Court-appointed adviser blasts 'corrupt' DOJ move to drop Flynn case

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/11/court-corrupt-doj-drop-michael-flynn-case-412555

Ya know, this bloke Gleeson obviously does not mince his words. It will be of no surprise to anyone who has been following my comments on the Flynn case to read that I agree with him 100%. Why on Earth is Heaven being moved to so obviously favour what Trump wants? Barr is just Trump's muppet on this, so to that extent, he has a very weak excuse (putting professionalism and integrity aside,) but Gleeson is getting straight to the very sharp point, and I hope he assists Sullivan to expose whatever chicanery has gone on (from all sides) which has led to this soap opera, entirely political in nature. The Law is being tortured by POTUS and Barr to meet their ends. Gleeson seems to be their Waterloo.

This thing is littered with extraordinary and equally absurd twists against a background of the humdrum legal banal daily events, and some people have been convinced that what is happening with Flynn is injust. It is not.

Fact is, the reverse. The bloke lied, the bloke must have known what he was saying to that Rusky would be recorded, yet he still lied about what he said to that Rusky concerning a sensitive party political issue which involved Russia and the interests of America. He lied to Pence, he lied to the FBI. Unsurprisingly he was charged. He pleads guilty under oath to the first Judge. He then pled guilty under oath to Sullivan and at the same time, the DOJ tell Sullivan they have everything required to justly and safely convict Flynn.

That was late 2019. Come 2020. Sullivan and Flynn reach the day when Sullivan will sentence Flynn. To his absolute credit, Sullivan again takes Flynn carefully through the charge and asks Flynn all the right questions about whether the plea was voluntary, whether he was happy to waive Brady, whether he was happy with the competence of the legal representation he had. Flynn affirms the lot. Then, again to his credit, Sullivan flags that the sentence may be more severe than Flynn may have anticipated, and again to Sullivan's credit, he invites Flynn to have a think and then decide whether he'd rather have an adjournment. Flynn takes the adjournment. We then have the circus of the DOJ doing total backflip, and Flynn seeking to recant his plea. Sullivan appoints Amicus (Gleeson.)

Then, Trump starts tweeting, then dumbarse Powel makes public noises, then Fox gets on the bandwagon. Then Powell tries the absurd steps of mandamus, remove Amicus and bias. Ultimately, the Full DC Appeal Court makes the totally unextraordinary decision that Powell's motions are crap, as they always were.

And here we are, with Gleeson today delivering this rocket which nails the only thing which might make any of this understandable. (I have posted about it before.) Trump is trying to help his mate, and subvert justice. That is what Sullivan MUST, under 49A, be satisfied is NOT happening.

Further, why on Earth would he allow Flynn to recant given all the lead up, with all the cautions, warnings and alerts Flynn was given, and Flynn's insistence on being guilty and that all was well etc (as I have described above?)

Why would he allow the DOJ to drop the charges, given that in late 2019, the same DOJ was assuring Sullivan they had Flynn on toast and all was above board?

Nah.

Why is Heaven and Earth being moved inside the same DOJ to see a very guilty man walk off scot-free?

Trump and an attempt to corrupt the Court.

 

Trump corruption of the DOJ on full display.

His supporters won’t care, and in fact will cheer him on.

 

the guy was illegally appointed, he was anti flynn from the get go writing op ed’s about him.

his opinion doesn’t matter

 

Sorry struth, you are wrong. The full DC Appeal Court found he was legally appointed, and that is the end of that unless the Supreme Court says otherwise. You have no choice but to accept it as a fact of Life.

I am not anti-Flynn per se, and neither is Gleeson. Just like me, Gleeson is writing about matters of Law, not matters of personal popularity.

 

Gleeson is the first person to ever be called as a prejudiced 'witness'(not really, he didn't witness anything) of the State.

You know damn well his appointment is a joke, essentially in lieu of unproven accusations against the DOJ.

"We claim corrupt bias, so to counter we'll introduce a more corrupt player!"

 

Link? I have no idea what you are referring to. He has views as do I, and as do you. Does that fact preclude him (or hypothetically me or you) from mounting the same views in front of Sullivan? Of course not.

Nope, I know no such thing. I always had the view his appointment was according to US Law, and the full DC Appeal Court says I am right. You'll have to clarify this word salad........'essentially in lieu of unproven accusations against the DOJ.'

Again, that has gone right over my head. It makes no sense on any level I know of.

 

where did the court say that? i thought they only heard the writ?

 

and Gleeson has been out for Flynn since day one. The court even mentioned how sullivan picked someone that was bias

 

Now, Politico(and the OP) bolster Gleeson's argument as some stunning relevation. But it's really not. His argument is pretty well summed up by the OP.

1) Flynn "lied" to the court in retracting his guilty plea. But wait, Gleeson also uses the Government's denial of the defendant's claims against the defendant.

How can the court claim it's a lie, but then take the Government's word at face value? How can Gleeson argue political bias when the government takes a stance in opposition to the defendant?

Of course at even greater standing in this situation is the rights of the defendant. Were Gleeson's view of the law to prevail, you better be damn sure of what you're pleaing, you'll be seen a liar if you want to retract.

Suffice it to say, both Gleeson and Sullivan have taken a position contrary to the law. Harming all future defendants.

2) Political interference on behalf of Flynn.

This isn't even worth a dignified response, infact in addressing the so-called Flynn lie and Gleeson's reliance on the Government's argument (while accusing the same of corruption which is absolutely adorable). Gleeson's slippery tongue tries to have it both ways out of his mouth, but I'm about to tie a verbal knot in it.

First, his so called evidence. It's not even circumstantial evidence. It's literally his opinion on the Government's motion to dismiss.

This is not the first time that an argument has come before the Court on Trump's tweets. However. ...

1) Your Honor, Trump's tweets are not a matter of the court record and has absolutely no bearing on the case. Even if Mr.Gleeson entered them into the record and you would accept it, he would still bear the burden of proving that this DOJ was influenced by the POTUS.

Understandably, he doesn't actually possess proof of this so he played the slight of hand detailed earlier.

However your honor, there's a philosophical statement that refutes this logic: Absent of evidence is not proof of absence. Just because the Government didn't concur with the defendant, does not mean that the defendant's claims aren't worth reviewing, that pertains to the withdrawal that you've yet to decide on

In any event, I reject as philosophically inconsistent the Amicus's motion that he can make an argument of improperity by contrasting the Government's position. He bears a burden of proof that is to show improperity without any other possible explanation.

For starters, as a part of any conspiracy you would like to think that you could establish contact between the Flynn Counsel and the DOJ.

Even if he himself couldn't prove that contact, we'd all agree that would be the basis of that conspiracy.

Yet, your honor what came first: The motion to dismiss or the motion to withdraw the guilty plea?
. You can feel free to take your time and look in the case calendar your Honor, it was the motion to withdraw my client's guilty plea.

If this unfounded conspiracy had ANY merits at all, why would I bother with a retracted guilty plea, ask you to dismiss the case but also be prepared to defend my client in oral arguments?

I could have simply waited for the motion of dismissal that I should supposedly know as part of the conspiracy.

Speaking of the developments in this case, you know full well of the evidence the government has recently turned over, finally fulfilling its Brady Obligations.

That evidence establishes tremendous doubt on the actual guilt of my client, regardless of what was or wasn't pled. So let's examine that.

3) Gleeson's failing attempts to revive a Flynn-Russian conspiracy.

So after failing miserably at claiming that my client is a liar and of any actual collusion between our team and the DOJ, we're back to square one.

First off, if you read the appointment order for the Special counsel, there's plenty to see but what you won't see is a charge pertaining to my client and a conspiracy with Russia.

Infact, not even the lobbying firm case that was the central point of our cooperation until we were told to lie in court had anything to do with the primary special counsel investigation.

So you'll have to forgive me if I find it absurd that Gleeson has taken this position. Further, just as the case goes for political interference supposedly in this case, Gleeson can't prove his claims here either!

Several transcripts have been released and they show that my client did not alter or attempt to alter the Russian Sanctions. And I can't wait to see the logic of how these calls affected the probe!

You won't see such reasoning in the Mueller Report and they were the ones actually investigating it!

So, what of this "lie"? That my client didn't believe that he discussed sanctions. But it's more true than not, as sanctions mostly imply finances. Yet the only direct words by my client refer to the consulate.

My client engaged in diplomacy, and he averted even if for a time an escalation between Russia and America, which certainly is in our interests.

We don't want them to hack us but we also don't want to lose any access we have to the Kremlin if they completely threw our people out for example.

In closing, my client served his country and his people. He didn't lie to you anymore than he did to the FBI.

You can decide what you will with the motion to dismiss, but I argue that the newly submitted evidence leans towards my client being allowed to defend himself and if he's to be found guilty, then by his own peers.

 

Wow. What a diatribe. I mean a compelling legal argument.

You should send it to the DOJ. I’m sure they will pay you exactly what it’s worth.

 

if we were to take Sullivan and his bias illegally appointed stooge’s theory someone can never withdraw a guilty plea without fear of being charged with perjury...that’s just silly...and a giant threat to the criminal justice system...it’s the view i would expect in Stalin or Poll Pot’s regimes

 

The SCOTUS ruled 9-0 about appointing outside parties like this....said it was illegal and violated the prinicpals of our legal system
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-67_n6io.pdf

"The Ninth Circuit panel’s drastic departure from the principle of party presentation constituted an abuse of discretion. The Nation’s adversarial adjudication system follows the principle of party presentation. Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U. S. 237, 243. “In both civil and criminal cases, . . . we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.” Id., at 243. That principle forecloses the controlling role the Ninth Circuit took on in this case. No extraordinary circumstances justified the panel’s takeover of the appeal. Sineneng-Smith, represented by competent counsel, had raised a vagueness argument and First Amendment arguments homing in on her own conduct, not that of others. Electing not to address the party-presented controversy, the panel projected that §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) might cover a wide swath of protected speech, including abstract advocacy and legal advice. It did so even though Sineneng-Smith’s counsel had presented a contrary theory of the case in her briefs and before the District Court. A court is not hidebound by counsel’s precise arguments, but the Ninth Circuit’s radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale. On remand, the case is to be reconsidered shorn of the overbreadth inquiry interjected by the appellate panel and bearing a fair resemblance to the case shaped by the parties. Pp. 3–9. 910 F. 3d 461, vacated and remanded."

 

And yet, not a single response (other than this.). Your sarcasm is actually reportable as its borderline insulting (I did not however miss the insult)

If you cannot engage in conversation then don't. It saves me the time to reply and yours to post.

 

I'll make it easy for you. They did not remove Amicus Gleeson despite being asked to.

 

Okay, let's go to your party and accept he is biased. So what? He will not just make stuff up. You don't get away with that in Law. You will get short down in a nano second, especially when there are Appeal Courts hanging over your head. Lawyers (with the exception of Powell) like to retain professional credibility, and legal integrity.

 

That literally makes no sense, so I cannot respond to most of the rest. It is peripheral that Flynn seemingly lied to Sullivan. It is also self evident. On at least TWO occasions UNDER OATH he swore he was guilty. That swearing was no less than to a Judge! That it is an apparent lie is evidenced by his attempt now to claim he is not guilty. Sullivan may well allow him to recant, but it will not just happen because Flynn merely says he wants to recant. Sullivan will want to be satisfied that he ought to allow him to recant. It may well be that Flynn can point to irregularities in the investigation process but two things still then need to be addressed ~ (a) despite any such irregularities, both ends of the Bar Table solemnly informed Sullivan that Flynn was guilty, Flynn himself, and the DOJ at the end of last year, and (b) how does any such irregularity impact (given the pleas of guilty) on his innocence or guilt. Sure, for example, cuplatory evidence may have been obtained illegally, but If there is a Defendant standing in front of a Judge swearing guilt, that that the best evidence of guilt one can get, despite other evidence possibly being tainted.

I am not aware of how US Courts may deal with what is known as 'judicial notice' down here. Trump's many tweets and comments on TV matters of public record, and they amount to evidence highly suggestive of motive to politically interfere.

Going to the last point.....Yes, exactly and that is absolutely what Sullivan ought to do and what I am sure he is anxious to do. The DOJ tried to thwart that oversight. It is naive to suggest that at not ime in this courtse of this farce, there was no communication between Flynns Lawyers and the DOJ. That happems as a matter of daily course and is quite normal. Going to your former point, yes it is fact that the DOJ has done a 360 degree flip on its position before the Court. In late 2019, it solemnly submitted to Sullivan that they had all they needed to prove guilt and they were completely of his guilt. Sullivan will want that flip thorough examined and explained.

This point is largely misconceived and has nothing to do with what is before Sullivan. It reeks of attempts at legal pomposity and posture. It has no substance. It is unnecessary to go into much detail about all the circumstances of Flynn's call to that Rusky. Some passing comment ~ at that time Flynn was a nobody and was in no position to be talking on behalf of the US. He was not then serving his Country or the citizens of the US. He was asked about what he said in that call, and when he answered, he lied to both Pence and the FBI. He admitted he lied to the FBI. He made that admission not only to the FBI, but also while sworn to two separate Federal DC Judges. QED.

When this case first started to become controversial, I made a post here, that I thought the cart was being put before the horse. I still have this view. The first thing to be done is the decision on whether to allow Flynn to recant. If Sullivan decides not to allow him to recant, that allows the DOJ to take another look at whether they want to continue with their attempt to have the charges dismissed. After all, it then is confronted with the situation where a bloke has a plea of guilty recorded by the Court. Is it even possible in that circumstance for the charge to be dismissed?

While it is my view that Sullivan ought not allow Flynn to recant or allow the DOJ to drop the charges, I do not discount the possibility that Sullivan may allow it. After all, neither you, I or nor Sullivan have yet seen what must be examined to decide those issues, so I have no expectation of Sullivan other than I reckon he will take the view that both Flynn and the DOJ have the job of pushing schit up hill, not impossible, but it is not a gimme.

 

This worth a look. Great analogy in the first half of the video.

 

Reading it now... seems to be a shorter version of what he filed in June (I think... earlier this year anyway)

My favorite part is his refuting of the claim that the FBI witnesses could be impeached, yet they reportedly listed people other than those in the actual interview....



I really must read the Govmint filing he's referring to if I need a good laugh. Somehow, Pete Strzok text messages are relevant to Flynn lying to everybody and his brother...

Sullivan has hearing on the 29th... was hoping for more of a mid-October date myself...

P.S. It's 48(a), not 49..

 

Lock him up! Lock him up!

 

I'll let an actual prosecutor for the Justice Department explain it for you...

 

Yes. I am a two-finger typist and most of my typos will involve keys right beside each other.

 

Trump is destroying the trust in the DOJ and the rule of law... Sad!

 

if Trump wants to pardon him, pardon him, but stop corrupting the legal system

 

Remember how irreverent the democrats were for Lt Col Vindman? Will they want him prosecuted for lying to Congress as badly as they want the scalp of an actual combat veteran like General Michael Flynn? The truth is, Gen Flynn was set up. There was no legal predicate for even sending in agents to interview him. He was not read his rights, in fact, was told he didn't need a lawyer. He was not told he was the subject of an investigation. The agents said he was not lying, yet their notes of the meeting were altered to say that he did lie. Then, after bankrupting him by persecuting him relentlessly, they resorted to extortion, threatening to put his children in jail unless he confessed to lying to the FBI. This is a clear case of prosecutorial abuse. Now after the scam has been exposed it still doesn't end for this decorated war hero. The Judge has decided to be prosecutor and jury and a party to the case for which he is overseeing. This has never ever been done before in the history of American Jurisprudence.

The American People are not stupid. They see what you people are doing. They see that you are the tyrants, they see that you are the liars.

Vindman lied to Congress about what Trump said and for that he needs to go to prison not just for perjury, but for treason.

 

Mate, you are re-inventing a wheel long ago discussed and rendered irrelevant to what is happening now. If all of that were true, why on Earth did Flynn plead guilty under oath before two separate Judges, and why did the DOJ insist they had him on toast at the end of 2019. I am not going to go over the old ground which has been well-trodden over.

Who is this 'you' being referred to. I do trust it does not include me.

Vindman is not the subject of this Thread, but I will comment.....there is zero sufficient evidence to back up your 'by the Prayer Book' rant.