Judge Sullivan To Consider Perjury Charge Against Flynn

1280px-Emmet_G._Sullivan_2012Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan has issued a couple of extraordinary orders in the case of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn after the Justice Department moved to dismiss the case.  Sullivan has not only decided to allow third parties to argue against an uncontested motion in a criminal case, but he has appointed retired judge John Gleeson to argue against dismissal and address whether Flynn should face a perjury charge from the Court itself. I have practiced in front of Judge Sullivan for many years.  I have repeatedly praised him and expressed my respect for his demeanor and directness. However, these orders raised deeply troubling questions of judicial overreach and enmity.  Despite my admiration for Judge Sullivan, I believe he is moving well outside of the navigational beacons for judicial action and could be committing reversible errors if he denies the unopposed motion or moves forward on this perjury claim.

I was critical of Judge Sullivan’s earlier order allowing the filing of amicus briefing in this case. There is no rule allowing for such third party briefing and Judge Sullivan previously rejected such briefing.  He was right then and wrong now.  While common in civil cases, such third party arguments raise troubling concerns in criminal cases as courts allow the public to argue for enhanced punishments or other measures.  It is particularly troubling when the Justice Department itself not only found evidence of prosecutorial abuse but concluded that it cannot ethically proceed with the prosecution.  Sullivan is effectively creating a dispute in a case where the defense and prosecution agree that a case should be dismissed.

My concerns have deepened with the latest order:

“Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, it is hereby ORDERED that the Court exercises its inherent authority to appoint The Honorable John Gleeson (Ret.) as amicus curiae to present arguments in opposition to the government’s Motion to Dismiss,” the judge wrote.  “[I]t is further ORDERED that amicus curiae shall address whether the Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 401, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42, the Court’s inherent authority, and any other applicable statutes, rules, or controlling law.”

The suggestion that Flynn could be charged with perjury for seeking to withdraw a plea is highly disconcerting. As a criminal defense attorney, my concern is that such a claim could be made in thousands of cases where defendants have sought to withdraw such pleas or allegations of prosecutorial abuse have been raised for dismissal.

The use of Gleeson both to argue against the motion and review possible perjury charges.  One role is as an advocate while the other seems to be something like a quasi-special master.  Gleeson is also a troubling choice given his public criticism of the Administration over the Flynn case.

The perjury charge would be based on 18 U.S.C. § 401, which states:

A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as —
(1)Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2)Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3)Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.

Sullivan knows that such a charge would not be prosecuted by the Justice Department. However, Criminal Procedure Rule 42 states that such cases are to be prosecuted by the government “unless the interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney … If the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.”

Such an extraordinary action would occur in the context of an already troubling record. Judge Sullivan was previously criticized for suggesting that Flynn could be charged with treason, including an earlier blog column here. He is now allowing third parties to make arguments in a criminal case on an unopposed motion and exploring a charge that he might be able to bring against Flynn.  Judge Sullivan would not only ignore the agreement of the parties, the judgment of the Department of Justice, but effectively create a new case of his own making. At some point, the court risks the appearance of assuming both prosecutorial and judicial functions.  A perjury charge leaves the appearance of a court imposing its own notion of justice through a dubious judicially-mandated criminal charge.

 

515 thoughts on “Judge Sullivan To Consider Perjury Charge Against Flynn”

    1. ‘One had to search far and wide to find a non-conservative legal analyst willing to say the obvious, i.e. that Sullivan’s decision was the kind of thing one would expect from a judge in Belarus. George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley was one of the few willing to say Sullivan’s move could “could create a threat of a judicial charge even when prosecutors agree with defendants.”’ -Matt Taibbi

      1. we are seeing a lot of unexpected events recently and we may yet see that one

        don’t be too sure of anything folks, look around you at how things have changed so quickly

  1. OT: 3 Out of 5 Deadliest Coronavirus Outbreaks Were in State Nursing Homes
    Socialized medicine isn’t the answer unless the question is, “How do we kill more senior citizens?”

    May 15, 2020

    Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

    The lockdown model sought to flatten the curve by preparing hospitals for a massive influx of patients by clearing out everyone including elderly patients, who were sent back to nursing homes. The hospitals, with a few limited exceptions, were not overwhelmed, but the nursing homes were.

    1 in 3 coronavirus deaths, as of now, have involved nursing homes. These deaths were amplified by policies in blue states, especially New York and New Jersey, compelling facilities to take coronavirus patients, while concealing the number of deaths at facilities behind false claims of resident privacy.

    Blue state administrations have tried to blame the thousands of deaths on mismanaged private nursing homes, and while some nursing homes are badly run, the worst death tolls were in state nursing homes.

    The 5 deadliest outbreaks in nursing homes took place in New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Three of those facilities, the Soldiers’ Home in Holyoke, Massachusetts, the Paramus Veterans Memorial Home, and Veterans Memorial Home in Menlo Park in New Jersey, are state run facilities.

    Continued: https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/05/3-out-5-deadliest-coronavirus-outbreaks-were-state-daniel-greenfield
    —–
    In Pennsylvania my understanding is that the one responsible for putting Covid patients in the nursing homes moved her mother to a hotel.

  2. OT: Just in case one wants to compare the state where the media have fallen in love with the governor, NY, Cuomo (bue) and a state where the media heavily criticized the governor, Fl DeSantis (red).
    “More People Died in New York Nursing Homes Than in all of Florida”
    May 15, 2020

    The media predicted apocalypses in red states. It’s still at it. The apocalypse hasn’t arrived, but it’s still at it.

    Good evening, and greetings from Florida, where we feel the need to inform you that it’s not a post-apocalyptic hellscape of coronavirus infection and cadavers stacked like cordwood. That is, Florida just doesn’t look nearly as bad as the national news media and sky-is-falling critics have been predicting for about two months now. But then, the national news media is mostly based in New York and loves to love its Democratic governor, Andrew Cuomo, about as much as it loves to hate on Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

    That’s a perfectly good summary.

    According to the latest Florida figures, fewer than 2,000 have died, and around 43,000 have been infected. That’s a fraction of the dire predictions made for Florida when spring breakers swarmed the beaches, and those numbers are dwarfed by similarly sized New York, which has seen 12 times more deaths and nearly eight times more infections. More people reportedly died in New York nursing homes than in all of Florida.

    Considering what a high percentage of the death toll took place in nursing homes, that’s less meaningful. But the bottom line is that all the agony aunt stuff has never materialized. But that hasn’t stopped the media from telling the lies and then blaming the targets of its smear campaigns for the effects of those lies on the public and on our political system.

    DeSantis is actually polling worse than Cuomo in their respective states, and the Florida press is wondering why.

    Because the national media and the Florida press have pushed the same agenda. And members of the public fall for it.

    Cuomo also has something else DeSantis doesn’t: a press that defers to him, one that preferred to cover “Florida Morons” at the beach (where it’s relatively hard to get infected) over New Yorkers riding cramped subway cars (where it’s easy to get infected). In fact, people can still ride the subways for most hours of the day in New York, but Miami Beach’s sands remain closed. Maybe things would be different if DeSantis had a brother who worked in cable news and interviewed him for a “sweet moment” in primetime.

    But the media identifies with the New York subway riders not the Florida beachgoers.

    That’s why blue state govs like Cuomo, Murphy, and Wolf will be praised for handling a crisis, instead of being held accountable for the mass deaths in nursing homes.

    https://cms.frontpagemag.com/point/2020/05/more-people-died-new-york-nursing-homes-all-daniel-greenfield

  3. Dershowitz has weighed in!
    —————
    Judge Emmet Sullivan’s decision to appoint a retired federal judge to argue against the Justice Department’s entirely proper decision to end the criminal prosecution of General Michael Flynn is designed to circumvent the constitutional limitation on the jurisdiction of federal judges. The Constitution limits this jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. There must be disagreement between the parties that requires resolution by a judge. If the parties agree, there is nothing for the judge to decide.

    In the Flynn case, the prosecution and defense both agree that the case should be dropped. Because there is no longer any controversy between the parties to be resolved, there is no longer any case properly before the judge. His only job is to enter an order vacating the guilty plea and dismissing the case with prejudice.

    But Judge Sullivan does not want to do that.

    He apparently thinks Flynn belongs in prison. He has as much as said that. So, he has manufactured a fake controversy by appointing a new prosecutor because evidently he does not like what the constitutionally authorized prosecutor — the Attorney General — has decided. The new prosecutor has been tasked to argue for the result that Judge Sullivan prefers. But under our constitutional system of separation of powers, the new prosecutor has no standing to make such an argument. He is not a member of the executive branch, which is the only branch authorized to make prosecutorial decisions. He was appointed by a member of the judicial branch to perform an executive function — a clear violation of the separation of powers, which allocates the power to prosecute to the executive, not judicial, branch.

    It makes no constitutional difference that Flynn pleaded guilty — even if his plea was voluntary, which is questionable in light of the threats against his son.

    The Justice Department has the constitutional authority to dismiss a prosecution that it has brought at any time and for any reason, without being second-guessed by the judicial branch.

    Judge Sullivan is basing his unconstitutional actions on Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides that: “The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant’s consent.” This judge-written rule was designed to protect the defendant against manipulation by the government to circumvent the protection against double jeopardy. It is not properly employed to hurt the defendant by empowering the judge to act as both prosecutor and decision-maker. It rarely if ever results in a judge denying leave to the government to drop a prosecution that it believes is unjustified.

    Judge Sullivan is exceeding his authority by turning his courtroom into a three-ring partisan circus, designed to allow him to get his way despite the agreement of the actual parties before him. He is taking judicial activism to a new and grossly improper level, to the disadvantage of a defendant he does not like.

    As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg recently wrote for a unanimous Court:

    “Courts are essentially passive instruments…”

    It is not within their legitimate authority to “sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right.”

    Their role is to “decide only questions presented by the parties.”

    Judge Sullivan is improperly exceeding that role in the Flynn case and should be chastised for it, whether one agrees or disagrees with the Justice Department’s decision on its merits.

    There is a joke lawyers who practice in Federal Court like to tell.

    Angel Gabriel summons Sigmund Freud in heaven and tells him God is having delusions of grandeur.

    Freud asks how God can have delusions of grandeur: There is no one grander than Him.

    To which the Angel Gabriel responded, “he thinks he’s a federal judge.”

    But what Judge Sullivan is doing is no joke.

    He is endangering our system of separation of powers and he should be stopped by a writ of mandamus or a motion to recuse. Judges, too, are not above the law or the Constitution.
    —————-

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Odd how in recently released tapes of Obama he says of Flynn
      “ And the fact that there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free.” when in fact Flynn had not been charged with perjury at that time.

      Now the judge wants to charge him with perjury!

      Give me a break, of course it is political and personal. This judge should really step down not just on this case, but all. He is a disgrace.

  4. OT: Key lawmaker says Marie Yovanovitch ‘1000%’ misled Congress, DOJ should investigate
    NY GOP Rep. Lee Zeldin calling for review of testimony of Yovanovitch and others.

    The former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine “1000%” misled Congress during last year’s impeachment hearings when she claimed she didn’t know much about the controversial Burisma Holdings company and the Justice Department needs to investigate, Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., says.

    Zeldin reacted Thursday after documents published by Just the News earlier this week showed Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch met with a Burisma representative, received correspondence from the Ukraine gas company that hired Hunter Biden and received a detailed briefing on the matter during the 2016 election.

    Yovanovitch, testifying before the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment inquiry last fall, said that she knew little about the company, especially as it pertained to the Biden. She testified most of what she knew was from a briefing before she headed to run the U.S. embassy in Kiev and from news reports.

    “It just wasn’t a big deal,” she said under oath.

    Hunter Biden is the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential nominee. He served on the Burisma board, and his firm received roughly $3.4 million in fees from the company. Critics argue Biden had little expertise in that area and got the job because of his political connections.

    Zeldin, an intelligence committee member who led the questioning during some of Yovanovitch’s testimony, told the John Solomon Reports podcast that “It was unbelievable” that she and others “were acting as if they didn’t know anything about this.”

    Amid the now publicly available documentation — including letters, briefing materials, and emails for Yovanovitch pertaining to Hunter Biden’s ties to Burisma and the gas firm’s efforts to rehab its reputation for corruption — questions are being raised about whether she misled Congress when she claimed to have no more than slight, superficial knowledge of Burisma based largely on press accounts.

    Continued: https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/congressman-says-marie-yovanovitch-1000-misled-congress?utm_source=daily-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

  5. Sullivan’s seeking of amicus briefs, by definition, is an act that undermines the rule of law. It invites the mob into the courtroom to shout inflamed vectives and essentially co-opt the courtroom as the setting for a lynch mob.

    1. Ivan:

      You’d think a guy trying to hurl an insult would keep it in the thread that offended him. No matter, Benson is the site’s polymath and his logic is our logic, his feeling our feelings and his rants our rants. When he’s gone we’ll wonder why we don’t laugh as much any more.

      1. What do you make of these people who come here everyday, for years on end, solely to hate on Turley? Are they paid shills or just nincompoops? I know some of them use multiple aliases.

        As an aside, I do appreciate you and the others here who are genuinely interested in the law.

  6. Now that Sullivan has ordered Covington to appear as an interested party I confess the goings-on in Sullivan’s Court are beyond me. I do not see how anyone can usefully claim to understand what comes next. Looking dangerous for Flynn. I think….

    1. “…I confess the goings-on in Sullivan’s Court are beyond me.”
      “Looking dangerous for Flynn. I think….”

      Nah. The only one in genuine danger now is the judge who is wildly out of his lane. He’s set himself up for a massive smackdown. The danger for Flynn has passed and his supporters should no longer worry for him and his family.

      If you wish to educate yourself(sounds like you need it) I suggest watching Viva Frei’s youtube videos on the subject:

      1. Ivan
        The problem is Viva Frei discusses extant law, and very good he is too. I watch at 0.75 speed as he often talks extremely fast….Judge Sullivan is beyond that remit. Hope you are right about Flynn. Who expected amici to come calling after numerous refusals and an order prohibiting? No one.

        1. Peter Divey – I got someone else I watch at .75 speed and Viva Frei should be added to that category. The fun part is seeing how long the kid will stay asleep in the car.

    2. I’m afraid I must disagree with your contention that things look “dangerous” for General Flynn. What is in DANGER is the Federal Judicial System. When a Federal Judge assumes the role of both Prosecutor and is an obviously BIASED “judge,” the integity of our Court System comes to question. We already know that the FBI and the Justice Department under 0bama, was hopeleslly CORRUPT and little more than a political apparatus designed to do the bidding of 0bama!

      Judge Sullivan, in compromising his judicial integrity and the that of his Courts, is systematic witht the Deep State Ruling Class. It’s sad that a Federal Judge (appointed by Clinton, beholden to 0bama), has soiled his legacy on the Court to the point where he is already a laughing stock.

      1. The first three replies to the tweet (above). True then, true now.

        Travis Lambirth Billed cap
        @travislambirth
        ·
        Apr 8, 2019
        Replying to
        @ggreenwald

        Maybe
        @EricRWeinstein
        is right and we need a thorough audit of what our intelligence community is actually up to
        Ann Batiza
        @AnnBatiza
        ·
        Apr 8, 2019
        Replying to
        @ggreenwald

        I think they have six ways from Sunday to play the American people. We have to change that with reporters like @mtaiibi ,
        @aaronjmate
        and
        @ggreenwald
        .
        sabrina4bernie #Exit Polls Show Fraud in Primaries
        @sabrina68
        ·
        Apr 8, 2019
        Replying to
        @ggreenwald

        schumer says that like it’s ok.

        should scare the hell out of people.

        not that we didn’t know, but to hear a senator say it as a warning, and it’s not just to trump means something needs to be done about it

      1. …or you’re a shill who only comes here everyday to contradict everything Turley has to say because you are scared of the truth he’s speaking and the widespread attention he’s garnered. You are losing badly and the worst is yet to come.

        1. Ivan, did you have a point or rebuttal to the IG report? As interesting as I am, I’m not the subject.

          1. If you had made a point rather than simply giving a weblink, then I would have something to respond to.

            You and the “others” who come here daily solely because you hate Turley are not the least bit “interesting”

    1. From the Sham Prosecution of Gen. Michael Flynn Also Reveal Broad Corruption in the Russiagate Investigations
      _____________________________________________________
      Well of course the prosecution of Flynn was a sham and the Mueller investigations was always corrupt. It started out corrupt the day that Rosenstein, Mueller and Trump held a secret meeting in the oval office after the Special Counsel had been chosen and just before Mueller’s appointment was announced to the public.

      The Judge wants to know how all that fraud ended up in his court with both sides telling the court the same lies and both sides concealing the same evidence that would reveal the plea deal was a lie.

  7. Mr. Turley, as amicus, is judge Gleeson entitled to immunity? It seems here that he is not really acting as an amicus, but as a substitute prosecutor in deprivation of Flynn’s civil rights. If Sullivan holds Flynn in contempt and then the whole thing gets thrown out on appeal, wouldn’t Flynn be able to sue Gleeson?

  8. Professor Turley,

    I’m a long time admirer of yours, all the more so as regardless of your stated party affiliations, you have called them as you see them, and that, sadly, is a rarity in the US. FWIW ( hopefully something, in the context of this comment), after years in the legal world, myself….I will leave it at that…..I long ago stopped believing in either party, and have been feeling like someone yelling “fire” in the movies, while most others are insisting it is simply the popcorn machine that is making smoke.

    I am past the point where I believe in the country’s intellectual and political abilities to even understand its problems, let alone extricate itself from, at least, the worst of them.

    If you have made any mistake, and it has been, at least from out here, a huge one, it is in not seeing what was really happening a long time ago. Your appreciation, for example, of Judge Sullivan, based on what, I am not sure, has been naive, however graceful and well-intended.

    Especially insofar as you are one of the few still-respectable voices left, it has hurt, even as you never intended for it to….choosing…and that is the right word…to believe in the better angels of our natures, instead of, I respectfully submit, seeing the reality of it.

    Of course, even my view of you, is based on my own “reality” and I get that, too.

    Anyway, I am not even sure why I am writing this, except, I guess to urge you to keep seeing through your new window, and even as I am terminally cynical, but insofar as you have an audience I don’t, I hope you will keep pounding away at it.

    Thank you.

    neil

        1. Paul:
          “ Sullivan is ordering Flynn’s old law firm to make an appearance,”
          *************************
          Not all that crazy if he wants to know why the exculpatory docs were withheld. Mucho crazy if he wants them to do anything for Flynn. Medium crazy if he wants to pit them against Flynn by asking if they forced him to plead. Sounds like medium crazy to me.

    1. https://sidneypowell.com/media/open-memorandum-to-barack-obama/

      Open Memorandum to Barack Obama
      Sidney PowellMay 13, 2020

      OPEN MEMORANDUM

      To: Barack Hussein Obama
      From: Sidney Powell
      http://www.SidneyPowell.com

      Date: May 13, 2020

      Re: Your Failure to Find Precedent for Flynn Dismissal

      Regarding the decision of the Department of Justice to dismiss charges against General Flynn, in your recent call with your alumni, you expressed great concern: “there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.”

      Here is some help—if truth and precedent represent your true concern. Your statement is entirely false. However, it does explain the damage to the Rule of Law throughout your administration.

      First, General Flynn was not charged with perjury—which requires a material false statement made under oath with intent to deceive.1 A perjury prosecution would have been appropriate and the Rule of Law applied if the Justice Department prosecuted your former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for his multiple lies under oath in an investigation of a leak only he knew he caused.

      McCabe lied under oath in fully recorded and transcribed interviews with the Inspector General for the DOJ. He was informed of the purpose of the interview, and he had had the benefit of counsel. He knew he was the leaker. McCabe even lied about lying. He lied to his own agents—which sent them on a “wild-goose-chase”—thereby making his lies “material” and an obstruction of justice. Yet, remarkably, Attorney General Barr declined to prosecute McCabe for these offenses.

      Applying the Rule of Law, after declining McCabe’s perjury prosecution, required the Justice Department to dismiss the prosecution of General Flynn who was not warned, not under oath, had no counsel, and whose statements were not only not recorded, but were created as false by FBI agents who falsified the 302.

      Second, it would seem your “wingman” Eric Holder is missing a step these days at Covington & Burling LLP. Indelibly marked in his memory (and one might think, yours) should be his Motion to Dismiss the multi-count jury verdict of guilty and the entire case against former United States Senator Ted Stevens. Within weeks of Mr. Holder becoming Attorney General, he moved to dismiss the Stevens prosecution in the interest of justice for the same reasons the Justice Department did against General Flynn—egregious misconduct by prosecutors who hid exculpatory evidence and concocted purported crimes.

      As horrifying as the facts of the Stevens case were, they pale in comparison to the targeted setup, framing, and prosecution of a newly elected President’s National Security Advisor and the shocking facts that surround it. This case was an assault on the heart of liberty— our cherished system of self-government, the right of citizens to choose their President, and the hallowed peaceful transition of power.

      Third, the inability of anyone in your alumni association to find “anybody who has been charged [with anything] just getting off scot-free” would be laughable were it not so pathetic.

      Many of your alum feature prominently in the non-fiction legal thriller published in 2014: Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice. A national best- seller, it focusses on the egregious prosecutorial misconduct of your longest serving White House Counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler; your counter-terrorism advisor Lisa Monaco; Loretta Lynch’s DAG for the Criminal Division Leslie Caldwell; and Mueller protégé Andrew Weissmann. While they worked as federal prosecutors on the Enron Task Force—under the purported supervision of Christopher Wray—they destroyed Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs; sent four Merrill Lynch executives to prison on an indictment that criminalized an innocent business transaction while they hid the evidence that showed those defendants were innocent for six years. Both cases were reversed on appeal for their over-criminalization and misconduct. Indeed, Andersen was reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court.

      Fourth, even if your many alumni don’t remember multiple cases that had to be reversed or dismissed for their own misconduct, Judge Emmet Sullivan should remember dismissing the corrupted case against Ted Stevens. Judge Sullivan is the judicial hero of Licensed to Lie. It is that case that caused Judge Sullivan to enter the strong Brady order the Mueller and D.C. career prosecutors violated repeatedly in the Flynn prosecution.

      Fifth, there is precedent for guilty pleas being vacated. Your alumni Weissmann and Ruemmler are no strangers to such reversals. At least two guilty pleas they coerced by threats against defendants in Houston had to be thrown out—again for reasons like those here. The defendants “got off scot-free” because—like General Flynn—your alumni had concocted the charges and terrorized the defendants into pleading guilty to “offenses” that were not crimes. Andersen partner David Duncan even testified for the government against Andersen in its trial, but his plea had to be vacated. Enron Broadband defendant Christopher Calger had his plea vacated. There are many others across the country.

      Sixth, should further edification be necessary, see Why Innocent People Plead Guilty, written in 2014 by federal Judge Jed Rakoff (a Clinton appointee). Abusive prosecutors force innocent people to plead guilty with painful frequency. The Mueller special counsel operation led by Andrew Weissmann and Weissmann “wannabes” specializes in prosecutorial terrorist tactics repulsive to everything “justice” is supposed to mean. These tactics are designed to intimidate their targets into pleading guilty—while punishing them and their families with the process itself and financial ruin.

      Most important, General Flynn was honest with the FBI agents. They knew he was—and briefed that to McCabe and others three different times. At McCabe’s directions, Agent Strzok and McCabe’s “Special Counsel” Lisa Page, altered the 302 to create statements Weissmann, Mueller, Van Grack, and Zainab Ahmad could assert were false. Only the FBI agents lied—and falsified documents. The crimes are theirs alone.

      Seventh, the D.C. circuit in which you reside vacated a Section 1001 case for a legal failure much less egregious than those in General Flynn’s case. United States v. Safavian, 528 F.3d 957 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Safavian sought advice from his agency’s ethics board and did not give them all the relevant info. The jury convicted him on the theory it was a 1001 violation to conceal the information from the government ethics board. The court disagreed: “As Safavian argues and as the government agrees, there must be a legal duty to disclose in order for there to be a concealment offense in violation of § 1001(a)(1), yet the government failed to identify a legal disclosure duty except by reference to vague standards of conduct for government employees.” General Flynn did not even know he was the subject of an investigation—and in truth, he was not. The only crimes here were by your alumni in the FBI, White House, intelligence community, and Justice Department.

      These are just a few obvious and well-known examples to those paying any attention to criminal justice issues.

      Finally, the “leaked” comments from your alumni call further evinces your obsession with destroying a distinguished veteran of the United States Army who has defended the Constitution and this country “from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” with the highest honor for thirty-three years. He and many others will continue to do so.

      1As a “constitutional lawyer,” surely you recall that perjury (or false statements) also requires intent to deceive. In Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973), the Supreme Court reversed a conviction of perjury. In Bronston, the defendant’s answer was a truthful statement, but not directly responsive to the question and ultimately misled federal authorities. The Court determined: “A jury should not be permitted to engage in conjecture whether an unresponsive answer, true and complete on its face, was intended to mislead or divert the examiner; the state of mind of the witness is relevant only to the extent that it bears on whether “he does not believe [his answer] to be true.” To hold otherwise would be to inject a new and confusing element into the adversary testimonial system we know.” Id. at 359. The FBI agents who interviewed General Flynn specifically noted that his answers were true or he believed his answers to be true—completely defeating criminal intent. Furthermore, General Flynn knew and remarked they had transcripts of his conversations.

          1. They don’t want to see beneath the surface. President Trump endured 3 years of investigation by a small army of lawyers and agents and came out stronger.

            I doubt Obama could survive 3 months of such scrutiny. But nobody wants to look.

      1. I don’t think the lying group is used to opposition that is tenacious. This would never have gotten as far as it did if the Republicans were willing to stand up from the beginning. Maybe then some of the Democrats would have gotten the guts to stand with them.

        1. Agreed. The time has come to stop treating the lying left and the corrupt establishment with kid gloves. From here on out it’s all out war.

    2. It seemed like I was able to post the memorandum but I don’t see it on the blog yet.

      CK07, not to reopen our discussion, you and some others had qualms about vacating the courts decision. If you read just 4-6 you will find some interesting examples and if you read some other stuff you will see some of the abuses that have taken place. I’m not asking you to agree rather to take note of the problems that are created when politics becomes involved in criminal matters.

      If it doesn’t post go t0 https://sidneypowell.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Obama-Memo-Edits-NEW-FINAL.pdf for an easier read and the ability to copy.

  9. Trump Wants Us To Argue Endlessly

    The United States, and the entire world, are currently dealing with the worst crisis since WWII. Yet Donald Trump thinks ‘Obamagate’ should be Priority #1. Never have we seen a distraction manufactured on such an audacious scale.

    What’s more the comments by Trump supporters here and social media reflect a truly cult-like mentality. The country should be pulling together to deal with the pandemic. Yet Trump and his supporters are essentially fomenting civil war.

    1. “The United States, and the entire world, are currently dealing with the worst crisis since WWII.”
      *************************
      Hardly there, Chicken Little, unless you count the Dim Tyra-nors taking advantage of a run-of-the-mill SARS virus and hyping fear for their power grab.

      1. Mespo, tell us when the entire world was ever quarantined. Tell us when we last went from Record Low Unemployment to Record High Unemployment in the span of 2 months.

        If you think we’ll get back to those glorious days when Trump beat impeachment, you’re insanely optimistic. Those glorious post-impeachment days were just a blip in time.

        This pandemic will be the first paragraph of Donald Trump’s obituary. They’ll quote him as saying, “I’m not responsible”. That will go over big to future generations. They won’t remember ‘Obamagate’.

        The crisis we’re dealing with could be with us for years. A ‘Lost’ Generation is coming of age right now. That should concern Donald Trump. He’s never mentioned it! Trump’s so busy with his grievances he can’t think of anyone else (except, perhaps, his kids).

        1. Capt:

          “Mespo, tell us when the entire world was ever quarantined.”
          *************************
          When the fascists controlled Europe and much of the Far East. Like now.

          1. Mespo, if your argument hinges on indignant references to fascists, that means you’re throwing in the towel regarding any facts.

            1. Capt.:
              “ if your argument hinges on indignant references to fascists, that means you’re throwing in the towel regarding any facts.”
              ******************
              Not really. Sweden and Georgia proves masks, quarantines and lockdowns don’t work to stop the spread of the virus. If that’s not the reason, then it’s power. Power over people is want fascism is all about. You asked a question. I answered it and defeated the premise. You need to realize the manifest truth that if they really are coming to get you, then you’re not paranoid.

        2. You are another victim of Trump Derangement Syndrome. The loony left and the corrupt establishment openly wish for an economic disaster, and then when one comes along due to a pandemic you celebrate, try to make it worse, and happily push your never Trump agenda. It’s an ugly look…very un-American. And it will backfire again because it is so obvious.

          “Obamagate” is a permanent stain on our nation and it will never be forgotten for it is biggest scandal in American history by far. The walls are closing in on that fake American. “Watergate” was a joke by comparison.

          If you were concerned about a “lost” generation then you wouldn’t be pushing for a “cure”[“quarantine the healthy”] that kills the patient[economy]. That “lost generation” will learn not to be so cowardly and afraid of the dangers of being alive. They will come to know who the real enemy is.

      1. Ray, if all you can think of is the ‘walk & chew gum’ insult, don’t even bother commenting. Seriously!

        When you click that “Post Comment” you’re accepting a responsibility to transmit something clever. You don’t just post some cliche insult from the 1950’s. Any half feeble senior can come up with something like that.

      2. A very good likelihood that Captain Lochart is Paint Chips as well. He is polluting the blog with multiple alisases and even commenting as anonymous.

        1. Why would anyone GAF who he is as long as his comments are substantive and to the point. We don’t know who you are and I doubt many want to know.

    2. When Dems don’t do what Reps want they’re speaking truth to power.
      When Reps don’t do what Dems want they’re fomenting civil war.
      When Reps do what Dems want the country is pulling together.
      When Dems do what Reps want…well we don’t what to call it because it’s never happened.

    3. viruses may come and go so stop deflecting, but the violations of letter & spirit of the law by the obama regime must be punished for the Nation to go forward

    4. Sad indeed Captain, and especially in service to a lying scumbag a child should be able to read.As you note, they’ll believe anything that furthers the ridiculous narrative, They’re all in too deep I guess and hard to admit you lost your allowance to a carnival barker. Here’s 6 minutes of their leader lying and making self serving and completely false predictions about the real crisis we face:

      (Very short intro)

      https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

    5. When school children were filmed singing the praises of Obama it looked very much like a cult.

      It reminded me of Chinese children singing of Mao.

      1. Of course. He was and is an unremarkable man sitting in an unusually prominent position. Harry Truman had hidden reserves, so he shined in office. Gerald Ford made good decisions and bad, but was not a clown. Obama’s just the Emperor with his new clothes.

Leave a Reply