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

I watched that entire video and Kirschner describes an unbelievable exchange between the court and the ****ing acting solicitor general. I thought he was kinda making it up, but turns out he wasn't...

SNIP
Judge Patricia Millett had one of the most compelling hypotheticals. To acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, she posed this scenario — imagine a criminal case, where the judge asked the government repeatedly if all potentially exculpatory materials had been turned over, and was told yes.

"Now the first day of trial, in the presence of the court, the defendant's attorney hands to the prosecutor a briefcase, filled to overflowing with 20 dollar bills falling out of the seams," Millett said. "It's handed to the prosecutor, with the U.S. attorney and the attorney general sitting there next to her."

Upon receipt of the briefcase, she continued, what if the government then submitted a Rule 48 motion to dismiss, now claiming that potentially exculpatory materials had not been turned over?

Is it Wall's position that the judge, who has just witnessed an outright bribe, would still have to grant the government's motion to dismiss?

Yes, Wall said, adding that the court could still impose sanctions.
ENDSNIP

https://today.westlaw.com/Document/...ontextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

Oh great... the court can sanction the lawyers, but the defendant walks??

I rest my case why these types have to be rooted out of positions of power in Washington. They simply cannot even understand a simple bribery hypothetical.

This is a complete no-brainer decision... I just sort of hope it takes as long as McGahn did (@ 13 weeks), although this is clearly not as difficult as that one...

 

I stopped at 4:26 mark because he was letting his bias be shown. "Bill Barr has abdicated his responsibility" is an opinion and ignores the reasons that were given as to why the case was dropped per the filing that the DOJ gave.

 

Sure. That's why they dropped charges.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/1...-latest-court-hearing-on-michael-flynns-case/

Jensen’s probe uncovered substantial exculpatory evidence withheld from Flynn and his attorneys that established that the FBI agents did not believe Flynn had lied during the interview. Jensen also concluded that the questioning of Flynn was “untethered” from any legitimate investigatory purpose and instead seemed to be a perjury trap set to catch Flynn in a lie. Jensen recommended the DOJ dismiss the charge against Flynn, and Barr agreed.

 

When they dropped it they did not say he was railroaded or that he didn’t lie. The reasons given were suck BS the judge still wants answers.

 

Oh you meant the actual word "railroaded" wasn't used. I get it.

The judge isn't the prosecution.

I mean I know that's the leftist version of justice though.

 

No I mean what I said. Read it again if you need to.

 

Then clearly you don't understand what this means:

Jensen’s probe uncovered substantial exculpatory evidence withheld from Flynn and his attorneys that established that the FBI agents did not believe Flynn had lied during the interview. Jensen also concluded that the questioning of Flynn was “untethered” from any legitimate investigatory purpose and instead seemed to be a perjury trap set to catch Flynn in a lie. Jensen recommended the DOJ dismiss the charge against Flynn, and Barr agreed.

 

Nah I just don’t find the federalist a credible source. You must not either since you didn’t bother to source it.

 

Oh I see. You'd like to pretend Horowitz and Jensen's findings don't exist.

Maybe Mueller can do something.

Please proceed ignoring reality. You've been great at it for the last 4 years. I really don't care.

 

I suggest you get through that, and watch it all. The bloke makes sense.

 

No, they exist.
Horowitz, however, concluded the FBI was legally justified in launching its inquiry into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. There was no "documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI’s decision to conduct these operations," the report said.

 

Only makes sense because both your biases are aligned. I'm not going to watch someone try and argue from a conclusion. I realize that everyone has biases. And a little bit doesn't bother me its a natural human instinct. But when its overt like he was then they will be selective with the facts in order to fit their already pre-conceived conclusions. I prefer those people that realize their bias and tries to minimize it by arguing from the facts. If he had omitted that part and just argued the law I would have listened. And what I pointed out there was not the only sign that he was letting his bias confirmation shine through. There was another instance when he started talking about Ms. Powell.

 

Yeah, no "improper motivation" huh? No "political bias" huh? Is that why Clinesmith just pleaded guilty to altering an email from the CIA in order to obtain a warrant? I mean, he just "accidentally" altered that email huh? Had no reason what so ever huh?

 

Laziness. They’d have gotten the warrant regardless

 

Which, of course, doesn't mean what you're trying to portray it to mean.

You know, since that wasn't in the scope of what he was looking at, and such evidence is evident in subsequent investigations.

Keep peddling the spinning wheel. After 4 years of this level of nonsense it's getting really boring with the back and forth.

 

Regardless, it was a contributing factor. And what I said had nothing to do with getting the warrant. It had to do with what you said in your post that was talking about Horowitz and supposedly no "documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI’s decision to conduct these operations,". (copied directly from your post).

The fact that Clinesmith is pleading guilty shows that to be false.

 

He knows. It's just what he does.

 

This is a very misleading post, the court didn't "push back" against anything, they held oral arguments and a ruling hasn't been issued at the time of my post.

To the extent of speculation, this was actually a very good day for Flynn and not so much for Sullivan as two pertinent facts became apparent:

1) Gleeson's illicit intrusion into the court process will not be allowed, even by the high court. Sullivan himself established that record 27 times prior, he's going to have to live with that record.

2)Alot of Sullivan's recent actions have come back to bite him as CNN even acknowledged that Wilkinson agreed that Sullivan would be bound to the higher court's order.

The opinion leaned towards allowing an en banc hearing without the shenanigans and only on the actual record before the Court. Essentially, the appeals court will remedy the issues created by Sullivan but they won't interject a ruling on the actual case.

However, considering the DOJ's lengthy entry, and that the higher court rejected the faulty allegations against the department DOJ, the third option (going straight to sentencing) has been all but eliminated for Sullivan. Before he can even make an appearance of a neutral judge handing out a sentence, he must first rule on the withdrawal of the guilty plea, or the DOJ motion to dismiss.

Even if he went to sentencing, his uncouth behavior essentially guarantees Flynn a new trial. His best bet forward, if he really distrusts Barr is to accept the withdrawal of the guilty plea and wait for a new DOJ

 

No it doesn’t

 

Flynn never had a trial in the first place, because he pleaded guilty to save everybody the effort...

But I suspect Sullivan, and the Appeals court will take this opportunity to wait for a new and improved DOJ...

Nothing Sullivan has done to date has come back to bite him... although the 2 judges who tried to grant mandamus had their asses handed to them by simply having an en banc hearing...

Here's what gonna happen

1. The en banc hearing will allow Sullivan to hold his hearing, that result coming in a couple of months. Gleesons report will be allows to be entered for the record.
2. Sullivan will schedule his hearing and deny the government motion. Flynn's group will appeal to this same court.
3. This will now likely be after the election, which Trump has likely lost, so he will pardon Flynn and the appeals court won't get a chance to rule.

 

As I've said before, this is exactly what the left wants to happen. That way they can still call Flynn whatever they want...and more importantly...Orange Man Bad.

 

Nobody on the left wants Flynn pardoned, since he's clearly guilty as charged. But they've certainly realized Trump will continue to abuse his powers to free his friends and there is nothing they can do about it except force him to do it...

 

there was no cash exchanged and more important the mueller team actually lied to the court repeatedly when they claimed to have turned over all the evidence

 

Judge Sullivan is now a party in the case by making a motion for review.

The DC Circuit had better be careful because this could easily warrant a Special Counsel investigation based on the reject of the DOJ motion to dismiss the case.

 

Yep, a Special Counsel is in order to look at the whole Flynn court case...

Of course, this would include Biden and the January 5th, 2017 oval office meeting.