Retired federal judge John Gleeson was recently appointed by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to argue against dismissal of the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and to advise him on whether the court should substitute its own charge of charge for Flynn for now claiming innocence. I have been highly critical of Sullivan’s orders and particularly the importation of third parties to make arguments that neither party supports in a criminal case. Now Gleeson has filed a brief that confirms the worst fears that many of us had about his appointment. Gleeson assails what he called “a trumped-up accusation of government misconduct.” The ultimate position advocated in Gleeson’s arguments would be a nightmare for criminal defendants, criminal defense counsel and civil libertarians. Indeed, as discussed below, Gleeson was previously reversed as a judge for usurping the authority of prosecutors.
Gleeson actually makes the Red Queen in “Alice in Wonderland” look like an ACLU lawyer. After all she just called for “Sentence First–Verdict Afterward” Gleeson is dispensing with any need for verdict on perjury, just the sentence. However, since these arguments are viewed as inimical to the Trump Administration, many seem blind to the chilling implications.
In his 82-page filing Gleeson notably rejects the idea of a perjury charge, which I previously criticized as a dangerous and ridiculous suggestion despite the support from many legal analysts. He notes that such a move would be “irregular” and
“I respectfully suggest that the best response to Flynn’s perjury is not to respond in kind. Ordering a defendant to show cause why he should not be held in contempt based on a perjurious effort to withdraw a guilty plea is not what judges typically do. To help restore confidence in the integrity of the judicial process, the Court should return regularity to that process.”
This seems a carefully crafted way of saying that the many calls for a perjury charge are as out of line with prior cases as what these same critics allege was done by the Justice Department.
However, Gleeson is not striking an independent or principled position. Rather, he is suggesting that the Court simply treat Flynn as a perjurer, punish him as a perjurer, but not give him a trial as a perjurer. Thus, he is advocating that the court “should take Flynn’s perjury into account in sentencing him on the offense to which he has already admitted guilty.”
Thus, according to Gleeson, the Court should first sentence a defendant on a crime that the prosecutors no longer believe occurred in a case that prosecutors believe (and many of us have argued) was marred by the own misconduct. He would then punish the defendant further by treating his support for dismissal and claims of coercion as perjury. That according to former judge Gleeson is a return to “regularity.” I have been a criminal defense attorney for decades and I have never even heard of anything like that. It is not “regular.” It is ridiculous.
Gleeson himself came in for criticism in the filing by Flynn’s counsel who note that the former judge appointed by Sullivan not only publicly advocated against Flynn’s position but as a judge was chastised by the Second Circuit for misusing his position to grandstand in a case involving a deferred prosecution agreement. The defense cited HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125, 136 (2d Cir. 2017) where the Second Circuit reversed Gleeson for exaggerating his role in a way that “would be to turn the presumption of regularity on its head.”
The similarities to the present case are notable, including arguments that Gleeson intruded upon prosecutorial discretion. The Second Circuit held:
“By sua sponte invoking its supervisory power at the outset of this case to oversee the government’s entry into and implementation of the DPA, the district court impermissibly encroached on the Executive’s constitutional mandate to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 3. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Department of Justice is entitled to a presumption of regularity — that is, a presumption that it is lawfully discharging its duties. Though that presumption can of course be rebutted in such a way that warrants judicial intervention, it cannot be preemptively discarded based on the mere theoretical possibility of misconduct. Absent unusual circumstances not present here, a district court’s role vis-à-vis a DPA is limited to arraigning the defendant, granting a speedy trial waiver if the DPA does not represent an improper attempt to circumvent the speedy trial clock, and adjudicating motions or disputes as they arise.”
“The district court justified its concededly “novel” exercise of supervisory power in this context by observing that “it is easy to imagine circumstances in which a deferred prosecution agreement, or the implementation of such an agreement, so transgresses the bounds of lawfulness or propriety as to warrant judicial intervention to protect the integrity of the Court.” HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2013 WL 3306161, at *6. We agree that it is not difficult to imagine such circumstances. But the problem with this reasoning is that it runs headlong into the presumption of regularity that federal courts are obliged to ascribe to prosecutorial conduct and decision making. That presumption is rooted in the principles that undergird our constitutional structure. In particular, “because the United States Attorneys are charged with taking care that the laws are faithfully executed, there is a `presumption of regularity support[ing] their prosecutorial decisions and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.'” United States v. Sanchez, 517 F.3d 651, 671 (2d Cir. 2008) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996)). In resting its exercise of supervisory authority on hypothesized scenarios of egregious misconduct, the district court turned this presumption on its head. See HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2013 WL 3306161, at *6 (“[C]onsider a situation where the current monitor needs to be replaced. What if the replacement’s only qualification for the position is that he or she is an intimate acquaintance of the prosecutor proposing the appointment?” (citation omitted)). Rather than presume “in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary” that the prosecutors administering the DPA were “properly discharg[ing] their official duties,” the district court invoked its supervisory power — and encroached on the Executive’s prerogative — based on the mere theoretical possibility that the prosecutors might one day abdicate those duties. Sanchez, 517 F.3d at 671 (internal quotation mark omitted).”
Gleeson can now argue that he found the case that he did not establish as a judge. However, his brief is filled with sweeping presumptions against the motivations and analysis of the Justice Department, even though many outsiders agree with that analysis. The Flynn case is based on statements that even the FBI agents reportedly did not believe were intentional lies. Moreover, there is a clear basis to question the materiality element to the criminal charge. People can disagree reasonably on both points, but that is the point. The Justice Department has decided that it agrees that the case is flawed in line with the analysis of various experts. The court might not agree with that interpretation and many other experts may vehemently oppose it. However, it is a legitimate legal argument that cannot be substituted by the Court for its own preferences.
None of this seems to penetrate the analysis of Gleeson who shows the same aggrandizement of judicial authority that got him reversed as a judge. He argues for a court potentially sending someone to jail when the prosecutors no longer believe he is guilty of a crime and believe that he was the victim of bias and abuse.
Imagine what that would portend for future criminal defendants who want to argue coercion and abuse. Their counsel would have to warn them that they could be sent to prison for a longer period for perjury even if the prosecutors agree with them. Moreover, Gleeson believes that they should not even be afforded a trial as perjurers, just treated as perjurers.
That is being claimed in the name of “regularity.” Unfortunately, such analysis has become all too regular in this age of rage.
This was a political document for dissemination to the press, not a legal brief. I think one has to conclude Gleeson knows this.
It would be interesting to know what an ethics board can do about it. I’ve never heard of disciplinary action against someone filing an amicus. Of course, I’ve never heard of an amicus in a criminal proceeding. But I don’t see that Gleeson broke any rules of ethical conduct.
Sullivan, by contrast, is on thin ice.
I think after Judge Sullivan is forced to dismiss and set Flynn free from this nonsense, there is a very high probability that Judge S. will face some kind of disciplinary action..censur…asked to retire…which I don’t know.
why?
1. Declaring Flynn a traitor to his country, a crime he was never charged with…Sure, he apologized, but this shows he was not in control of his mind and emotions.
2. Prior, Judge Sullivan was not interested in examining the full extent of brady material even after the motion was drawn that it existed. This was not just poor judgement. It shows a type of misconduct and directly impugns the objectivity of the judge directly.
3. Declining to dismiss this case even when DOJ AND the defendant agree to dismiss!
4. and then of course, asserting the ridiculous notion that flynn could be sentenced for contempt by asserting his right to withdrawal a guilty plea in light of the NEW evidence of brady material that showed he was placed in extraordinary corrupt duress by the former prosecutors at DOJ AND had poor defense counsel who failed on multiple levels in his defense.
all of this smacks of a personal and very likely a political agenda to persecute flynn.
I think Judge Sullivan days on the bench are numbered.
just step back for a moment here and consider what makes this case so particularly significant to sullivan to act with such zeal for a prosecution? A perjury charge?
did Flynn not comply with the DPA he agreed and continues to comply.
now that the DOJ has dismissed with credible facts to assert the REASONS why…
what really is the agenda for Sullivan to continue down this path?
imagine for a moment that this case involved the everyday man? Any judge would have already dismissed this case..post haste.
isn’t that true? of course it is.
But this is General Flynn, a Trump associate, who knows where the bodies are buried and the sins of a former obummer regime.
Sullivan is carrying out the orders given to him to do everything in his power to send this man to prison…and failing that, create nonsense to delay his freedom and the dangling DPA that serves as a gag…
this case isn’t about justice…it’s about Judge Sullivan being a corrupt embecile…
his reward will be severe.
When I think of the FBI under Comey and Wray I think of this old story:
—
An old Italian lived alone in New Jersey . He wanted to plant his annual tomato garden, but it was very difficult work, as the ground was hard.
His only son, Vincent, who used to help him, was in prison. The old man wrote a letter to his son and described his predicament:
Dear Vincent,
I am feeling pretty sad, because it looks like I won’t be able to plant my tomato garden this year. I’m just getting too old to be digging up a garden plot. I know if you were here my troubles would be over.. I know you would be happy to dig the plot for me, like in the old days.
Love, Papa
A few days later he received a letter from his son.
Dear Pop,
Don’t dig up that garden. That’s where the bodies are buried.
Love,
Vinnie
At 4 a.m. the next morning, FBI agents and local police arrived and dug up the entire area without finding any bodies. They apologized to the old man and left.
That same day the old man received another letter from his son.
Dear Pop,
Go ahead and plant the tomatoes now. That’s the best I could do under the circumstances.
Allan – LOL
Ha. Funny story.
Not sure what it has to do with Comey and Wray. But it’s a funny story.
The wording gymnastics in Gleason’s arguments rate a Large Turd, NOT a Medal. I’m not a Lawyer, thank God, I have a Soul…but I can smell a setup miles away. I hope the Appeals court fully understands that Flynn was SET UP and the Perps are the ones that need to be in PRISON! I would also say that Gleason and Sullivan should join them for attempting to Hang a Man that was the Victim of Bad Actors!
Gotta love a lawyer/judge who fully relies on a case that holds against his position and was decided well before the seminal adverse case (US v. Fokker) he all but ignores. In US v. Ammidown, relied upon almost singularly by Judge Gleeson in his argument, he must have missed this passage:
𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵, 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘢𝘸. 𝘏𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵𝘺 𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘺.𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘥𝘰 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘺, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬 𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.
𝘐𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘪𝘯, 𝘸𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘳’𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦. 𝘐𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘤𝘪𝘳𝘤𝘶𝘮𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘳𝘺.
𝘈𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘳, 𝘸𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘰𝘶𝘣𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘈𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥, 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘨𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘓𝘦𝘦– ‘𝘢 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘢𝘯 . . . 𝘢 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘳.’ 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘈𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘷𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 ….
As the Court in Fokker noted:
𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵’𝘴 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯’𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴—𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴—𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 “𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘦[𝘥] 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘺 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭,” 𝘔𝘪𝘤𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘰𝘧𝘵, 56 𝘍.3𝘥 𝘢𝘵 1462. 𝘙𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘗𝘈 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘍𝘰𝘬𝘬𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵, 𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 § 3161(𝘩)(2). 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘗𝘈’𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘯𝘢 𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥, 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘈𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘢𝘵 4-7; 𝘎𝘰𝘷’𝘵 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘱. 𝘔𝘦𝘮. 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘋𝘗𝘈 𝘙𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘍𝘰𝘬𝘬𝘦𝘳 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴, 𝘉.𝘝., 𝘢𝘵 15-16, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘴𝘶𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘦. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘢 𝘋𝘗𝘈 𝘪𝘧 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘳 𝘶𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘷. 𝘚𝘢𝘦𝘯𝘢 𝘛𝘦𝘤𝘩 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘱., 2015 𝘞𝘓 6406266, 𝘢𝘵 *17-19 (𝘋.𝘋.𝘊. 𝘖𝘤𝘵. 21, 2015); 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘷. 𝘏𝘚𝘉𝘊 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘜𝘚𝘈, 𝘕.𝘈., 2013 𝘞𝘓 3306161, 𝘢𝘵 *7 (𝘌.𝘋.𝘕.𝘠. 𝘑𝘶𝘭𝘺 1, 2013), 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘴𝘶𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 § 3161(𝘩)(2) 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘭𝘺 𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘗𝘈. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰.
That’s as close to Game. Set Match as we get at the courthouse.
I agree with you. I am somewhat confounded by the fact Gleeson seemed to have overlooked the fact that the DOJ set forth its reasons for dismissal in its Motion to Dismiss, and thus needs not to appear before Sullivan again to set forth its reasons one more time.
Perhaps the two have poor reading skills. Or, as discussed at length in a book in the Provocateur Gugino’s reading list, The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat, they have some form of strange neurological condition which impedes their seeing what is right in front of them.
When this is over (please let it be over), I suggest that FOX NEWS hire Gen Flynn to be host of an exclusive weekly program called “Unmasked” with General Michael Flynn. Each week, General Flynn will delve into the hidden deep state lives of the major players in Washington: who is married to whom, who was found to be lying to the FBI, who should be prosecuted, who had what job(s) before their current job, who made what contributions to Hillary Clinton or the Clinton Foundation, who has taken money from George Soros, who has children/brothers/sisters/spouses working for foreign governments, who is a present or past member of the Communist Party, etc, etc…you get the gist. Should be a banger for Fox and I will record every episode. Unmask them, Mike! Go get these duckheads, your only form of Justice here. Are you all with me?? Raise your hand!!
Imagine the revenue if was pay-per-view.
THAT would be contrary to Fox News role as CNNlite.
You are aware that Flynn’s name was NOT masked in the transcripts about which Republicans have been apoplectic?
Kinda ruins the idea of calling your little show idea “unmasked.”
Oh, poor Jonny. They did not appoint you… with good cause.
The only “regularity” that would result is that for which people take laxatives.
Were I to have commented on the brief, I would have felt compelled to mention the extreme drowsiness which overcame me while reading the repetitive canards and meaningless string cites.
I am by no means certain I could have passed a brief pop quiz on the substance of the brief unless the questions concerned the obvious rancor of the author thereof. I do have a strong sense of not being impressed by it, and possessing the notion that it would be good material for stuffing into a paper bag and lighting on fire on the porch of someone I disliked on a Halloween Night.
Far to overly complicated. The socialists including their judges believe in suspicion of and guilty until proven innocent. The Constitutionalists believe in probable cause and innocent until proven guilty.
Michael Aarethun: Except that, Flynn PLEADED GUILTY, telling Judge Sullivan, under oath, that he IS guilty, and he got off on other felonies as part of a plea deal. What about the other felonies, those he can’t lie his way out of–working as an advocate for Turkey without registering? He was convicted. Now that chubby Billy Barr is trying to help him out, all of a sudden we’re supposed to believe he was lying when he admitted under oath that he lied to the FBI? THAT is Judge Gleeson’s point. AND, chubby Billy Barr’s claims that the lying wasn’t material, and that there was misconduct, so Flynn should get a free pass is all bull, too. Flynn lied to the FBI about telling the Russians he would take care of the little sanctions problem instituted by the Obama Administration as a result of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This was while Obama was still POTUS, so he’s working behind the scenes even before Trump took office. Bear in mind that the meddling is how Trump cheated to “win the victory”.
So, your comments about probable cause and presumption of innocence make no sense in this case. Flynn entered into a plea agreement to get off on other felonies, got caught lying, admitted he lied, and was already convicted. FLYNN IS NOT A VICTIM.
Now, Barr, with Turley’s help, is trying to bully a Judge who seems to be the only one involved who respects the rule of law and is complying with the oath to protect and defend the Constitution. The Judge understands what is going on, and has discretion to refuse to allow the charges to be dismissed after conviction–if he didn’t then Barr wouldn’t need leave of court to withdraw charges after conviction.
As I’m sure has been pointed out before, Flynn did not discuss the “sanctions” as defined by Mueller, he discussed the expulsion of the Ruassian officers so he didn’t lie about not discussing sanctions. Guess you missed that part of class!
“Flynn did not discuss the “sanctions” as defined by Mueller”
That’s false.
“he discussed the expulsion of the Ruassian officers”
And those are part of the sanctions, as defined by Mueller. Did you read all of the relevant text of both executive orders?
“defined by Mueller”
Not defined by Flynn.
Let’s hear the words of Flynn that make him guilty. You didn’t have them before and you don’t have them now. You lie.
??
I’m sure Alan has a poin……….t. What is it?
Anon, are you admitting ignorance? How nice.
The question as to what Flynn answered resides in how the question was interpreted, what words were used and what the meaning of the words were. That will put things into a more proper perspective. (It’s sort of dumb because no reasonable interpretation of those events make Flynn guilty of anything… CTHD is a story teller when not lying. Then again you are a story teller as well when not lying. Funny how similar the two of you are.)
Since it was widely reported in the news – anyone paying attention, and especially a high ranking campaign official – knew that the removal of Russian personnel was part of the sanctions. I didn’t read or know about the EOs and I knew that.
It doesn’t matter because no matter how you slice the cake Flynn isn’t guilty of anything.
A sanction could be not inviting Kyslyak to a birthday party, but when most think of sanctions they think of economic sanctions. The questioner should have been more exacting. It is the questioner’s fault for not making sure the individual being questioned knew what he was talking about.
You should know these things.
But what did Flynn say to Kyslyak that you are so unhappy about? Quote it in context.
But what did Flynn say to Kyslyak that you are so unhappy about?
Allan,
None of them will admit it, but their position isn’t based on what Flynn said in the conversation with Kislyak. Clearly by the transcripts, nothing was conveyed by Flynn that would be out of the ordinary for an incoming National Security Advisor. The problem for them is that Michael Flynn was the incoming National Security Advisor for president-elect Trump. And if president-elect Trump was believed by them to be an illegitimate president, then every individual within his orbit was also illegitimate. One more thing, because they believed this so deeply, they were not going to be hamstrung by the law. They see their cause as justice served. They committed treason, not General Flynn.
” nothing was conveyed by Flynn that would be out of the ordinary for an incoming National Security Advisor. ”
Olly that is absolutely true. That is why Needs to be Committed is unable to quote anything that Flynn said that was illegal. We even have quotes of the conversation on tape which are the most accurate of all statements coming from the FBI on this particular matter. Committed needs to be Committed to a rubber room where he can dance to his heart’s content.
By the way recently you indicated you were an accountant. Did your interest in accounting come from your navy experience?
Did your interest in accounting come from your navy experience?
I hadn’t thought of that before. When I originally went to college out of high school, I wanted to go into forestry or wildlife conservation. However events led me to the Navy after 1 semester. My ASVAB testing revealed I should go into the Advanced Electronics Field (AEF) and I became a Sonar Technician. I developed analytical skills both in troubleshooting electronic systems and anti-submarine warfare. It was when I went back to college during my first shore duty assignment that I discovered those skills were ideal for the field of accounting. My later years in the Navy, they sent me to school for Activity Based Costing (ABC), Total Quality Management (TQM) and Strategic Planning. When I think about it, all of that training really developed my critical-thinking skills. Which largely explains why I find a certain group of people on this blog to be certifiably bat $hit crazy.
Even better for forensic accounting.
🙂 I’m the guy that grinds over .01 not reconciling.
OLLY – I would agree with your last statement. 😉
I’ll stand by my statements on the Flynn matter and not Olly’s imaginings.
I’ll stand by my statements on the Flynn matter and not Olly’s imaginings.
Well that would be the principled thing to do; the wrong principles for this country, but at least consistent. It’s safe to say, given all we know today and after you’ve being wrong on nearly everything for 3 1/2 years, a paradigm shift is not in your future.
Anon, you can stand by the Steele Dossier for all I care which is what you have done. What you say is based on what you wish to push not on the truth and I think most people with brains recognize that.
Flynn was represented by competent (and expensive) counsel. if he wasn’t guilty, then why did he plead guilty? He admitted in his guilty plea that he wasn’t coerced into pleading guilty,.. and he did get off on the failure to register as an advocate for the Republic of Turkey. What about that?
Natacha, you have been out to lunch since the day I got on this blog.
Flynn was never provided with the FBI documents that demonstrated innocence while at the same time the FBI illegally changed written documents to suit their quest of indicting him. No point in repeating all this stuff to you because you can’t retain it.
I posted this in response, but once again, my response was posted unthreaded: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/11/trumped-up-former-judges-filing-is-an-example-of-irregularity-in-the-age-of-rage/comment-page-3/#comment-1965281
I don’t know what the tech glitch is that sometimes causes my replies to become unthreaded from the comment I’m replying to. It’s really annoying.
“I posted this in response, but once again, my response was posted unthreaded:”
What is really unthreaded is what is in your head.
Let’s hear the words of Flynn that make him guilty.
_______________________________________________________
The words of Flynn that made him guilty is Flynn’s sworn Statement of Offense that details the facts of the case including the fact that he lied to the FBI.
Flynn and his lawyers were given the evidence record that shows that the FBI investigators believed Flynn was not lying, but the defense chose to not show that evidence to the court and instead chose to present a new version of the facts that contradicted the statements of the FBI.
Let’s hear or see the words.
Let’s hear or see the words.
_________________________________________
Read the Statement of Offense that Flynn swore under oath was true and correct.
It’s meaningless.
It’s meaningless.
___________________________________
The statement of offense is the phony version of the facts created by the Trump DOJ and attested to by Flynn as true and correct. It is the evidence presented to the court to support Flynn’s conviction since the real evidence record created by the FBI would not support a conviction.
The fact that the the prosecutor and the lawyers for the defense also told the court it was true and correct, gave it meaning.
Not so.
Not so.
________________________________________
It is so.
The statement of offense was a new version of the facts created by the Trump DOJ that contradicted the statements on the record by the FBI agents who had said they “believed Flynn was not lying”. The statement of offense became the evidence against Flynn not because it was true but because Flynn swore under oath that it was true and correct. And Flynn swore to the court that he had not been promised anything or threatened into making a statement by the prosecution.
The Statement of Offense became the evidence presented to the court to provide it with a factual basis for Flynn’s conviction since the real evidence record created by the FBI would not support a conviction.
The fact that all the parties involved told the court those facts were true and correct gave the statement of offense meaning in the eyes of the court.
https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download
You are totally mixed up and put together your comments conflict either with one another or reality.
You are totally mixed up and put together your comments conflict either with one another
___________________________________________
Sorry you were unable to understand. I will try again in simpler more concise terms:
The FBI said Flynn did not lie.
Then Trump appointed Rosenstein who in turn appointed Mueller.
Mueller’s function was to shut down the FBI Russia investigation and take it over.
Flynn and Mueller who are both Trump administration appointees came up with a new story that contradicted the FBI story that Flynn ” was not lying”. Based on the new story that Flynn had lied to the FBI Flynn pled guilty, but sentencing was postponed because Mueller and Flynn asked the court to delay sentencing.
Fast forward several years and Flynn and the DOJ say Flynn is not guilty and its all the FBI’s fault because if the FBI never had talked to Flynn then Mueller and Flynn would have never been able to invent a false story about what happened when the FBI talked to Flynn.
And the judge says “wait a minute, something doesn’t smell right here”.
Again, you are totally confused.
BTW, if you didn’t read the EOs, here they are:
Executive Order 13757: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/29/executive-order-taking-additional-steps-address-national-emergency
Executive Order 13694: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/01/executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-engaging-significant-m
The EO’s have nothing to do with Flynn directly. Provide Flynn’s words that were illegal.
You lie.
Provide Flynn’s words that were illegal.
____________________________________________
The FBI says there were none.
The FBI (including Peter Strzok) has said that they believed Flynn was not lying and that there was no evidence for which Flynn could be charged with a crime.
jinn – here is something
https://www.theepochtimes.com/flynn-case-85-lies-contradictions-oddities-and-unusual-occurrences_3382308.html
The Epoch Times is a U.S. based international multi-language newspaper and media extension of the Falun Gong new religious movement.[4][5][6]…..
The media outlet is primarily known for promoting far-right politicians across Europe and the United States, and in particular for its promotion of U.S. President Donald Trump; a 2019 report showed it to be the second-largest funder of pro-Trump Facebook advertising after the Trump campaign.[11][12][13][14] The group’s news sites and YouTube channels have spread conspiracy theories such as QAnon and anti-vaccination propaganda.[7][15][16] The organization frequently promotes other Falun Gong extensions, such as the performing arts wing of the new religious movement, Shen Yun.”
Anon – sure, attack the messenger instead of the message.
I agree Epoch times is excellent. Maybe because they understand the CCP agenda and how the CCP buys off American mass and social media bosses and bends them to their agenda.
“how the CCP buys off American mass and social media bosses and bends them to their agenda.”
Committed seems to have been purchased for a very low price.
So what,. book? Finally, a newspaper not bought off by the CCP.
Kurtz, in an incident I’m sure you remember from about 3-4 months ago, you were denouncing the NYTs for not covering the Honk Kong protests because they were bought off by the CCP. BS then, BS now.
I produced for you not only their front page article from that very day, but an Editorial Board Editorial denouncing the Chinese government’s actions. You refused to rescind your now stupid and disproven charge and we can see here, continue it. Your opinion is therefore a fantasy and BS you want to believe, not something true.
Anon, I too was surprised at how late the NYT was in releasing the headline news. I can’t say for sure either way, but you never proved that the NYT promptly reported the Hong Kong news. You never proved your case and never provided a timeline. It’s generally fantassy when you think you are offering proof.
jinn – here is something
___________________________________________
Actually no nothing relevant in that article
Nothing there about the evidence presented to the court in the Flynn.
The article talks about everything but the evidence presented to the court.
There is lots of evidence that Flynn did not lie to the FBI or committed any crime.
The FBI had looked at the evidence and found nothing for which Flynn could be charged. But then in May 2017, the Trump DOJ took the investigation away from the FBI and pit it under the direct control of the Trump DOJ.
The Trump DOJ found no new evidence but made a case anyway, How is that possible? It is only possible if Flynn helps the DOJ.
This was always a phony case that was designed to unravel when examined closely. The case was a fraud perpetrated by the Trump DOJ and Flynn and his lawyers.
If a person has a gun to their head, or to the head of their child, and is expected to confess (to anything), and further to attest that the confession is knowing and voluntary, do those confessions still carry the legal weight, even if you could prove later that the confessions were coerced?
Alternately, if the confessions were based upon factually faulty knowledge of what one was confessing to, only to find out later that the facts confessed to had no connection to a crime, do you get to sever the instantiation of the confession from everything it relies on?
In both cases, what appears to be solemn statements of inculpation, are later found to be empty recitations with no contextual meaning or legal import.
That is what it appears to be with Flynn’s guilty plea.
His taking back a technical plea now known to be based upon frauds or coercion, will still allow him to be exposed to whatever else he might have been facing before he took the plea.
Good post Gary. I’m firmly convinced that this has nothing to do with anyone believing this would be a just conviction. Instead, it has everything to do with putting President Trump in the position of pardoning him so they can beat that horse to death leading up to the election.
If a person has a gun to their head
_________________________________________________
There was no gun to anyone’s head. That is just another phony story just like the Flynn-lied-to-the-FBI story. There was never any good reason for Flynn to plead guilty.
It is all made up BS just like most of the other made up BS in the Mueller report. It was all made up to make it look like Trump was engaged in mortal combat with the deep state. In pro-wrestling they call that Kayfabe. And the winner of these battles was predetermined. And that is why all these phony controversies turn into nothing burgers in the end.
He filed a 71-page brief. Generally, there are page limits, and a long brief is usually a sign of the weakness of the argument.
Gleeson’s Wiki page has been recently edited and shortened. At the time Sullivan invited Gleeson into the Flynn case Gleeson’s Wiki page stated that during his judicial tenure he had taken a position that DOJ could drop criminal charges and dismiss a case even after a conviction had been rendered. Now that comment and supporting citations have been deleted from Gleeson’s Wiki page.
It’s easy enough to revert the changes. The more significant issue is whether the original claim was substantiated with a reliable source.
The information war is real and operating on a wider bandwidth than you would ever imagine.
Those who control the history books have the capability to shape what are perceived truths.
This guy is a “bent” judge, as is most likely, Judge Sullivan. Someone has dirt on them at a very high level, which they’re applying as leverage to get these two to go completely off the deep end, in Sullivan’s case, contradicting earlier actions and judgments he has rendered. One can only imagine the threats being made to their families or fortunes that would cause them to do this in the face of obvious opposition and opinion. “What have they got, and when did they get it.” Time to look at mortgage payments, new boats, drug habits, bank accounts offshore, etc. These guys are “bent.”
I have seen that face before in court. It is of a person who doesn’t care a lick about right and wrong. It is the smirk of a liar who misquotes cases and cites authority that actually goes against his case.
Can anyone explain why Gleeson was allowed to file this at all while the order by Sullivan appointing is under active review by the DC Circuit panel, and is scheduled for oral arguments tomorrow? Unless, this is just grandstanding before Sullivan’s orders are rightly reversed, and this was the last shot at getting the lies into the media in order to mislead folks on the law once again?
Kate, the biggest clue is the fact that this is the sentencing phase in the case. At this point it is the prerogative of the judge to seek more information and his right to admit amicus briefs. Turley never says it isn’t allowed he only criticizes it. It’s a very subtle distinction.
Sullivan has ample reason to demand an explanation for the charges being dismissed and consider perjury as another charge because Flynn attested under oath and penalty of perjury that his statements were true.
But the same doesn’t apply to Hillary et. al. Got it. I understand that the law is a nuanced thing, but Turley and a few others seem to be one of the only legal experts left alive that actually that bias is not a legitimate component of its application.
James, problem is, Hillary was never charged with a crime. So the relevance of your argument seems quite moot.
Svelaz–“problem is, Hillary was never charged with a crime.”
Yes, true, and that IS a big problem.
And further, the decision “Not to Prosecute” Ms. Clinton, was made by the FBI Director, not the DOJ. That seems like something that should have drawn Judge Sullivan’s interest.
“Beyond the mechanism of the appeal, there are other tangled connections between the Clinton and Flynn cases. The jurist at the center of the Flynn showdown, Judge Emmet Sullivan, memorably excoriated Clinton over her use of the private email account and ordered earlier depositions on the issue, including one given by Mills in May 2016 in the midst of the presidential campaign.
Sullivan allowed Clinton to answer written questions under oath instead of being deposed, but another judge handling a separate case recently insisted on a deposition.
And Mills’ attorney, Beth Wilkinson, is now representing Sullivan himself as he opposes the mandamus petition against him over the Flynn matter. She did not argue on Tuesday, leaving the argument to longtime Clinton attorney David Kendall.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/02/appeals-court-clinton-testify-emails-297132
I suppose that since Ms. Clinton was already in his courtroom, before him, Judge Sullivan could have asked for an Amici Brief and appointed Judge Gleeson to see if there was an abuse of power. It certainly seems like a “Corrupt DOJ/FBI bid to aid President Obama” to paraphrase Gleeson.
Flynn’s lawyer submitted a motion for a writ of mandamus, but that doesn’t put a stay on anything in Sullivan’s court unless the appellate court grants the writ in some fashion. They haven’t so far. The only orders issued by the DC Circuit Court so far were about people filing briefs with them.
Re: your belief that “Sullivan’s orders [will be] rightly reversed,” that’s your opinion. Some people share that opinion with you, and others (like me) don’t.
The most important fundamental truth regarding the Flynn case is ‘Liberal’ Democrats have given up all pretenses of fairness or justice in regards to the Flynn case. If Gleeson showed up to court and murdered Flynn with a bullet to the head liberals would cheer it was a great victory for justice, Flynn was a traitor, and Gleeson is a hero of the republic whose statue should rise in the place of the fallen Columbus.
Intellectual honesty is out the window, legal honesty is out the window, factual honesty is out the window, the only language with any merit or standing is raw power.
Liam, speaking of intellectual dishonesty, the fundamental truth in the Flynn case lies in Flynn under oath stated directly to a judge TWICE he lied to the FBI which is a felony crime under federal statute. Furthermore Flynn attested UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that he was never coerced and would NOT CHANGE HIS GUILTY PLEA. Flynn knowingly attested to these truths under…penalty of perjury. Seems pretty fair to me.
So no other defendant other than Flynn has ever been pressured into pleading guilty even though they weren’t because they feared greater penalties that the time they would serve? Have you been to a prison lately?
Your point is irrelevant here, Flynn specifically stated that he understood clearly what he was saying under penalty of perjury. He clearly emphasized that he was not coerced or forced to admit guilt and that he wouldn’t challenge his guilty plea later on. Literally he made that statement to the judge’s face. Now that he changed it he stands to be charged for perjury.
With a gun to your head the robber states: ‘do you clearly understand that this donation is not returnable and is a donation?’ You answer: ‘Yes” and after he repeats the question 2 more times you say ‘yes’, ‘yes’. The police find a recording of the robbery. They look at you, shake their heads and say, ‘you are an idiot’.
Allan, nothing points to Flynn being coerced or forced to admit to lying to the FBI.
There IS proof that he actually lied. Knowing that they had this against him he knew he had no choice but to admit it. Two times and to two judges Flynn specifically stated under penalty of perjury that he lied and he also unequivocally stated he was not coerced, even when the judge gave him plenty of opportunity to change his plea at the time. Flynn states he was not coerced. You can’t be any more clear than that. Anything else is pure assumption without a shred of proof.
The fact that material was withheld from Flynn and his defense is evidence enough, but we also have the evidence that the investigators felt he had not been dishonest. Add to that the fact that they still haven’t released all the FBI notes and that the 302 was rewritten. Still add to that we now have evidence of wrong doing by multiple parties at the FBI that were involved with Flynn.
In the end when Flynn refused to yield they called Flynn’s son in to grill him which is on the record and they gagged Flynn. They also went after the President’s son Don Jr. Strange, but they found nothing and what was reported or leaked was wrong. It is clear from the FBI reports and even the Mueller Report when one looks at what Mueller did not investigate that this was a frame job.
There is no question that the Flynn investigation was mishandled and that he is not criminally guilty of any of the charges. People like you do not care about the law. They only care about their ideology and promoting it even at the expense of the law and honorable American citizens. You should be ashamed of who you are.
Allan, FBI agents “feeling” that Flynn has not been dishonest doesn’t trump the fact that he was. There’s actual proof that he provided two different accounts of what he said to FBI agents and the VP. This is only one of many instances that they could have charged him with.
If what you say is true then there should be no question that those allegations should be reviewed by the judge before making his decision. It’s still his prerogative to get all the information he needs to make a decision.
The FBI lied. Therefore everything they say is suspect including the 302’s especially what has been rewritten.
They have no proof of anything. End of story. Flynn is innocent.
There IS proof that he actually lied. Knowing that they had this against him he knew he had no choice but to admit it.
_____________________________________________________
No such proof exists. The fact is that the FBI investigators involved have said on the record, they believe he was not lying. That alone guarantees Flynn would walk if the case was tried on its merits.
The entire investigation is littered with outright lies, fabrications and deception by the FBI & prosecution, along with mafia-like threats towards Flynn’s family and of course the ludicrous Judge Sullivan implying he wanted to have Flynn put to death for treason. The FBI’s internal case documents show that not only was there no predicate for an investigation, but they also DID NOT THINK FLYNN HAD LIED TO THE FBI. The prosecution ‘lost’ key documentation (FBI 302) and hid other exculpatory Brady evidence, both flagrant abuses. Everyone except the political operatives on the 7th floor of the FBI wanted the case put to bed.
The fact ‘Liberal’ democrats want to crucify Flynn for making an initial guilty plea in this obviously politically driven KGB-esque investigation just further points to their complete abdication of any intellectual honesty, legal honesty or factual honesty. Flynn was obviously coerced into the plea by a completely unlawful prosecution and investigation which had no factual merit, no material predication, and no material evidence of any actual criminal behavior on Flynn’s behalf. The entire reality of the facts of the case were completely mis-represented by the prosecution.
That the facts of this investigation are ‘Fair’ in your eyes just shows exactly my point. The only thing that matters to modern ‘Liberal’ democrats is power. You don’t care one bit about truth or justice, you only care about power, and victory. The prosecution effectively created an ‘alternate reality’ of fabricated facts and allegations, and you think that’s just great. Just like I stated, I truly believe ‘liberal’ democrats would cheer if Gleeson shot Flynn dead on the steps of the courthouse. That’s how divorced from reality they are.
“UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that he was never coerced and would NOT CHANGE HIS GUILTY… ”
‘Will you donate your wallet to me’ says the thief holding a gun to your head. You hand over the wallet and then go to the police and they tell you ‘its not a crime to accept donations’.
That is how silly you sound no matter what name you go under.
Allan, the problem with your analogy despite being silly, is that Flynn was his own “robber”. He painted himself into that corner when he lied and got caught. All the FBI did was asked him what he said and upon discovering that he lied to them. He has already committed a felony. Remember he was charged with only two counts out of a lot more. In exchange for his cooperation. He was set to receive a lenient sentence until this stupid move by the DOJ was made.
I can’t help it if you are unable to understand what coercion means. I can’t help it if you support FBI corruption. The Senate is still having trouble getting FBI records having to do with Steele and there is a lot of information that remains hidden. That forces the FBI to provide absolute proof of anything they want to claim. They have no facts that would cause Flynn’s conviction so the Judge should be forced to let him go and lift all gag orders on Flynn that might remain. One has to wonder if the Judge might have been one of the FISA judges or otherwise involved in the scandals in the FBI or elsewhere..
I’m liberal, and “If Gleeson showed up to court and murdered Flynn with a bullet to the head,” I’d want Gleeson prosecuted for murder.
Dishonest characterizations aren’t good for society. You can choose not to indulge that nonsense.
Do I believe that everyone who professes to support ‘liberalism’, or the ‘left’ or the democrats or any combination of such would support such dramatic actions as I theorized. No of course not, in fact I consider myself generally on the ‘left’ when it comes to political debate. However, all indications from the coverage of the Flynn trial suggest a segment of the ‘liberal’ media would in fact continue to push and support the extreme ‘traitorous Flynn’ narrative. Large segments of the DC/NYC press have continually pushed this factually incorrect and frankly dangerous narrative that Flynn somehow engaged in traitorous and subversive actions against the USA.
Please don’t take my hyperbole as a personal affront, I do not mean so! 🙂
There’s good evidence that Flynn committed more than one crime. He was charged for one (false statements to the FBI) and not others (e.g., false statements on his FARA filing). If you read the released transcripts of his calls with Kislyak, he’s not acting like as an incoming NSA concerned about our well-being should act: Russia had recently interfered significantly in our election, and Flynn never condemns the Russian interference.
I can condemn Flynn on the facts. I’m not trying to push a “factually incorrect and frankly dangerous narrative.” If you think I have any facts wrong, you can ask for evidence and/or present counterevidence.
I’ve read the transcripts of the Kislyak-Flynn calls and your interpretation of those calls is biased and incorrect to say the least. There was nothing remotely suspicious, let alone criminal or treasonous in the transcripts. Flynn asked for de-escalation of the growing USA-Russia diplomatic feud caused by the Obama diplomatic expulsion of Russians, and increased co-operation in the middle east. https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05-29%20ODNI%20to%20CEG%20RHJ%20%28Flynn%20Transcripts%29.pdf <—– Transcripts
The false statement to the FBI charge has been completely skewered by declassified internal FBI documents which showed the interviewing agents THEMSELVES did not believe Flynn had lied to them. FBI documents also revealed the FBI went into the Flynn interview with the intention of catching Flynn in a perjury trap for a case which the FBI had been no materiality to investigate Flynn in the first place. (https://twitter.com/cbs_herridge/status/1262146848204238855)
Lady justice is supposed to be blind, but that is quite obviously not true in this case. Why do you claim to condemn Flynn on the facts but then profess a completely biased and generally incorrect version of the 'facts' as truth. Looks like you are just another liberal only concerned with power and victory after all, honesty be damned.
This was a response to you, but it became unthreaded from your comment:
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/11/trumped-up-former-judges-filing-is-an-example-of-irregularity-in-the-age-of-rage/comment-page-3/#comment-1965157
(That happens with my comments sometimes, I’m not sure why.)
NYT READERS COMMENT ON GLEESON’S BRIEF
Doctor B
White Plains, NYJune 10
Trump shamelessly wields government’s powers as a weapon to harass his enemies & shield his allies from accountability for misconduct. Accusing AG Jeff Sessions (who was the first US Senator to endorse him in 2016) of being insufficiently loyal showed that he demanded his AG to be, above all else, loyal to him personally- not to the people of the USA, not to the Constitution or the rule of law, but to him personally.
Upon hearing this, Bill Barr decided to audition for the job by sending Trump an unsolicited letter describing his view of absolute presidential power. Theirs was natural match. Barr has certainly delivered as promised.
This poses a serious threat to our system of checks & balances. Today’s opinion by the apolitical Mr. Gleeson shows that at least some honest public servants will seek to foil the efforts of Trump & Barr to turn America into a dictatorship. If they are somehow given another 4 years, it is unlikely that there will be any semblance of democracy left here.
……………………………………………………..
Brian Barrett
New jerseyJune 10
The Gleeson brief as summarized here is quite a document. It adds clarity to the Flynn case. Barr and the Justice Department made a cynical and bogus argument about the immateriality of the Flynn interview. Gleeson uses their own words and actions as well as precedent to demolish that argument. He does so with clear language that can be understood by all Americans.
At the same time Gleeson rejects imposition of Contempt in this case as inappropriate and he provides sound reasoning for so doing.
……………………………………………………..
Christopher Reynolds
BoulderJune 10
Prosecutors have enormous power in our criminal justice system. They decide which cases to prosecute and what charges to file. Typically a prosecutor is given wide deference in exercising that power.
In this case, the prosecutor (attorney general Barr) has shattered the public trust because he chose not to prosecute an ally of President Trump for reasons that defy logic or notions of justice.
The people of the United States need to believe that its justice department is separate from undue political influence. The damage this administration has done to institutions vital to our democracy is incalculable.
………………………………………………………..
George
TorontoJune 10
“Mr. Flynn’s defense team and the Justice Department have sought to bypass Judge Sullivan altogether, asking the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to order him to dismiss the case against Mr. Flynn without any further review.”
This is what gives me pause… why is the DoJ working SO HARD to get Flynn off the hook? The request was unusual enough, but once the request was not immediately granted they took a different route.
Why? Why is this SO important to completely ignore precedent?
…………………………………………………………..
Mark In PS
Palm SpringsJune 10
The lengths to which the Trump administration are going to gaslight the public with respect to the Mueller investigation are breathtaking. A broad daylight attack on the evidence and the admission of guilt in open court is new level of brazen for even this reckless an administration. Just who shall be the check on this DOJ?
…………………………………………………………..
Edited from READER COMMENTS: “Outsider Tapped In Flynn Case Calls Justice Dept. Reversal A Gross Abuse Of Power”
New York Times, 6/10/20
REGARDING ABOVE
This question from George in Toronto stands out:
“Why is the DoJ working SO HARD to get Flynn off the hook?”
Not that I want to start another pointless conversation with Seth Warner, but:
Why are leftists working SO HARD to ignore the irregularity of this case up until the appointment of new counsel?
Why is Judge Sullivan working SO HARD to overlook the government’s obvious contempt of his own order by failing to release Brady material–for *years*?
Why are you working SO HARD to ignore the fact that the investigation was illegitimate, therefore any statements by Mr. Flynn were immaterial on their face?
Indeed, why are you working AT ALL to see the injustice of a defendant’s railroading brought to fruition??
I think the motivation has something to do with the (R) after the name of the current resident of the White House, and the obsession with taking a 180-degree out of phase position with Mr. Turley on every. Single. Issue. Perhaps additional electroshock therapy sessions (preferably, inpatient) or a medication adjustment would help?
Let’s start a Go Fund Me page for his shock therapy…
Dave,
Paint Chips aka Seth, would need infusions of paint thinner before he’d begin to process those reasonable and rational questions.
That was very scroll-through-worthy. Thank you for elongating the page. Also, thank you for improving the professor’s Google ranking with your rapid fire, triple-dipping comments, in which your voice is clearly in the minority. I would love it if his readership doubled. That’s something that cracks me up about trolls, and you may or may not be one: by continually spewing a veritable tsunami of nonsense on every site, you are inadvertently pushing those sites to the top of the heap. If you knew anything at all about technology, and no, Google does not control the entirety of the web, thankfully that is still an impossibility, you’d know better.
That is one long pointless word salad.
I can’t help your inability to read. To make things simple all these things have to do with Iran, Islamic terrorists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Obama’s failures as a leader that he wanted to keep secret.
Allan, your smaller word salad still not making any sense.
“Allan, your smaller word salad still not making any sense.”
That is your problem. You should have gotten an education.
And why was exculpatory evidence hidden? And statements made by the prosecution that there was none? At the very least, a mistrial/overturned conviction and start over is merited. I wish that you were Flynn and I’d love to hear you argue the other side if it was you, your family, and your honor.
Didnt your former positive say that Barr had the Authority? Correct me if i am wrong.
Turley says, “ He argues for a court potentially sending someone to jail when the prosecutors no longer believe he is guilty of a crime and believe that he was the victim of bias and abuse.”
There’s a problem with that argument. None of the prosecutors signed the documents attesting to dropping the charges. Only AG Barr’s political appointees did.
That’s correct.
NOT true…Jocelyn S. Ballantine signed the document, she is the DOJ’s line prosecutor who took the case over when the Special Counsel was disbanded. She signed the filing on the prosecution of Flynn and now has signed to dismiss. READ THE DOCUMENTS (not just folks reporting on the filings) FOLKS AND STOP PASSING ALONG FALSE INFORMATION WHICH FUELS DISTRUST IN THE DOJ AND THE LAW FOR NO REASON IN THIS CASE! Actual facts in public documents acts used to matter.
Kate, wrong. Only Timothy Shae signed the documents to dismiss.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6883957-FLYNN.html#document/p1
You’re confusing different documents. Ballantine didn’t sign the DOJ’s Motion to Withdraw in the district court, but did sign the DOJ’s briefs to appellate court re: the writ. The legal issues are different, the courts are different, the documents (and the arguments made in them) are different.
NOT true…Jocelyn S. Ballantine signed the document, she is the DOJ’s line prosecutor who took the case over when the Special Counsel was disbanded. She signed the filing on the prosecution of Flynn and now has signed to dismiss. READ THE DOCUMENTS (not just folks reporting on the filings) FOLKS AND STOP PASSING ALONG FALSE INFORMATION WHICH FUELS DISTRUST IN THE DOJ AND THE LAW FOR NO REASON IN THIS CASE! Actual facts in public documents acts used to matter.
Kate – no.
“Washington (CNN)The Justice Department on Monday corrected an erroneous attorney identification number used in its shocking filing from last week moving to dismiss the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
A correction notice filed Monday with a different bar number is signed by Jocelyn Ballantine, the assistant US attorney who was handling Flynn filings. Ballantine did not sign the motion to dismiss last week, and was blamed by a Justice Department official for making the ID number mistake….:
Turley keeps arguing about the people making the case rather than the substance of the facts. Obviously he’s avoiding the point that judge Sullivan made a very simple point. Flynn either committed perjury or he lied. Both can’t be dismissed outright. All of Flynn’s statements to the court were made under the penalty of perjury. Judge Gleeson made that simple point abundantly clear. Every prosecutor refused to sign the documents that dropped the charges against Flynn.
Svelaz, the details can be debated and the judge under Rule 48’s “leave of the court” is required to review cases exactly like this one:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3599674
bythebook, I have been reading on that rule and it seems pretty clear the circumstances current in motion are exactly why this rule was created.
Turley does a wonderful display of mental gymnastics to offer a counter argument, but no matter how eloquent it is, it still falls short. There’s enough intellectual dishonesty in his arguments that puts his credibility in question more often than not.
Indeed, and the correct resolution would allow a full airing of the arguments before the judge.
PS Let us hope that partisan concerns do not overwhelm the correct resolution. The 3 judge panel includes a Trump appointee, a Bush appointee who has ruled consistently for Trump on subpoenas, etc, and an Obama appointee.
I would be hard pressed to believe that the judges would simply dismiss the arguments under rule 48. I worry that a ruling in the DOJ’s favor would put a big question mark on the impartiality of the courts under trump.
I don’t see how the judges could make a rational or even a convincing legal argument in favor of the DOJ without a thorough investigation in the reasoning behind the dropping of the charges.
I think Turley’s main point is that in many plea bargains a person admits to a crime that the person does not think he/she committed. That has never to my knowledge (but Turley is the expert) been treated as a statement that is subject to a claim of perjury if it later turns out that the defendant can demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct and therefore seek to vacate the plea. If guilty pleas are now subject to claims of perjury, a person can never have a wrongful conviction after a guilty plea overturned or if it is overturned the person is now subject to new perjury charges. It is to these facts that Turley is speaking. Turley has argued, perhaps in other articles, that there was prosecutorial misconduct with respect to so called “Brady violations”, i.e., failure to turn over evidence to the defense.
Turley’s additional point is how outside the norm Gleeson’s arguments are.
Hal, the situation is even more outside of the norm – an AG intervenes to overturn a guilty plea by a Presidential crony. None of the line prosecutors in the office will sign it. Under the meaning of Rule 48, the judge is required to review it. Remember the case is in the sentencing phase, where the judge has max authority.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3599674
Bill Barr is not a Presidential crony like Holder. HE is quite respected and his decisions and statements have shown that he respects the law and the DOJ. That is something we haven’t seen in the 8 years before Trump.
It is true that many in the DOJ did not like Holder, It is also true that Barr and Trump have been trashing and undercutting the DOJ including the FBI on a regular basis and this makes their job harder. They appear as counsel and witnesses everyday before juries, many of whom now distrust them, and regular procedural tools like charging for lying to the FBI are in doubt. Cheer that if you want, but most of those facing it are probably not people you want on the street.
Precisely what has Barr done to stop the FBI from functioning?
There are bad actors being rooted out from the FBI. That is a good thing.
Flynn didn’t simply plead guilty.
He answered a bunch of questions under oath in court, and he did this more than once.
By his own choice, he also submitted a declaration under penalty of perjury.
He also testified in a different court case with a different judge about some elements of this.
So to suggest that it’s a case of someone simply withdrawing a guilty plea after a “plea bargain[ where] a person admits to a crime” misrepresents it.
If you want to understand the perjury issue, you actually have to look at all of his statements made under penalty of perjury, not just the subset you want to focus on.
Need to be committed:
“He answered a bunch of questions under oath in court, and he did this more than once.
By his own choice, he also submitted a declaration under penalty of perjury.”
*********************************
But it’s not perjury unless the answers are volitional. Don’t know how many times we have to tell you, but they went after Flynn’s son with a bogus charge which is the classic definition of coercion. Do you listen — ever?
“Under either statute, the government must demonstrate the defendant voluntarily made the false statement with knowledge of its falsity.”
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1747-elements-perjury-specific-intent
This is still the law. Now, we’re not going to explain this to you again.
I listen, but you should know by now that I don’t take your word for anything.
Go ahead and prove your claim that “they went after Flynn’s son with a bogus charge.”
As for “it’s not perjury unless the answers are volitional,” have you bothered to read what Flynn actually said?
I suggest that you read the full back and forth between Sullivan and Flynn during the sentencing hearing on 12/18/18. I’ll give you the starting point, and let you find all of Sullivan’s exchanges with Flynn. Start with line 11 on p. 7, “[the Court] must now first ask Mr. Flynn certain questions to ensure that he entered his guilty plea knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently, and with fulsome and satisfactory advice of counsel.”
I also suggest that you read Flynn’s personal declaration, which he voluntarily chose to submit.
You assume that Flynn’s statements weren’t made voluntarily. But there’s plenty of evidence about that under oath.
Committed to Trifling Discussion:
“You assume that Flynn’s statements weren’t made voluntarily. But there’s plenty of evidence about that under oath.”
*******************
And McCain said he was really, really sorry for war crimes at the Hanoi Hilton — on tape and lots of times — after the beatings.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/azdc/2016/08/13/john-mccain-pow-recordings-revive-historic-painful-episode/88547416/
You can’t self-proof a voltitional statement when the entire situation isn’t volitional. You know, you’re really too obtuse or intellectually dishonest to argue here. Try Buzzflash.
Flynn wasn’t in any enemy POW camp. And oh, look, your claim that “they went after Flynn’s son with a bogus charge” remains unsubstantiated.
“the entire situation isn’t volitional.”
One could claim that about anyone who is charged with a crime: they didn’t choose to be charged.
No doubt you make this argument for all of your clients: “Your honor, my client didn’t choose to be charged and so cannot make a volitional statement.” I’m sure the judge always finds that convincing. /s
And your endless insults say a great deal about your psyche.
““they went after Flynn’s son with a bogus charge” remains unsubstantiated.”
It’s totally substantiated and in the FBI files.
Mespo — Sure, Mr. Warner listens. He listens all the time. He just ignore any of the voices that come from outside his own head, er… echo chamber.
“I suggest that you read…”
This jerk is doing the same thing he has done over and over again. He tells everyone to read x,y and z. When they don’t find what he says they will find he refuses to quote in context what proves Flynn guilty. He is a charlatan of the worst type ranking along with a bunch of other aliases that can’t deal with fact and the law.
how many times we have to tell you, but they went after Flynn’s son with a bogus charge which is the classic definition of coercion.
___________________________________________________
That is the story but where is the evidence that supports it?
And while you are at it where is the evidence that there was a FARA violation? The FBI looked into it and could not find the evidence.
Those questions were asked in the context of the court accepting his guilty plea and should be viewed as part of such plea.
No, they’re not part of the plea. In fact, some of them were asked specifically to check whether he wanted to withdraw the plea, whether he wanted additional counsel, …
Have you bothered to read the actual exchanges?
Sorry, that’s from me. I mistakenly hit “submit” while adding my name and it posted without my name.
You really Need to be committed. I’m not knowledgeable about what type of job you have (had) but if this is the extent of your thinking process I hope it was manual labor with close supervision.
You still are saying things about what Flynn said or didn’t say but on the important thing to prove him guilty over and over again you said there was plenty of evidence but you could never find it. That makes you into a third class liar.
HEY, Allan: don’t give Seth Chips, Committed et. al a promotion to 3rd class liar when he’s clearly no better than a 2-bit troll. His rhetorical ability would indicate that his teachers had to dull the point of the dunce cap so he wouldn’t hurt himself.
When presented with facts that counter his current “argument” he simply abandons it and moves to something else equally inane. The coerced plea deal is a prime example. When the guy holding a gun to my head tells me to say, “I do not have a gun being held to my head” there’s a probability approaching 1 that that is exactly the very next thing I say. That point is lost on Seth, Chips, Committed et. al for some unknown reason.I won’t hazard to guess it for fear of being sucked down a very, very deep rabbit hole.
kydave40601, I am in a very generous mood. Whatever they or we paid for their educations it was a total waste.
This is the only name I’ve posted under.
And all of you keep running away from presenting actual evidence that it was a “coerced plea deal” and that the FBI was “holding a gun to [Flynn’s] head.”
In fact, if you read Flynn’s January 29, 2020 declaration — submitted by his current lawyer, of Flynn’s own volition and signed under penalty of perjury by Flynn’s choice — you’ll find that he blames his former lawyers, not the FBI: https://www.sidneypowell.com/media/media/declaration-of-michael-t-flynn
But don’t let Flynn’s actual statements about it get in the way of your story.
BTW, if your story were true and the FBI had somehow promised not to prosecute Flynn’s son in exchange for Flynn’s plea, don’t you think Flynn would have something in writing from the FBI about that, to make sure that they didn’t renege? I wonder why he hasn’t ever produced it. /s
Committed — …and new information has come to light since 1/29/2020 now, hasn’t it? But, hey, don’t let actual facts get in the way of your story.
Allan. “ You still are saying things about what Flynn said or didn’t say but on the important thing to prove him guilty over and over again you said there was plenty of evidence but you could never find it. That makes you into a third class liar.”
That’s quite an accusation despite the fact that committohonestdiscussion has provided direct proof of what he says. He’s posted links and made excerpts of the actual, literal exchange between Flynn and judge Sullivan. Flynn did volunteer a statement on his own attesting he was not coerced and clearly understood the ramifications of pleading guilty to lying. He was given plenty of opportunities to change his mind and Flynn literally said he won’t be changing his guilty plea now or in the future.
It seems you are trying really hard to avoid reality staring you right in the eyes. I believe that’s called cognitive dissonance.
“That’s quite an accusation despite the fact that committohonestdiscussion has provided direct proof of what he says. He’s posted links”
The problem is he provided no proof after being asked perhaps a dozen times to quote the evidence for criminal guilt in context. I think it is wonderful that you saw him provide the proof because now that you have it you can provide it or prove that both you and he lied.
To help me help you can you tell me what grade education you completed? Then perhaps we can talk on your level.
And in other news, Trump was right for firing Flynn for lying to Pence. Flynn was entirely compromised. He was right for working with Mueller and pleading. His back out dance is going to fail miserably. Sullivan’s final verdict will be quite entertaining (and deserved). Time’s running out for a pardon. Barr is a hog rolling in mud. The Trump swamp chugs bog water. Business as usual.
Barr is one of the few honest people working in government and is trying to clean out the Augean stables. I wish him luck, but suspect he doesn’t have enough time.
“Barr is a hog rolling in mud.”
Hellvis, this must be how you pleasantly talk about your bretheren. I am sure Barr thanks you for such pleasantries but though Barr doesn’t like to brag, no matter how clean the mud might be that you roll in Barr prefers clean water and soap.
And maybe he’ll get some in jail.
Hellvis, If Barr ends up visiting you in jail in his official capacity I am sure Barr will have access to soap and water. I am sure the guards will bathe you first to get the stench out.
Allan, what do you think your limited intelligence adds to any discussion?
Hellvis, I really don’t care, but every time you post it makes it seem my contribution to the blog has been tremendous.
Just a conjecture, but I suspect that Flynn didn’t lie to Pence.
I suspect that Pence and Trump both knew about Flynn’s sanctions discussion with Kislyak, but they were trying to hide it, so Pence lied on TV and said that Flynn didn’t discuss sanctions with Kislyak.
Then when the Post article came out and they learned that Flynn had lied in his FBI interview (perhaps to cover up that his discussion with Kislyak was coordinated with the Trump Transition Team), they decided to pretend that Flynn had lied to them and fire him, thinking it was preferable to admitting that Pence had lied. I hope we’ll eventually find out. I’d love for Pence to be questioned under oath about it.
How could they have possibly known, you simpleton: Mr. Commey convinced Mr. Obama that the incoming team was to be kept out of loop. It’s memorialized in the e-mail-to-myself that was only recently released.
Conjecture: Failed
“How could they have possibly known”
Gosh, maybe from communications between Flynn and the Trump Transition Team at Mar-a-lago prior to Flynn talking to Kislyak.
You do know that K.T. McFarland told the FBI that she discussed the sanctions on the phone with Flynn before he spoke to Kislyak, right?
And Rice’s email was about a January 5 discussion, nor did it say what you just claimed. But even if had it done that going forward, it would still be irrelevant to Flynn’s discussion with Kislyak in December.
“prior to Flynn talking to Kislyak” — prior, you say? Do you mean prior to the actual call(s). Yes, that surly implicates Mr. Pence fin you mindless conjecture.
“she discussed the sanctions on the phone with Flynn before he spoke to Kislyak” — again, with the ‘prior’? Person A spoke with Pe3rson B about subject X, so clearly Person B spoke with Person C about it as well.
The e-mail plain stated what I posted.
Speaking of the December discussions: How many times does the word “sanction[s], [ed]” appear in the transcripts? exactly three times. Twice spoken by the Ambassador (in the sane sentence, as grammar correction) and once in the synopsis of the same occurrence. That’s some fine hook to hang your hat on.
Sorry, when you wrote ““How could they have possibly known,” you didn’t make clear which “they” you were talking about, and I gather I misinterpreted.
Having an ambiguous referent is a common problem with pronouns, especially in combination with omitting the end of the sentence (“known about ___”).
By “they,” do you mean “Trump and Pence”? As in “How could [Trump and Pence] have possibly known” about Flynn discussing sanctions with Kislyak?
If so, there’s an open question about whether Trump directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak. But even if he didn’t, the Transition Team knew that Flynn was discussing sanctions with Kislyak, and it would be a strange thing for the transition team to fail to tell Trump. Moreover, in the 12/29 call, Kislyak asks Flynn to set up a secure video call between Trump and Putin, and in the 12/31 call, Flynn tells Kislyak “the boss is aware” of the request, so you’d expect Flynn to also fill Trump in about the rest of the call.
So that means Trump should have known by 12/31.
Also, Pence stated on 1/15/17 (while still VP-Elect) that he’d asked Flynn about it and “[Flynn and Kislyak] did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia. … those conversations — that happened to occur around the time that the United States took action to expel diplomats — had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions. … I can confirm those [sanctions] elements were not a part of that discussion.” If Pence asked Flynn, you’d expect Flynn to have told him. My guess is that Flynn did tell Pence (or maybe Trump told Pence), but Pence didn’t want to say so publicly, so he lied about it on TV, and then Trump fired Flynn in part to cover up the lie.
Of course, I could be wrong about all of this. But it would be very strange for Flynn to discuss sanctions — including the expulsions — with Kislyak (which they clearly did) and not make sure Trump was informed, and if would be odd to inform Trump but not Pence, knowing that Pence was going to address it on TV.
“The e-mail plain stated [Mr. Commey convinced Mr. Obama that the incoming team was to be kept out of loop]”
Why don’t you clarify: “out of the loop” re: _what_?
Rice’s email about the 1/5 meeting says “From a national security perspective, Comey said he does have some concerns that incoming NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. Comey said that could be an issue as it relates to sharing sensitive information. President Obama asked if Comey was saying that the NSC should not pass sensitive information related to Russia to Flynn. Comey replied ‘potentially.’”
I’m not sure how you read that and interpret it as “keep them out of the loop,” but it certainly wasn’t “keep them out of the loop re: sanctions” because the sanctions were totally public knowledge by 1/5.
Also, discussion of sanctions isn’t limited to the word “sanctions.” If you discuss “roses,” you’re discussing flowers even if you don’t use the word “flowers.” And Flynn introduced the subject of the expulsions, which were part of the sanctions, so it’s silly to focus on just the word “sanction/s/ed.”
For example, the following excerpt from the transcripts is absolutely a discussion of sanctions, even though Flynn doesn’t use the word “sanctions”:
FLYNN: “So, you know, depending on, depending on what uh, actions they take over this current issue of the cyber stuff, you know, where they’re looking like they’re gonna, they’re gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the country, I understand all that and I understand that, that, you know, the information that they have and all that, but what I would ask Russia to do is to not – is – is – if anything – because I know you have to have some sort of action – to, to only make it reciprocal. Make it reciprocal. Don’t – don’t make it- don’t go any further than you have to. Because I don’t want us to get into something that has to escalate, on a, you know, on a tit for tat. You follow me, Ambassador?”
KISLYAK: “I understand what you’re saying- but you know, you might appreciate the sentiments that are raging now in Moscow.”
FLYNN: “I know, I – believe me, I do appreciate it, I very much appreciate it. But I really don’t want us to get into a situation where we’re going, you know, where we do this and then you do something bigger, and then you know, everybody’s got to go back and forth and everybody’s got to be the tough guy here, you know? … “And please make sure that its uh – the idea is, be – if you, if you have to do something, do something on a reciprocal basis, meaning you know, on a sort of an even basis. Then that, then that is a good message and we’ll understand that message. And, and then, we know that we’re not going to escalate this thing, where we, where because if we put out- if we send out 30 guys and you send out 60, you know, or you shut down every Embassy, I mean we have to get this to a – let’s, let’s keep this at a level that uh is, is even-keeled, okay? ls even-keeled. And then what we can do is, when we come in, we can then have a better conversation about where, where we’re gonna go, uh, regarding uh, regarding our relationship.”
That’s a very explicit reference to the part of the sanctions that involved Obama expelling 35 Russian intelligence operatives. Did you really not know that?
Professor, would you recommend they simply proceed to sentencing, so President Trump can simply commute the sentence? This nonsense has gone on long enough and I know plenty of people losing faith in their government officials.
Entering a plea is a procedural decision by the defendant. It is not a sworn testimony as to having (not) committed the crime. That would be self-incrimination. The whole notion that you can’t reverse a plea decision without committing perjury is a revocation of Constitutional rights regarding self-incrimination — it’s a trap that debases those rights. I’m looking forward to Sullivan and Gleeson getting a public spanking from the District Court.
If you bothered reading the relevant documents, you’d know that Flynn gave sworn testimony under oath and submitted written statements under penalty of perjury.
Still hawking your stupid ideas about right and wrong NeedsToBeCommitted, but that is not how justice works. If they put you in that rubber room where you belong and give you a bit of time maybe your brain will reset and you will appear slightly normal.
Except for the recently discovered dishonesty about exculpatory evidence that was discovered but never produced by the prosecution. Good Lord, don’t you even watch TV? You’d know this whole thing should be thrown out.
Actually, because I read the actual documents instead of relying on TV, I know that Sullivan addressed this, for example: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.144.0_3.pdf
…With a Gun to his head…wake up Bozo, the legalese is all Bull Schifft and if you don’t see that it means you will willingly use Govt. Power to persecute your adversaries, for that alone you should be Hung at dawn!