Appeals court judges push back at request to dismiss Michael Flynn case

Oh.. I thought we were going to have a serious discussion...

My bad...

 

You raise some interesting points, but I wanted to pick this one, since the posts were getting pretty large!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-67_n6io.pdf

This is a very recent Supreme Court case which chastised the 9th Circuit Appeals Court for inappropriately appointing amicus, violating the principle of party presentation, where parties present their arguments and the court is supposed to be a neutral arbiter in the matter based on the presentations presented. Not only did Sullivan appoint amicus where none was necessary, he only appointed amicus to argue one way, lol.

I think, if Sullivan continues his biased antics, he's going to get smacked pretty hard.

 

LOL right back atcha... Of course Sullivan only appointed amicus to argue one way, because the original request was made by the department that is supposed to argue for the government. In this case, the 2020 version of the government is arguing against the 2017 version of the government, and it's more than understandable for Sullivan to get a neutral party to determine which version of the government has the better case (seems to be the 2017 version).

 

Is that your way of exiting the discussion because that's exactly what it sounds like. Given the Counsel's 2017 argument, documentation of the arguments and theories testified by Sally Yates, the motive of the Obama government was clear: To create an international quagmire with which to paralyze the Trump Administration.

When Flynn diplomatically resolved the landmine, they moved to create the case as we know it today. It's a huge scandal of extraordinary proportions.
It would be like if Carter attacked the Iranians just before Reagan took office. And this scandal is nakedly open, waiting for someone in a position of power to crack it open.

Were I in Congress right now, I'd do exactly that.

 

Neutral parties don't write op-eds. And if Sullivan was truly interested in upholding the 2017 case docket, he wouldn't have entertained perjury which wasn't a part of those charges but it WAS something former President Obama not-so-subtly suggested. If there's any actual political interference, it's not the supposed(without proof) interference on the part of Barr's DOJ. It however clearly exists wit Sullivan, Gleeson and Obama.

 

It is better than that. The Dec 2019 version of the DOJ is arguing against the mid 2020 version of the DOJ. Remember? There were ten Prosecutors who in December last year assured Sullivan they had Flynn by the short and curlies, and then there was but ONE (instructed by Barr) willing to go before Sullivan mid 2020 and attempt this farce of pretending there is no case against Flynn.

 

But it’s not a neutral party, to begin with. The amicus was asked to write a brief against dropping the charges, lol.

Further, as the SC case shows, Sullivan is stepping out of his role as neutral arbiter between two parties and picking a side, lol. Not the first time Sullivan has done this.

 

Actually, I don't remember that 10 prosecutors thing... It's been a ridiculously long path to whatever justice is going to be doled out here... One of the important things I do remember is that at some point, Mueller recommended ZERO prison time for his cooperation in his report. That should have been the end of it, but Flynn is risking actual jail time for perjury in attempting to retract his guilty plea(s)... That just makes zero sense to me...

I was listening to my Lawfare Podcast today and the 3 guests assume that Sullivan will eventually dismiss, although with or without prejudice is still TBD. Although they did talk about the clock, with one guy saying if Sullivan hasn't ruled by the election and Trump loses, he'll pardon without waiting...

 

I think maybe Flynn doesn’t want that on his record, and now has a good chance of not having it on his record, even if there was a recommendation of no jail time. His future employment opportunities probably rest on having a clean record.

 

Yep he was offered a deal......and would not take it......a lot of people are put under the very pressure you have highlighted and will simply "take it"

Glad he didn't.....and highlighted how the Mueller team was hiding evidence and exposed Obamagate

 

The latest. It seems Barr's DOJ is losing credibility with Judge Sullivan, and for bloody good reason. The DOJ has been altering the dates on notes of its own (now sacked) Investigators. In the ordinary course of events, Courts accept the veracity of Government documents, but in Trump's USA....that is now in grave doubt.

Why would they stuff around with this material and then produce it to the Court deciding the future of Humpty's Pal, Gen Flynn?

Just unbelieveable to me. Totally off the planet. It seems anything goes in Trump's DOJ. Nah, just nah.

https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/jud...ng-michael-flynn-evidence-hasnt-been-altered/

 

The Judge has no credibilty, but I don't disagree that the Mueller team that was handling this prosecution has any either.

 

The DOJ not only submitted Strzok and McCabe’s notes altered but submitted a realtered version of the altered notes when the court requested them a second time.

So Sullivan wants the DOJ to certify the notes are authentic and note who made the alterations and when the alterations were made.

At this point, Powell (Flynn’s attorney) has represented the alterations were made by “someone” and/or “a government agent”. Which, of course, is inadequate.

It appears the DOJ is trying to avoid revealing the person that altered the notes.