Are Barr/Trump slowly unraveling the Michael Flynn prosecution?

[fskimospy]

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan did not immediately grant the DOJ’s motion to dismiss its case. Instead, he appointed a former federal judge to argue against the request, and submitted a schedule to allow third parties to submit arguments in the case.

Is this a common practice? It seems as though the judge has appointed another prosecutor and is inviting third party comment on the case.

It’s not a common practice - basically the judge is saying that the DOJ is no longer representing the interests of the people of the United States so someone else has to step in. That’s how corrupted it has become under Barr.

 

[interchange]

Common plea bargain, but in this case the prosecutors illegally withheld information, lied to the previous judge, hid and/or destroyed evidence and committed prosecutorial misconduct to such a scale that the DoJ had no choice but to drop the charges.

Prosecutorial misconduct - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But hey, we all know Orange menace bad, so any and all illegalities against him or his supporters is just fine.

Why do you watch Sean Hannity? Actually, you don't need to answer that. I know why "reality" shows are entertaining. Why repeat the nonsense here, though?

 

[Greenman]

It’s not a common practice - basically the judge is saying that the DOJ is no longer representing the interests of the people of the United States so someone else has to step in. That’s how corrupted it has become under Barr.

It sounds to me like the judge has already determined Flynn's guilt, and is looking for a way to sentence him. A higher court will have to bring the process to a halt and get the errant judge under control. The bit of reading I've done indicates that he's well into uncharted legal territory.

 

[fskimospy]

It sounds to me like the judge has already determined Flynn's guilt, and is looking for a way to sentence him. A higher court will have to bring the process to a halt and get the errant judge under control. The bit of reading I've done indicates that he's well into uncharted legal territory.

Well he has determined Flynn's guilt insofar as Flynn told him under oath that he was guilty, twice. Mainly the judge seems to be concerned that the justice department has become corrupted. The law he's operating under gives judges the leeway to disregard the prosecution dropping charges against defendants precisely because lawmakers were concerned that politically connected people would be able to get charges against them dropped by corrupt officials. I think we both agree that DOJ corruption to subvert the rule of law appears to be an extreme danger here?

I'm genuinely confused here as to why you think it is the FBI and the judicial branch that are corrupt here and not the DOJ which has conspicuously reversed itself by arguing a politically connected person is no longer guilty after it convicted them, and in arguing for this misrepresented the findings of the FBI. Can you explain?

 

[interchange]

It sounds to me like the judge has already determined Flynn's guilt, and is looking for a way to sentence him. A higher court will have to bring the process to a halt and get the errant judge under control. The bit of reading I've done indicates that he's well into uncharted legal territory.

It sounds to me like you've already determined Flynn's innocence.

It is true that the judge is in uncharted territory. Can you identify any other case in history where a guilty plea that has already been accepted with charges brought by a special prosecution appointed to remove conflicts of interest with the DOJ subsequently receives recommendation from the DOJ to drop the charges instead?

As to his response to being placed in this uncharted territory... Well, he has the authority to sentence Flynn in disregard of the DOJs recommendation. If he had determined Flynn's guilt, why would he try and create a process where those recommendations could be independently reviewed and argued from opposing points of view?

 

[dank69]

Well he has determined Flynn's guilt insofar as Flynn told him under oath that he was guilty, twice. Mainly the judge seems to be concerned that the justice department has become corrupted. The law he's operating under gives judges the leeway to disregard the prosecution dropping charges against defendants precisely because lawmakers were concerned that politically connected people would be able to get charges against them dropped by corrupt officials. I think we both agree that DOJ corruption to subvert the rule of law appears to be an extreme danger here?

I'm genuinely confused here as to why you think it is the FBI and the judicial branch that are corrupt here and not the DOJ which has conspicuously reversed itself by arguing a politically connected person is no longer guilty after it convicted them, and in arguing for this misrepresented the findings of the FBI. Can you explain?

I can explain. When Democrats do something unprecedented it is a problem. When Republicans do something unprecedented, it's fresh and innovative.

 

[fskimospy]

I can explain. When Democrats do something unprecedented it is a problem. When Republicans do something unprecedented, it's fresh and innovative.

Robert Mueller is not a Democrat. Judge Sullivan was appointed by Reagan.

The real issue here is that the right has turned everything into politics, even the prosecution of people who are clearly, obviously guilty. Someone is a 'democrat' by virtue of opposing their attempts to subvert the law.

 

[Greenman]

It sounds to me like you've already determined Flynn's innocence.

It is true that the judge is in uncharted territory. Can you identify any other case in history where a guilty plea that has already been accepted with charges brought by a special prosecution appointed to remove conflicts of interest with the DOJ subsequently receives recommendation from the DOJ to drop the charges instead?

As to his response to being placed in this uncharted territory... Well, he has the authority to sentence Flynn in disregard of the DOJs recommendation. If he had determined Flynn's guilt, why would he try and create a process where those recommendations could be independently reviewed and argued from opposing points of view?

I haven't determined his innocence, but I do believe enough exculpatory evidence has recently come out that it absolutely deserves another look. Yes, Flynn admitted guilt, but if that admission was made under duress it's meaningless.

 

[fskimospy]

I haven't determined his innocence, but I do believe enough exculpatory evidence has recently come out that it absolutely deserves another look. Yes, Flynn admitted guilt, but if that admission was made under duress it's meaningless.

But literally nothing has come out that changes the central fact that Flynn lied to the FBI and the Vice President about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Absolutely nothing. He did it and admitted to it multiple times. This is entirely a case of political corruption of the DOJ where they are trying to unwind the work of the special counsel because he convicted a number of well connected people.

 

[ivwshane]

I haven't determined his innocence, but I do believe enough exculpatory evidence has recently come out that it absolutely deserves another look. Yes, Flynn admitted guilt, but if that admission was made under duress it's meaningless.

What evidence is that?

 

[interchange]

I haven't determined his innocence, but I do believe enough exculpatory evidence has recently come out that it absolutely deserves another look.

So then why do you criticize the judge for trying to create a process to do just that?

Yes, Flynn admitted guilt, but if that admission was made under duress it's meaningless.

All plea deal are made under "duress". People don't often plea guilty to things because they want to. There are more specific forms of prosecutorial misconduct which, if proven, would cause a case to be invalid regardless of the proof of guilt.

 

[HumblePie]

But literally nothing has come out that changes the central fact that Flynn lied to the FBI and the Vice President about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Absolutely nothing. He did it and admitted to it multiple times. This is entirely a case of political corruption of the DOJ where they are trying to unwind the work of the special counsel because he convicted a number of well connected people.

You forgot to add qualifying conditions to this statement. His "lie" to the FBI during the interview revolves around one thing which is his answer to the voting on the UN resolution, and not the sanctions. This is evidence now backed up by the 302. That it is still only considered a "lie" if the merits of the motion for dismissal are not correct. The motion states that the "lie" was made as a plea bargain under duress and that the interview was not legally connected to criminal investigation which makes any statement not material.

If you want to work under the assumption it was a "lie" still then that is your perogative, but it under the condition that merits of the motion to dismiss are not correct. At this point there has been no specific ruling on that motion so you can't claim at this point that it is a "lie" for a crime. Up until the motion to dismiss was made it certainly was, but after new evidence entered through that motion was made, your stance should really be on alleged lying at this point.

 

[HumblePie]

All plea deal are made under "duress". People don't often plea guilty to things because they want to. There are more specific forms of prosecutorial misconduct which, if proven, would cause a case to be invalid regardless of the proof of guilt.

No they are not. Plea deals are made because it grants a lesser punishment. 96-98% of all federal crimes are convicted on plea deals. The vast majority are not conditional on lies by the prosecution to not go after family members that they have no criminal investigation against. The prosecutors offer the deals to save money that going to court would entail and offer a lesser punishment if the defendant agrees. In many cases, it is the defendant asking for a plea deal because they know they did something wrong with an overwhelming amount of evidence so they are looking for a lesser sentence. So you are wrong with this statement here.

 

[fskimospy]

You forgot to add qualifying conditions to this statement. His "lie" to the FBI during the interview revolves around one thing which is his answer to the voting on the UN resolution, and not the sanctions. This is evidence now backed up by the 302. That it is still only considered a "lie" if the merits of the motion for dismissal are not correct. The motion states that the "lie" was made as a plea bargain under duress and that the interview was not legally connected to criminal investigation which makes any statement not material.

This is false on multiple counts and we have already been over this.

1) Flynn also lied about telling the Russians not to respond.

2) As a Trump associate Flynn's statements to the Russian ambassador were clearly material to the investigation of connections between Trump associates and the Russian government.

If you want to work under the assumption it was a "lie" still then that is your perogative, but it under the condition that merits of the motion to dismiss are not correct. At this point there has been no specific ruling on that motion so you can't claim at this point that it is a "lie" for a crime. Up until the motion to dismiss was made it certainly was, but after new evidence entered through that motion was made, your stance should really be on alleged lying at this point.

It should not. You once again don't know what you're talking about.

 

[HumblePie]

This is false on multiple counts and we have already been over this.

1) Flynn also lied about telling the Russians not to respond.

2) As a Trump associate Flynn's statements to the Russian ambassador were clearly material to the investigation of connections between Trump associates and the Russian government.



It should not. You once again don't know what you're talking about.

1) Is still based on the voting. Not the sanctions since it was never asked according to the 302. That is the official record of the interview.

2) Only if the investigation into Flynn is legal at that point in time. The motion states it was not. Doesn't matter if you think it is material or not at this point. That is what the court is for. Evidence has been entered by the DoJ that it wasn't a legal investigation at that point. Your declarations to the opposite are just your opinion.

I don't care about your obvious political bias here. The facts of the matter stands that until there merits of the motion to dismiss are properly judged upon, nothing in this case is settled.

 

[fskimospy]

1) Is still based on the voting. Not the sanctions since it was never asked according to the 302. That is the official record of the interview.

False, as shown clearly by the transcript and as affirmed by the court.

2) Only if the investigation into Flynn is legal at that point in time. The motion states it was not. Doesn't matter if you think it is materially or not. That is what the court is for. Evidence has been entered by the DoJ that it wasn't a legal investigation at that point. Your declarations to the opposite are just your opinion.

Doesn't matter if Flynn himself was under investigation, only if the investigation overall was legal and it was, as confirmed by the DOJ inspector general.

So no, I have the actual facts on my side while you have wishful thinking.

I don't care about your obvious political bias here. The facts of the matter stands that until there merits of the motion to dismiss are properly judged upon, nothing in this case is settled.

You are too incompetent to offer meaningful opinions here, it's just that because your back is up you can't admit you were wrong.

 

[HumblePie]

False, as shown clearly by the transcript and as affirmed by the court.

Nope. That is the claim by the DoJ in the motion. So not false so matter how many times you stick your fingers in your ears and decry otherwise. The only transcript of the interview entered into evidence by the prosecution is the 302.

Doesn't matter if Flynn himself was under investigation, only if the investigation overall was legal and it was, as confirmed by the DOJ inspector general.

So no, I have the actual facts on my side while you have wishful thinking.

Incorrect and it shows your lack of legal knowledge here. If the investigation into Flynn was no longer legal at that point and had no legal justification, per the DoJ motion to dismiss, then any potential evidence of a crime gained through that interview is not admissible evidence. Again this is based on the merits of the motion to dismiss.

You are too incompetent to offer meaningful opinions here, it's just that because your back is up you can't admit you were wrong.

Ad hominen attacks again? Back to your standard MO.

 

[interchange]

No they are not. Plea deals are made because it grants a lesser punishment. 96-98% of all federal crimes are convicted on plea deals.

A.K.A. alleviation of the duress of the risks of contesting charges.

The vast majority are not conditional on lies by the prosecution to not go after family members that they have no criminal investigation against.

This is a statement presented as fact which has not been established as so. If the FBI had no grounds to pursue charges against Flynn's children or if they had no intention of doing so despite the grounds and used that for leverage against Flynn, then I would agree they acted wrongly, but I don't think that in itself is prosecutorial misconduct under the law. If you have a reference as to why it might be, please provide it.

The prosecutors offer the deals to save money that going to court would entail and offer a lesser punishment if the defendant agrees. In many cases, it is the defendant asking for a plea deal because they know they did something wrong with an overwhelming amount of evidence so they are looking for a lesser sentence.

That is one motivation for prosecutors. Not the only one in many cases. And yet again you provide a showing of duress.

So you are wrong with this statement here.

No.

 

[Jhhnn]

1) Is still based on the voting. Not the sanctions since it was never asked according to the 302. That is the official record of the interview.

2) Only if the investigation into Flynn is legal at that point in time. The motion states it was not. Doesn't matter if you think it is materially or not. That is what the court is for. Evidence has been entered by the DoJ that it wasn't a legal investigation at that point. Your declarations to the opposite are just your opinion.

I don't care about your obvious political bias here. The facts of the matter stands that until there merits of the motion to dismiss are properly judged upon, nothing in this case is settled.

The motion deliberately misstates the motivations behind the interview and has been contradicted by the people who actually made the decision. They saw it in terms of national security, of Flynn being compromised while Barr claims they did so for the purposes of criminal prosecution. I figure Judge Sullivan will clear that up before he election.

 

[fskimospy]

Nope. That is the claim by the DoJ in the motion. So not false so matter how many times you stick your fingers in your ears and decry otherwise. The only transcript of the interview entered into evidence by the prosecution is the 302.

The DOJ can claim whatever they want, the documentary evidence shows otherwise.

Incorrect and it shows your lack of legal knowledge here. If the investigation into Flynn was no longer legal at that point and had no legal justification, per the DoJ motion to dismiss, then any potential evidence of a crime gained through that interview is not admissible evidence. Again this is based on the merits of the motion to dismiss.

It does not, it shows your inability to comprehend what is being said. The legal basis for the investigation was already established by no less than the DOJ inspector general.

People can say whatever they want in a motion but people are under no obligation to accept clear lies as anything but that.

Ad hominen attacks again? Back to your standard MO.

No, ad hominem would be that your argument is wrong because you are incompetent. I'm saying the wrongness of your argument demonstrates your incompetence.

Anyways, this is my last response to you on your latest attempt to misrepresent the facts. Just needed to once again correct the record.

 

[interchange]

No, ad hominem would be that your argument is wrong because you are incompetent. I'm saying the wrongness of your argument demonstrates your incompetence.

+1

 

[fskimospy]

The motion deliberately misstates the motivations behind the interview and has been contradicted by the people who actually made the decision. They saw it in terms of national security, of Flynn being compromised while Barr claims they did so for the purposes of criminal prosecution. I figure Judge Sullivan will clear that up before he election.

Yes, I'm not sure why any rational person would take the DOJ's motion seriously considering people cited in it have already stated it falsely represents their position and their work.

 

[interchange]

Yes, I'm not sure why any rational person would take the DOJ's motion seriously considering people cited in it have already stated it falsely represents their position and their work.

The basic premise which @HumblePie is using is that the DOJs motion represents firmly established truth independent of any other evidence. Therefore, any arguments counter to it are wrong with a capital W.

Thankfully we will actually have a process to hear how these arguments hold up to scrutiny.

 

[HumblePie]

The DOJ can claim whatever they want, the documentary evidence shows otherwise.

You can claim whatever you want, the DoJ documentary evidence shows otherwise at this point. There is conflicting documentary evidence and claims going on. Just because you want a specific outcome doesn't change this fact. That is what courts are for.

It does not, it shows your inability to comprehend what is being said. The legal basis for the investigation was already established by no less than the DOJ inspector general.

People can say whatever they want in a motion but people are under no obligation to accept clear lies as anything but that.

Facts of a criminal investigation can always change based on new evidence found. New evidence present by the DoJ states the investigation into Flynn at that point was not legal. I am not making that argument, but the DoJ is. It is not the "people" saying whatever they want as this has been legally entered evidence into a court of law through a motion to dismiss. Your personal feelings aside, the court will decide on this issue. It may still have been deemed legal with this new evidence, and may be deemed not. That is not for you or I to decide at this point.

No, ad hominem would be that your argument is wrong because you are incompetent. I'm saying the wrongness of your argument demonstrates your incompetence.

You still don't know what ad hominem means as a personal attack do you? Claiming my assertions are incompetently made are one thing. Calling me an incompetent is another. The former is attacking the argument at least, the latter is attacking me. The later, which you did, is forum rule breaking again.

 

[fskimospy]

The basic premise which @HumblePie is using is that the DOJs motion represents firmly established truth independent of any other evidence. Therefore, any arguments counter to it are wrong with a capital W.

Thankfully we will actually have a process to hear how these arguments hold up to scrutiny.

We kind of have that process, but in this case that process appears to be being short circuited.

It should be extremely alarming to any rational and objective person that the DOJ has now intervened multiple times in the prosecution of people connected to the president to get them favorable treatment. You and I would not get this treatment, and if Barr is willing to intervene to let Trump's associates off, there's reason to believe he might go the other way as well and engage in politically motivated prosecutions.