The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant's consent.

(b) By the Court. The court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint if unnecessary delay occurs in:

(1) presenting a charge to a grand jury;

(2) filing an information against a defendant; or

(3) bringing a defendant to trial.

the judges do not routinely prolong a case when both the prosecution (DOJ) and defense both want to drop the case.

I am just a layman (not a lawyer), but this looks and quacks, like an activist judge trying to use his authority (with leave of court)  to make a political statement.

Good luck after years, I would expect you guys to run out of energy, but apparently not.

====

Drip drip drip... more poop with Susan Rice's CYA memo/email.... she has been left to hold the bag multiple times when caught lying to the public, I guess she got tired of being the patsy.

drip drip drip....

JR

 

[Matador]

I don't know what rule 48 means but my
I am just a layman (not a lawyer), but this looks and quacks, like an activist judge trying to use his authority (with leave of court)  to make a political statement.

Careful! Before you know it, you'll be reading minds!

#twomovies

 

[JohnRoberts]

Careful! Before you know it, you'll be reading minds!

#twomovies

Thanks for keeping me honest... it is the only logical assessment I could make , but indeed it is my subjective opinion. 

Prolonging a case by dragging in external parties when both principals to the actual case want to drop is hard to explain without some mental gymnastics.  Yes my personal bias points me this way.

JR

 

[hodad]

Prolonging a case by dragging in external parties when both principals to the actual case want to drop is hard to explain without some mental gymnastics.  Yes my personal bias points me this way.

JR

You seem oblivious to the numerous times Flynn stated his guilt, under oath, in that court.  And you also seem oblivious to the actual facts of the case--Flynn lied under oath.    Further, you seem oblivious to the fact that Barr's actions in this case are absolutely unprecedented, which undoubtedly puts the judge in a peculiar position.

(Sullivan, in case you're unaware, was appointed by a Republican president, and was considered suitably conservative as a judge until Trump turned on him.  He was even praised by the propagandists of Fox News when he was put on this case.) 

Flynn is a scumbag--you soil yourself by defending him.  (That Trump soils himself makes no difference--he's already covered head to toe in feces.) 

 

[JohnRoberts]

You seem oblivious to the numerous times Flynn stated his guilt, under oath, in that court.  And you also seem oblivious to the actual facts of the case--Flynn lied under oath. 

He lied by saying he was guilty to get the government boot off his neck. They already broke him, and were threatening his family.

Further, you seem oblivious to the fact that Barr's actions in this case are absolutely unprecedented, which undoubtedly puts the judge in a peculiar position.

Indeed it is unprecedented times.

The judge's responsibility is to serve as an umpire between prosecution and defense... not act as an additional prosecutor.

(Sullivan, in case you're unaware, was appointed by a Republican president, and was considered suitably conservative as a judge until Trump turned on him.  He was even praised by the propagandists of Fox News when he was put on this case.) 

so?

Flynn is a scumbag--you soil yourself by defending him.  (That Trump soils himself makes no difference--he's already covered head to toe in feces.)

Decorated 4 star General.

I will not reply in kind toward you personally, but please lighten up. You seem angry, or do you always talk like that?

JR