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

First, prosecutors are not good people. No, seriously it's one of the most corrupt professions in the world.

The prosecutor essentially argues for someone else's incarceration while at the end of the day, he enjoys his or her freedom.

That's why literally within the first 30 seconds of the video, the prosecutor cries out "justice". It's not because he believes it's a just verdict (Hell there isn't even a verdict yet). It's because he as a human has to come to the grips of the corrupt hypocrisy of the job, everyday.

So, don't use an appeal of authority whenever we discuss. It just lowers my thought on the person. And when that "authority" is a self ordained prosecutor, all the more.

The appeal or substitute of authority however seems to be very prominent in the world of administrative justice. As court's and lawyers cite law statutes as a substitute for their thinking.

That said, I managed to watch half way through the video. As a philosopher, I tend to view my view as superior in large part because I don't need a stature as a crutch for reasoning.

So the prosecutor starts off with an irrelevant hypothetical of a violent crime (Of course this is not a violent crime). He argues to you that the defendant has pled guilty and that the prosecutor has shown all of the evidence.

Let's stop right there. Like it or not, this court nor the defendant received all of the evidence. Not until after the additional evidence was uncovered.

I do believe that Van Grack was aware of the evidence at least in part, or he wouldn't have resigned from the case. Which would mean he lied to the court but apparently that's neither here nor there.

Certain liars you see, are more desirable than others especially if they are fellow prosecutors

Point of fact is that the newly submitted evidence exists and the existence let alone substance of the evidence raises questions not only about the guilt or innocence of the defendant but also of the properity of the investigation and prosecution.

On this alone, the prosecutors argument falls to the greater philosophical truth. In order for him to say "but he pled" requires him to ignore certain court developments.

We can go even deeper into the weeds of the prosecuting argument and ask: Why? Why argue against the defendant withdrawing his guilty plea?

If you believe, as you say that the defendant is guilty then it doesn't matter whether he pleas guilty or whether he -wait for it- fights it out in court!

One of the great misconception and intentional arguments of the prosecution is this motion of Flynn going free.

That only goes for if judge Sullivan agrees with the motion to dismiss. If on the other hand he simply accepts the withdrawal of the guilty plea then the case is deliberated in trial.

A nuisance to be sure for Judge Sullivan, but "perjury"? Let's look at the actual code for perjury.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621

The key word to use against Sullivan and Gleeson is willfully. The defendant must willfully lie(there are similar 1001 issues). But the only way you can possibly make the 1621 charge stick is if you can prove that Flynn was aware of evidence submitted into the record in 2019, in 2017-2018.

But you can't prove that because it wasn't in the court record at the time and Van Grack himself said that he wasn't aware. If we take him at his word, this new evidence factually did not exist at the time of the plea.

Flynn himself took a rather passive view of his own defense by believing that if they say he's guilty then he is. I could even argue that such a passive view was made without full awareness and therefore competence in his decision making. That's an argument usually reserved for insanity defense cases but if Gleeson and Sullivan want to go down the road of 1621, then there are plentiful of issues to be raised.

I don't have to make that argument though. I'd like to hope that his Honor sees that the record of 2019 is totally different from that of 2017 and 2018 and thus that Flynn told at minimum what he believed to be the truth at the time.

But back to the question: Why so ardent on the idea of upholding the guilty plea? Yelling out "he plea'd" is like a child saying "But mom!". Surely a prosecutor can bring more to the table than that, right?

Well that brings us to the DOJ's motion to dismiss. The DOJ argued several things in support of its motion but one of the most prevalent arguments is on materiality, central to any 1001 case.

Simply put, the Flynn case was never central or focal of the Mueller investigation and any claims otherwise is revisionist history for the singular purpose of prosecuting the defendant.

Not only this, but the idea of a lie is also in serious question, in that Flynn never actually discussed sanctions with the Russians. Bush_Lawyer tried to claim that the circumstances of the case are immaterial but that's a completely absurd argument to make. If the circumstances of the case are irrelevant then what exactly are we doing here?

The fact is, is that the prosecution wants to claim a 1001 charge.(And reading over the 1001 statue) combined with what we know raises a bigger question: How did Flynn's statements to the FBI especially in light of him being surveiled interfere in the Russian Investigation?

It didn't, the argument isn't anywhere near as "strong" as with the Papadouplis-Misfud thing where they argued that Papa getting the dates wrong kept them from getting to Misfud.

So in closing, I hold this entire case to be BS, there's serious unresolved questions pertaining to both 1621 and 1001, that could easily be resolved in a trial but there isn't an interest in a fair trial to determine guilt. The only interest is to see Flynn in shackles.

 

Not that they weren't formal sanctions. But that they were part of said sanctions.(Mind you, as I read over 1001. It's the claim that Flynn's statements interfered with a federal government agency).

This is laughably not true as it relates to the investigation because this claim (specifically) wasn't made in 2017-2018. It's only made now in this zeal for Flynn's prosecution.

But the claim touches on the scandalous truth that you and I spoke about and that Sally Yates admitted to between the lines.

The sanctions were set as a tripwire, one for the Russians and then for the Trump team. They were hoping at minimum for an escalating international incident and at most to get evidence of the greatest conspiracy theory that never was.

It's ****ing sick and disgusting and to me is just as big as the FISA part of the saga.

The Obama administration in its last days willingly set up an international quagmire to undermine the incoming administration.

And then to essentially charge the incoming national security advisor for diplomatically resolving that quagmire shows how dirty American politics can get.

 

Where were YOU with this argument when the FBI, Pence and Trump, the WH Counsel and Flynn himself said he lied about talking sanctions with Kislyak??

Could it have been they considered it a ridiculous argument??

I'm guessing Y

 

Sorry, that dog don't hunt.... Obama sanctions weren't even enough for at least 2 Republicans (1 dead patriot - McCain, 1 living dead- Graham)

SNIP

ENDSNIP

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/29/mccain-graham-say-they-will-seek-stronger-sanctions-on-russia.html

 

Their satisfaction or non satisfaction does not invalidate what Yates said or the documented 'surprise' at the successful deescalation. The senators to my knowledge were not briefed on the initiative by the outgoing team. Again, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and since that's the holy grail these days it's sufficient enough to say that they're guilty as charged.

 

The FBI agents said he told the truth.

 

Scofflaw judges rule.

 

You got em all down pat, don't ya?

 

The legal system in the US has been thoroughly corrupt for decades. The informed Left used to know that.
There is no justice where scofflaw judges and kangaroo courts rule.

"The FBI worked to create violent confrontations between factions on the radical left. The bureau was prepared in this case to commit violent acts itself. In New York, agents set cars on fire with "Molotov cocktails," making it appear that one faction was attacking another. FBI agents conducted at least five such bombings in 1973 and 1974." The Lawless State, The Crimes of the U.S. Intelligence Agencies, Morton H. Halperin, Jerry J. Bermin, Robert L. Borosage, and Christine M. Marwick, Penguin Books, NY, 1977. p. 125.

 

In all due respect...maybe you practice law Down Under, direct then the United States. But this post is scary.....very scary.


What doesn't it matter that the Court appointed someone; illegally, with a published bias? He has no reason to tell the truth or be objective.

 

So they bully Flynn into a plea to admit something he didn't do by threatening his family and basically bankrupting him, the true devious depths of the Mueller witch-hunt come to light its clear to everyone Flynn was nothing short of a political prisoner, he wants to change his plea to reflect the truth of the matter which is that is and always was innocent, the Dept of Justice accepts this in the interest of justice and drops the case, and left-wing anti-Trump activist judge blurs the lines of judicial integrity by refusing it even after a court of appeals says 'yes you must accept this', and now every political hitman is out writing opinion pieces that are little more than blog rants which are being used in court to justify the judge's attempt to railroad an innocent man.

But yet its Pres Trump that's the corrupt one here? Explain that one to us, my guy, if you please.

 

They literally rule people like Gleeson ineligible to be on the jury for this very reason. This case is so corrupted that were I Flynn's lawyer, I'd have several avenues for a mistrial.

 

yes, throughout history there has been some corruption, such as your 1970's example, but that does not give Trump the OK to do it every chance he gets

 

Show me any decision in the Flynn/Sullivan that says Gleeson is illegally appointed.

 

Any former Prosecutors in Congress or on SCOTUS?

That's his job, not his personal inclination.

I think that is just a tag line for his stuff 'Justice matters,' and of course it does.

It is not an 'appeal to authority' to simply set out ones credentials.

Should Lawyers ignore statutes, precedent?

A philosophical view is unlikely to have much success in Law.

It is an analogy. I get it. He is saying that 'violence' has been committed against 'we the people' by the manner in which the DOJ is dealing with Flynn.

Yes, it is true. Flyn pled guilty under oath before two separate DC Judges. It is incorrect to assert the DOJ has shown all its evidence. It assured the Court back in late 2019 that it had all the evidence it needed to support the plea of guilty.

Please list this 'new evidence.'

What 'Court developments? Why be coy and hide behind the expression 'certain court developments.' Spit them out so I know what you are referring to.

We can go even deeper into the weeds of the prosecuting argument and ask: Why? Why argue against the defendant withdrawing his guilty plea?

The best reason I have to believe Flynn is guilty is his Court confessions twice made under oath. All the rest is icing.

Huh?

No....there is still the DOJ motion to drop the charges.

What new evidence? Flynn lied. He knew he was lying. He admitts that. End of story.

What on Earth is '1621?' Flynn was not passive at all. He was assertive in front of two Judges before whom he swore his guilt under oath. Also, he had extremely competent legal representation and they also assured Sullivan they were well aware and satisfied that their client was/is guilty. That was also the DOJ's view back in late 2019.

The record which establishes the guilt of Flynn has never changed. The pleas of guilt just added dessert to the meal.

Extremely poor analogy. Crying Mum is nothing like telling two Federal DC Judges under oath that you are guilty of an offence.

What is a '1001 case?'

'Mueller' has zero to do with this case. No-one says it has.

Silly semantics. Fact is he lied about what he said to the Rusky....no matter what the substance of the lie was.

Where did I ever say that?

Literally makes no sense.

Melodramatic clap trap.

 

From mid-fall of 2019 to the present there's been a bunch of evidence that led to the current situation. As an example, the Priestap notes that show the full extent of corruption regarding the operation into Flynn. If Sullivan does allow the withdrawal(but not dismissal) then one lethal defensive argument is that it's a clear perjury trap. It satisfies all of the elements.

 

Guilty of being in a witch hunt - and the subject of a kangaroo clown show.

 

'Clear perjury trap?' Are you suggesting entrapment?

 

Man, that is such a powerful argument given all which has gone before. Yev got me convincved. No, let's see how you go with Sullivan, ey?

 

haha ii guess you don’t grasp law

 

Yes. I'll post the elements later, it's 3 AM est here and I'm sleepy.

 

Get ye to bed!!!!!!!! I have read up a bit on the Law on entrapment in the USA. No entrapment of Flynn. Sure, 'let's see if we can get him to lie,' but that is not entrapment at all.

 

Oh, but I beg to disagree. Those notes show clear intent on the outcome known to us. In addition they had the transcripts of the call when to quote Comey "I just sent them" in total violations of WH protocols.

It's very easy to argue entrapment given the facts of the case.

 

Don't care about Sullivan - so won't be going anywhere - and you are correct that no support was given for claim in the post you are responding to.

The problem here is that you were given arguments previously - after which you ran to the corner.

Now -if you like - I can easily back up my claim - as many have done over years this Clown Show has been operating.

My question to you is "why are you not already convinced" ?

 

As if the DOJ/FBI/WXYZ are working for Trump.
Google: Rosenstein/Mueller/Comey/Page, Sally Yates, Andrew McCabe, Mark Tolson, Andrew Weissman, Stefan Halper, ... .

The corrupt USG Deep State works for the Deep State.