Bizarre, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Media, Politics

“Trumped-Up”: Former Judge’s Filing Is An Example Of “Irregularity” In The Age Of Rage

John_Gleeson

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 Court acknowledged that there may be cases warranting great judicial involvement. However, the court found that Gleeson had acted on his own presumptions and not evidence. It also reaffirmed that there is a presumption in favor of the prosecution that he ignored:
“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.

Here is the filing: Gleeson filing

409 thoughts on ““Trumped-Up”: Former Judge’s Filing Is An Example Of “Irregularity” In The Age Of Rage”

  1. Committ – the War of Northern Aggression was a States’ Rights battle between two nations until the Emancipation Proclamation, which only freed slaves in the enemy states, not in the Union states. Funny about that. I think blacks give Crazy Abe more credit than they should.

        1. Why would I be sore. You lost the war and now it’s BS “Lost Cause” symbols – the war was over slavery – are being dismantled.

        1. ” My response to you became unthreaded from your comment.”

          You are unthreaded. Include a name with your comments and you can stop whining and crying about being unthreaded. I have never heard anyone on this blog cry so much in such a short period of time.

          I sent Anon his answer.

    2. Paul, is ‘Crazy Abe’ a reference from Trump era revisionist history?

      We never heard that designation before regarding Loncoln. But since Crazy Donald became president, Republicans have all become ‘Sons Of The Confederacy’ while creating ridiculous terms like ‘The Democratic Plantation’ in reference to Black voters.

      1. “A Georgia Democratic state lawmaker announced Wednesday that he will not complete his current term, a week after he got blowback for endorsing President Trump, and said he is “leaving the plantation,” an expression popularized by black conservatives and independents.

        “I’m sick and tired of me and my family being attacked and harassed by the Democrat Party for putting my country before my party,” state Rep. Vernon Jones, who is black, said.

        “Turn the lights off, I have left the plantation . . . I intend not to complete my term effective April 22, 2020. However, I will remain woke and vigilant in educating and fighting for my people,” he said.

        NY Post

        1. A Black, Georgia Democrat is ‘endorsing Trump’..??

          Interestingly our Anonymous source isnt posting any link here. There’s more to this story than Anonymous wants us to know.

            1. Excerpt from the article in the NY Post:

              Jones, 59, also explained why he threw his support behind Trump.

              “I endorsed the White guy (Donald J. Trump) that let Blacks out of jail, and they endorsed the White guy (Joe Biden) that put Blacks in jail,” he wrote.

              Jones, who represents parts of two counties outside of Atlanta, said Trump is the “leader our country needed.”

              On Twitter, Jones said “the Left hates me because they can’t control me.”

              After Jones endorsed Trump, Georgia Democratic Party Chairwoman Nikema Williams said he “does not stand for our values.”

              In a statement released Wednesday, Williams called him an “embarrassment.” -NY Post

              1. Anonymous, based on your story, it’s clear the party felt this representative was no longer a Democrat.

                No one who cares about the Democratic party is going to endorse Donald Trump. The differences are so stark I dont have to list them.

                It’s not like a Black Democrat could honestly believe Trump has common folks in mind. Trump is anti-union and anti-public employee. The Black middleclass is largely composed of people with government jobs. No one could get confused and think Trump is good for Blacks.

                Chance are this Rep has been a secret Republican. He should run as a Republican and see if he can keep his seat. That’s the proper course for him: ‘run as a Republican’. That way voters know who he really stands with.

                1. BLACK DEMOCRAT ENDORSING TRUMP:

                  THE ATLANTA CONSTITUTION COVERAGE

                  Jones, a state representative, not only endorsed Trump in April, he’s abandoning his seat to work on Trump’s campaign. It sounds like the Democrats are pleased to be rid of him. A woman named Taylor is likely to his seat. Jones seemed to understand that when he endorsed Trump, he would have to relinquish his seat.

                  In Estovir’s New York Post story, Jones is quoted as saying something to the effect that, “Trump lets Blacks out of prison while Biden put them in”. This seems to be a reference to the ‘Violent Crime Control And Law Enforcement Act of 1994″ which then Senator Biden sponsored.

                  According to Wikipedia the Crime Act bill of 1994 passed the Senate by 95 to 4, a near unanimous vote. Meaning almost every Republican supported the bill in addition to most every Democrat.

                  So why would a Black man hold the crime bill against Biden yet give Republicans a pass on it? The bill got equal support from Republicans.

                  One must note that since Trump never held any previous public office, he deserves no credit for ‘not’ supporting the Crime Bill. As a conservative, Trump would have certainly supported it. Though in real life, Trump was more liberal in 1994, so maybe not. But if you’re Black, why give Trump credit for being a liberal then when he’s a staunch conservative now?

                  In other words, any way you approach it, Jones’ contention that the Crime Bill was a deciding factor for him really makes no sense. It’s just a cynical rationale.

                  One should also note that Jones’ is a ‘State Representative’. He’s not a U.S. Congressman and shouldn’t be confused as one. State Representatives of both parties often make national news for peculiar controversies. State Reps are bush league players in politics. They’re never as polished as Congressmen or Senators.

                  https://www.ajc.com/news/state–regional-govt–politics/georgia-democratic-lawmaker-announces-resignation-week-after-endorsing-trump/vOcyL9hiN7DnfI1G3K3A1J/

                  1. “One must note that since Trump never held any previous public office, he deserves no credit for ‘not’ supporting the Crime Bill. As a conservative, Trump would have certainly supported it. Though in real life, Trump was more liberal in 1994, so maybe not. But if you’re Black, why give Trump credit for being a liberal then when he’s a staunch conservative now?”

                    It’s quite interesting how you would rather base your opinion of Trump on speculation as to what he would have thought and done 26 years ago, rather than on his stated opinions and concrete actions NOW as president.

                    “In other words, any way you approach it, Jones’ contention that the Crime Bill was a deciding factor for him really makes no sense. It’s just a cynical rationale.”

                    Again, dwelling on the past when we have contemperansous information. Last year, Biden, as a presidential candidate, asserted that he does not regret sponsoring or voting for the 1994 crime bill (and indeed, he has repeatedly taken credit for writing it).

                    He also defended the Act as not having contributed to mass incarceration (??!!!). Even experts who suggest it was not THE cause of mass incarceration admit it was A cause, by conditioning federal grant money to states on “truth in sentencing” policies.

                    You know. Just to get you up to speed.

                  2. State Representatives of both parties often make national news for peculiar controversies. State Reps are bush league players in politics. They’re never as polished as Congressmen or Senators.

                    Translated: US members of Congress are handled better so they don’t go off script, speak from heart, speak honestly and embarrass the party.

                    You are a gift.

            2. Who’s Seth?

              Do you mean Mr. Shill, hiding behind the latest iteration of his nom de déguisement?

      2. The term “democratic plantation” has been around for at least a couple of decades now. It was created by Black Conservatives who have been treated horribly by Democrats. The only Sons of the Confederacy were Democrats and Jim Crow laws were devised by Democrats in the South. Lincoln was a Republican. The rewriting of history can only be done so far because there are still records from all of those times.

        1. Yup, when it comes to advocating for and representing African Americans, Republicans used to be better than Democrats.
          But the parties flipped with respect to that during the Civil Rights Movement:
          https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1144608389152026625 (Kruse is a historian and that’s a long thread about the flip)
          No one is trying to “rewrite history.” Just pay attention to all of it, including the history since the ’60s.

          1. Actually committ the flip was during FDR after the GOP decided between the two, they’d go with the rich guys, not poor blacks.

            1. Yeah, my claim was sloppy with respect to the beginning of the flip, but it didn’t finish during FDR’s tenure, as the Dixiecrats hadn’t yet become Republicans.

          2. The Democrats replaced one plantation with another. They pay off the political activists that say they are for the people but have done nothing for about 50 years. The little they did do was matched or exceeded by the black conservative groups hated by the left. The left thinks blacks are unable to care for themselves without help from the government. I say they did nothing for almost every act by the left was a two edged sword. Yes, they provided a sliver of money to keep blacks in chains but the other side of the sword slit the throats of the blacks so their families were destroyed and it became more difficult for them to find the American dream.

            Poor and sick people may need some help but what the left accomplished was to destroy the strong family bonds blacks had before going on to the lefts plantation system.

            1. Poor and sick people may need some help but what the left accomplished was to destroy the strong family bonds blacks had before going on to the lefts plantation system.

              Again, the breakdown in the durability family relations occurred in every stratum of society and in just about every subculture aside from Mormons and Mennonite-Amish. No doubt AFDC was a vector there, but it was happening among people who had never and would never sign up for AFDC. The breakdown was more thorough and severe among blacks, but black families were more fragile to begin with; recall that 60 years ago about 15% of all black children were born illegitimate, v. less than 2% of all non-black children. Squeeky yammers on an on (with inaccurate metrics) about illegitimacy among blacks without noticing that in 1960 the ratio of illegitimate-to-legitimate births among blacks (at 0.18) exceeded that of the general population by about six-fold. It still exceeds that of the general population, but now only by four-fold (2.6 v. 0.65)

              The purpose of much of the welfare system, of course, is to employ the people who work in it. You could restructure it to dramatically reduce administrative costs, but a lot of rice bowls would be broken doing that. One sad aspect of Milton Friedman’s life was that he came up with quite sensible policy ideas which were ignored due to inertia or due to the vested interests of occupational guilds.

              1. “Again, the breakdown in the durability family relations occurred in every stratum of society”

                Yes, but the degradation was signifantly worse among the black population.

  2. I know that Trump is a narcissist, but the extent of his narcissism sometimes still astounds me.

    Trump to Harris Faulkner of Fox News:
    “I think I’ve done more for the Black community than any other president, and let’s take a pass on Abraham Lincoln, cause he did good, although it’s always questionable. You know, in other words, the end result.”

    He can’t even bring himself to say that Lincoln did more for the black community than he has. He seems incapable of speaking clearly when it extemporaneous. Is he saying that the end result of the Civil War is of questionable good? that it’s questionable whether he or Lincoln did more?

    News flash: Lincoln did more than Trump. Nor would I say that Lincoln is the only one who did more than Trump. SMH.

        1. Committ – you do realize the things that identify a malignant narcissist, are the identifiers for George Conway.

          1. Paul, the main reason Trumpers keep showing sympathy for the Confederacy is because Trump’s base largely consists of White southern Conservatives.

              1. Obamacare is unconstitutional. Congress has only the power to tax for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual or specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity. Read with me:

                Article 1, Section 8,

                The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

                General welfare means ALL WELL PROCEED. All, as in roads, water, electricity, sewer, trash pick-up, post office (archaic), etc. Individual welfare includes food, clothing, healthcare, etc. which people use in different types, preferences, amounts and at different frequencies, some not at all.

                Surely you can read the English language and grasp the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution. Perhaps you are confusing the text with your tattered copy of the Communist Manifesto. The Constitution does not say, “Do whatever you like.” It says tax only for “…general Welfare…” and let free Americans make their own decisions on indivdual welfare.

                Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

                Best of luck nullifying the Constitution and the American thesis of Freedom and Self-Reliance, comrade parasite.

            3. Paint Chips, Democrats were the slave owners. Clinton’s victories were mostly in the western coastal states and the north eastern costal states. She also won Minnosota and look at what has happened there and Illinois where killings of blacks by blacks doesn’t seem to take a rest because of the Democrat leadership. Trump won Florida and it can be considered half northern since so many people are fleeing the Northeastern states like NY and moving to Fiorida. They are avoiding the problems in those states

              1. Allan, African tribal chiefs were the creators of British slavery which the British perpetrated in their New World colonies.

                African tribal chiefs sold their African countrymen to Arab slave traders who marketed them to British logistics firms who retailed them in the British colonies.

                Were it not for African tribal chiefs, there would have been no slavery in British colonies.

                1. George, I don’t know that your conclusion is valid. Slavery has been around forever. As an example, do you remember the history of the Helots?

                  1. It’s not around anymore, further proof of human progress and how f….d up our ancestors were. Hey, most didn’t know any better.

                    1. Slavery still exists today. And if you agree that the infringement by the state of life, liberty and property, whether through ignorance or force, is also slavery, then it still exists in the United States.

                    2. It’s still around globally, and it still exists legally in the U.S. with prison labor. That’s what’s significant about the carve-out in the 13th Amendment, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States…” If you haven’t watched the documentary “13th” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_(film) ] I recommend it. We need to amend the Constitution again to totally outlaw slave labor and convict leasing.

                    3. “It’s not around anymore”

                      Slavery still exists. You should know better

              2. Yeah, Alan, Republicans are White Southerners to a very large extent.

                1. Paint Chips as usual you are advocating tribalism. People are leaving a bunch of northern states for a better life in the south. Population of NY is now lower than Florida 19.5M to 21.5M. Democrats still have the plantation mindset. One day, maybe sooner than you expect those the Democrats enslave on their plantations will revolt.

        2. The only thing that is malignant is your leftist ideology that doesn’t care about truth.

        3. A bunch of people give a $#!+ that we have a malignant narcissist as president.

          BS! If that were true, they’d never vote…for anyone. The framers understood full well the nature of those that would hold public office. As a result, we have a constitution that specifies negative liberties imposed on the government. Being a narcissist is not a disqualifier; but violating the constitution because you gave into your narcissitic personality is.

          I did not vote for Trump in the primaries because I had concerns about his personality. I didn’t vote for Clinton because she had a history of giving into her narcissitic personality as a public servant. I voted for Trump with the expectation that he would be under the constitutional microscope. What I didn’t expect was that the “constitutional” check would be largely a Republican party endeavor. Democrats and their well-documented others decided long before he was ever elected that he was never suited for the presidency. What that latter group has discovered however is that Trump’s constitutional narcissistic governance has beaten their unconstitutional narcissistic coup.

          1. Learn the difference between “narcissism” and “malignant narcissism.” They’re not synonyms.

            And there no one has attempted a “coup,” though many like to co-opt that word and twist its meaning for their own ends.

            1. Get back to me when you can accurately identify his unconstitutional narcissism.
              As far as coup goes, if you were actually as committed to an honest discussion as you pretend, you wouldn’t see the effort to remove this President as anything other than a coup. But that isn’t you. You’re a fraud that tries to cover up with a bogus name.

              1. Re: “unconstitutional narcissism,” I have no burden of proof for claims I haven’t made. Get back to me when you’re willing to deal honestly with my actual claims and not your straw man substitutions.

                As for “if you were actually as committed to an honest discussion as you pretend, you wouldn’t see the effort to remove this President as anything other than a coup,” I’m ROFL. Impeachment and removal via trial were literally written into our Constitution by the Founding Fathers, which means that they’re as far from a coup as one can get.

                If you instead meant something else, just what acts *are* you suggested were a “coup”?

                2. You whine about a personality disorder as if that is unique among politicians and meaningful as a point of law. It’s not. We have always had and will always have Presidents that people will never support for a multitude of reasons. It’s actually your narcissism that makes you convinced we can’t wait for an election to remove him. Unless you can cite, with evidence, actions by this President that rise to the level of an impeachable offense, then your just trolling a legal blog.

                  And your name hasn’t fooled anyone. An honest person would look at the evidence to date and conclude high level people in the last administration and within the FBI/DOJ/IC worked strategically and illegally to remove this President. I don’t care if you don’t like the word coup. That is the least of your ignorant traits. No, by defending those actions, that makes you a liar and an enemy of the state.

                  1. Re: “as if that is unique among politicians and meaningful as a point of law,” I didn’t say or imply either one.

                    The problem again is *you* either mistakenly inferring things I didn’t say or imply, or you knowingly making false claims about me. Neither is productive.

                    “An honest person would look at the evidence to date and conclude …”

                    No, honest people clearly have a wide range of interpretations of the evidence. The fact that you’re either unable to see that or can see it but are unwilling to admit it is a problem.

                    LOL at “Unless you can cite, with evidence, actions by this President that rise to the level of an impeachable offense …” He was impeached! You can hardly get better evidence that those actions rose to the level of an impeachable offense than him already having been impeached for them. Not being removed in the Senate trial doesn’t change that he was impeached. Personally, I wish there had been additional articles of impeachment, related to a range of other actions, like his obstruction of justice (see the Mueller Report for a description of the actions and the evidence) and his lies on his financial disclosure forms re: the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, and more. But the House chose differently, and I don’t expect any further articles of impeachment, and I simply hope that he’s defeated in November.

                    Stop with your endless insults. If you honestly care about the country’s well-being, insulting people you disagree with doesn’t serve that. Learn how to have a civil discussion with people you disagree with.

                    1. Need to be Committed Needs to be Insulted. You are a generalizer and use generalizations to libel. If you don’t like being insulted don’t keep referring people to documents that don’t contain the infomation you say they do and stop lying.

                    2. Learn how to have a civil discussion with people you disagree with.

                      You, book and the rest of your ilk receive as much civility as any enemy of this country deserves; too much in my opinion. You deserve far worse, but sadly Turley believes giving traitors like you a platform is somehow a noble pursuit.

                    4. They deserve whatever degree of injustice they willingly support. Don’t forget the tar and feather option. 😡

                    5. OLLY – well, it depends upon whether you want them to survive the punishment or not. 😉

                    6. What do you suppose a threat to our national security deserves? I personally believe domestic threats are far worse than foreign.

                    7. If Olly thinks people who disagree with him are enemies of the state, he’s the traitor unfit to live in a democracy.

                    8. Oh, I no longer simply disagree with you. You make it out that we are in dispute about the color of the carpet. We can have reasonable disagreements over a good many things, but not actions that threaten our national security. You’ve backed those taking such an approach and for that, you’re deserving the same traitor status as them. So GFY.

                    9. Quit playing secret agent Olly. You’re a citizen like the rest of us and I think your ideas are harmful to America. TS for me – and you. This is a democracy. If you can’t handle it, leave.

                    10. You’re a citizen like the rest of us and I think your ideas are harmful to America.

                      Citizens concerned about this country don’t support premeditated injustice against an opposition party and our institutions. Do that and you should reap what you sow. Far too many people have sacrificed so much to preserve or republic, just to sit idly by and watch you piss all over it.

                    11. Olly, take a pill.

                      Your hero has been trying to gin up criminal charges against political opponents since before he got in office, colluded with Russians who helped his election effort, takes Putin’s side against US Intelligence, has his guy tell the Russians to not worry about the sanctions, kisses up to Lil KIm and then let;s him run amok – latest count is enough for 20 nuclear weapons – stabs the Kurds in the back, trashes military leaders and heroes who stand up to him, and you mfer;’s stole our SC seat and the SC majority. Patriot my ass.

                      KMA

                    12. “colluded with Russians who helped his election effort, takes Putin’s side against US Intelligence, has his guy tell the Russians to not worry about the sanctions,”

                  2. Been there, done that and his party lackies voted to not allow witnesses in a Senate trial for the 1st time in US history.

                    FY and your “enemy of the state”.

                    1. The Senate recognized that the claim was BS. The Senate also recognized that the House didn’t bother to avail themselves of the opportunities they could have followed. Put a BS political claim made by the House Democrats together with Democrat House members that didn’t even follow basic fairness and the Senate should have thrown the impeachment out before it reached its chambers. That is generally what you do with trash.

    2. “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, the unconstitutional denial of constitutional secession, the unconstitutional undeclared Civil War, the unconstitutional Emancipation Proclamation, the unconstitutional suspension of Habeas Corpus, the unconstitutional failure to deport illegal aliens who did not meet the Naturalization Act 1802 standards and the improperly ratified under-the-duress-of-brutal -post-war-military-occupation “Reconstruction Amendments” were illegal against fundamental law, were illegitimate then and will remain so until they are all redressed and rectified.

      Lincoln was wise enough to support the correct and definitive plan of compassionate repatriation but someone changed his mind.

  3. Flynn Case Hearing:

    Two Judges On Panel Were Thought To Be Sympathetic To Administration

    Last month, on the same day that Judge Sullivan appointed Mr. Gleeson to critique the Justice Department’s new position about the case, Mr. Flynn’s defense lawyer, Sidney Powell, asked the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to issue a so-called writ of mandamus that would order Judge Sullivan to immediately end the case.

    But Beth Wilkinson, a lawyer representing Judge Sullivan, told the appeals court that short-circuiting the trial court’s review of the motion would be premature. And on Friday, all three judges asked questions that suggested they may agree.

    Judge Robert L. Wilkins, a 2014 appointee of President Barack Obama, stressed that the federal rule of criminal procedure under which the Justice Department asked Judge Sullivan to dismiss the case says prosecutors may make such a request “with leave of the court,” meaning the judge’s approval. He asked how those words could mean anything if judges had to rubber-stamp requests without review.

    Judge Karen L. Henderson, a 1990 appointee of President George Bush, repeatedly said Judge Sullivan might disagree with Mr. Gleeson’s view and dismiss the case. She suggested that “regular order” would be to let that process play out, noting that Ms. Powell and the Justice Department could come back to the appeals court if Judge Sullivan decided instead to sentence Mr. Flynn.

    And Judge Neomi Rao, a 2019 appointee of Mr. Trump, pointed out that one of Ms. Powell’s arguments conflicted with Supreme Court precedent. She also asked a Justice Department lawyer whether he could come up with a more concrete reason for why letting Judge Sullivan’s review play out would harm the executive branch — noting that mandamus orders are supposed to be extraordinary and abstract notions of harms are most likely insufficient.

    The skepticism of Judges Henderson and Rao was particularly notable because both have been more willing than most colleagues to interpret the law in ways more favorable to the Trump administration in other politically charged cases like fights over congressional access to information the executive branch wants to keep secret.

    Their random assignment to the panel had seemed to increase the possibility that Mr. Flynn might prevail even though many legal experts agreed that Ms. Powell’s request for immediate intervention by the appeals court at this stage was questionable. But all three judges on Friday seemed to share the view that Judge Sullivan had the power to hold a hearing.

    Edited From: “Court Seems Open To Scrutinize Bid To Drop Flynn Case”

    Today’s New York Times

    1. Peter – did you listen or just crib from the Times? I listened and I would say that chances are good for Mandamus, since Henderson went back to Walls at the end for a major question and he nailed it. I think Powell was good but a little emotionally involved and Wilkinson dodged the issue as much as she could.

      1. I heard that as Henderson saying, “Give me a good reason to grant Mandamus here, where Sullivan has not yet ruled on the Motion to Dismiss.” I think Walls gave her the good reason(s). But the issue is still up in the air.

        I was hoping either Powell or Walls would bring up the fact that if Mandamus was not granted today, then the panel would find itself back in session on the issue again, and this time in an even more politically inflamed setting.

        I also thought Wall’s suggestion that the court could limit the scope of Sullivan’s inquiry, a partial mandamus, was very astute.

        1. John Mosby – Walls seemed very temperate in his colloquy with each of the judges.

      2. Wilkinson dodged the issue as much as she could
        _______________________________________________

        Boy, were you not listening

        Wilkinson was the only one that addressed the issues. The prosecution and defense were so busy trying to bury all the skeletons in this case and thus refused to address any of the issues. The court has done nothing wrong. The parties in this case have been defrauding the court for years. And now they want to bury the evidence as deep as possible.

        As Wilkinson pointed out there is at least one controversy. Among other things, there is the question of whether the judge shall dismiss with or without prejudice. Is the appeals court going to make that decision. Based on what facts will they do that?

        So on the one hand the defense and prosecution is claiming that the judge has no business interfering and on the other hand they want the judge to make judgement on the guilt or innocence of Flynn. And they don’t want the judge to look at the facts of the case to make that ruling.

        This case has been a fraud perpetrated by the Trump administration from day one. It was all supposed to just go away and Trump declare victory when the Trump’s glorious AG steps in and saves the day by asking for dismissal.

        But the court has questions why this fraud landed in his court.

        1. jinn – by the time I got to Wilkinson I was a little weary, admittedly. However, she was given several questions she could not or did not answer. And Henderson, who will be writing the decision nailed coffin down with her last question.

          1. And Henderson, who will be writing the decision nailed coffin down with her last question.
            ___________________________________________________
            What last question are?

            1. jinn – you have to do your own listening on this. I did it, you do it. 🙂

              1. you have to do your own listening on this. I did it, you do it.
                __________________________________________________
                The last question that I heard Henderson ask was about how much time was left.

                Its obvious you don’t have a real point or you would make it…

  4. this is all so totally elementary.

    the government abandoned the case

    this means there is “no case nor controversy”

    case or controversy standard is a threshold jurisdictional measure.
    the rules or cases about rules, can’t expand this simple jurisdictional standard.

    end of story. dismiss. this is all political theatre. i have never seen Democrat rah rahs so singularly dishonest about a legal matters as this one. you are losing all credibility. this is eliciting laughs and eye rolls from actual practicing lawyers who don’t have their daily paychecks dependent on Democrat patronage.

    1. I listened also. I thought Walls was excellent, Powell competent and well-spoken, and Wilkinson was hesitant and less than candid. I think Rao will vote in favor of Mandamus, Wilkins against, and Henderson will be the swing vote.

      1. John Mosby – listening to the beginning of Walls now. He is excellent.

        1. Next up Paulie – read John Bolton’s book and let us know how it went.

          Also, I will be back tomorrow to read your opinion on how corrupt Judge Karen Henderson is.

  6. Meanwhile, there were oral arguments today re: Flynn’s lawyer’s request for a writ of mandamus. If anyone wants to listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15exlPAA3U

    Consensus seems to be that 2 of the 3 DC Circuit judges seem likely to rule against that request. For ex., from The Hill:
    “A divided federal appeals court on Friday seemed reluctant to order the judge presiding over former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s prosecution to dismiss the case ahead of scheduled arguments in the trial court next month. During a Friday hearing before a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, two judges expressed reservations about preventing U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan from ruling on the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) motion to dismiss Flynn’s criminal case. …”

    However they rule, I bet that the losing side is likely to appeal. In the meantime, the case is proceeding in Sullivan’s court. The DOJ is due to respond to Gleeson’s amicus brief by next Wed.

  7. JT: “Gleeson actually makes the Red Queen in “Alice in Wonderland” look like an ACLU lawyer.”

    Mild mannered Turley knows we’ve gone down the rabbit hole.

  8. He follows me around insulting me (juvenile insults, claims that I’m lying, …), but I’m going to abide by DNFT. It reminds me about that expression re: someone giving you rent-free space in their head. He seems a bit obsessed.

    As best I understand it, he’s got this bizarre scenario where he thinks that Flynn can only be convicted if there’s a transcript of Flynn’s interview with the FBI agents, and he keeps insisting that I quote from a transcript of that interview. AFAIK, it wasn’t taped, so there is no transcript. He’s in denial that people are convicted all the time on the basis of witness testimony and other evidence when there is no audio- or videotape. It’s laughable that he insists on quotes from a nonexistent transcript. The FBI agents who interviewed Flynn are first-person witnesses for the interview, there are people like K.T. McFarland who are first-person witnesses to other relevant interactions (for example, she told FBI about her conversation with Flynn about sanctions prior to his call with Kislyak), and there’s other relevant evidence, like copies of text messages and emails between Flynn and others on Trump’s team, the transcripts of the calls with Kislyak, and Flynn’s FARA filings.

    Flynn signed the statement of the offense (https://www.lawfareblog.com/michael-flynn-plea-agreement-documents ), saying “I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and because l am, in fact, guilty of the crime charged. No threats have been made to me nor am I under the influence of anything that could impede my ability to understand this Statement of the Offense fully. I have read every word of this Statement of the Offense, or have had it read to me. … I agree and stipulate to this Statement of the Offense, and declare under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct.” That document specifies false statements about his sanctions discussion with Kislyak (see pp. 2-3) and false statements about other things. Is it possible that Flynn lied when he signed it? Sure. If that ‘s the case, then he also lied under penalty of perjury directly to Sullivan in his exchange starting on p. 7 here: https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/121818am-USA-v-Michael-Flynn-Sentencing.pdf

    The call transcripts show that Flynn discussed the expulsions with Kislyak. Those expulsions were part of the Obama sanctions for Russia’s election interference. In fact, the transcripts show that Flynn is the one who brought up these sanctions, asking Kislyak not to escalate in response (a request that Russia agreed to temporarily, but ~6 months later responded by ordering the U.S. to cut diplomatic staff in Russia by over 700).

    Pence has publicly stated that Flynn lied to him about discussing sanctions with Kislyak. Trump has publicly stated that Flynn lied to Pence about this, and both Pence and Trump said Flynn lying to Pence about it was a factor in Trump firing Flynn. As Comey testified to the HPSCI, Flynn lying to Pence was the reason for the FBI interviewing Flynn. Flynn could have told the FBI the truth, but according to the 302, he didn’t. That 302 is evidence.

    Flynn could have chosen to plead innocent and have the FBI agents and McFarland and other witnesses be questioned under oath. He didn’t. I’d love for Pence to be questioned under oath about whether Flynn really lied to him. So if Sullivan grants the motion to dismiss, I hope he does it without prejudice, and I hope Flynn is charged for all of his crimes for which there’s good evidence, and Flynn can choose a trial by jury and he and witnesses can be questioned about it in front of a jury (unless he pleads the 5th).

    1. My comment above was supposed to have been posted on another page as a reply to bythebook and became unthreaded due to a tech glitch that’s really annoying.

    2. The long and short of this lengthy posting is, despite the fact that Needs to be Committed said Flynn’s own words would convict him, that he stated those words were in the FBI material that was released. As we all know now that was a blatent lie and this character could never produce those words. What we do get is a dance from a person that has two left feet. This character also doesn’t understand what the word ‘coercion’ means and doesn’t bother to read anything that points to the fact that the entire FBI investigation was a hit job against Trump loaded with lies and irregularities that may be proven criminal. He also doesn’t recognize the circumstances under which the 302 was rewritten.

      Evidence is needed to convict but this guy will convict anyone that disagrees with his ideology. Stalin would have loved this guy early on and then probably would have killed him.

      I await for the in context evidence that Flynn is guilty of a criminal action. What we will see is more dancing. Not a pretty site but the best this character can do.

    3. Good post, but I think it’s irrelevant if Pence lied – I think he was probably not inside the Trump team yet and Flynn did lie to him, but I think it likely Flynn was in complete communication with Trump about it.

      Unless new info surfaces exonerating him or substantiating the DOJ motion, I also would favor Flynn being sentenced for the crime he has pleaded guilty to twice. The trial is over, He is in sentencing.

            1. sorry, the prosecutors dropped the case. judge has no authority to impose his own sentence.

              and where would the judge lock them up? his closet? judge doesnt command the BOP.

              this is over. all theatre until the order is eventually signed, which it will be.

        2. Yup. I haven’t replied to him in weeks, just explaining why he keeps tagging around after me with insults, etc.

          I’m truly curious whether Pence was in or out of the loop. It’s also slightly relevant to the case because Flynn said under oath in his Jan. declaration that “I believe my resignation letter stated quite accurately what happened,” and his resignation letter says “I inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian Ambassador.” So is the latter “quite accurate[]”?

          I suspect that there are twists and turns yet to come in this case. Flynn also said in his declaration that “My relationship with Covington disintegrated soon thereafter” (after second proffer session) and complained about his former attorneys in other ways, but in 2018, Sullivan asked him “Are you satisfied with the services provided by your attorneys?” and Flynn responded “I am.” Marcy Wheeler, an independent journalist I sometimes read, noted “DOJ has 600 more pages from Covington (500 pages of evidence and 100 pages of declarations from its lawyers) disputing the claims Flynn has made about him. The timing of DOJ’s motion to dismiss strongly suggests Flynn’s boosters knew they had to act before that Covington material became public,” and if Sullivan doesn’t dismiss the case, the Covington materials may throw another wrench into things.

          And the fact that the Solicitor General signed the DOJ briefs for the appellate court indicates that if the court rules against them on the writ, they’ll appeal.

          1. “Yup. I haven’t replied to him in weeks, just explaining why he keeps tagging around after me with insults, etc.”

            Blame yourself. You lied about having the quotes and referred everyone to the FBI papers that were released. You lied over and over again and then couldn’t produce the goods. You want to incarcerate a man who did nothing wrong. That is enough to make everyone feel the same as I. Stop with the lies and the attempts to convict a person based on items not in question. Stop lying altogether.

            You are a terrible example of a human being.

            1. It’s impossible to still be supporting Trump and make any claim to knowing what constitutes a terrible human being.

              1. You can debate personalities all you want but what the country needs is leadership and he has provided that. Basement Biden is the choice of the Democrat power sturcture that permitted the rioting etc. Why? Because they can have total control over him.

                1. Trump can’t lead his own party to any significant legeslation than a tax cut, and Barney Fife could do that. He’s ceded world leadership.

                  1. You don’t know what you are talking about but from what I am hearing from almost everyone else they know it as well.

  9. A dangerously sick society of overabundance on the verge of collapse.

    (stolen from the www)

  10. Pingback: Flynn’s day in court | Power Line

  11. From the amicus brief “Flynn now asserts that he falsely affirmed his guilt under oath to the Court on multiple occasions and that his declaration in support of his motion to withdraw his plea is truthful.”
    Gleeson claims that assertion is implausible.

    The FBI agents that interviewed Flynn disagree. Both agents that interviewed Flynn are on the record as saying they believe Flynn was not lying.

  12. Pingback: Who is John Gleeson, Part Two | Global News Wire
  13. Pingback: Who is John Gleeson, Part Two | Power Line

    1. The predicate issue is not relevant,

      The evidence record created by the FBI was not used in court to convict Flynn.

      1. And that is why the case was dropped by the DOJ. Because if they persisted after Flynn is allowed to withdraw his guilty plea…. they would have nothing because of the poisonous tree.

        1. And that is why the case was dropped by the DOJ. Because if they persisted after Flynn is allowed to withdraw his guilty plea…. they would have nothing because of the poisonous tree.
          _________________________________________________________

          The DOJ always had nothing with which to make a case.

          The FBI agents who interviewed Flynn said they believed he was not lying.
          The FBI made it known that there was no basis for charges against Flynn

          https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/02/16/fbi-michael-flynn-fbi-no-charges-lemon-sot.cnn

          The only way a conviction was possible in this case is if Flynn helped the DOJ invent a new story that contradicted the FBI’s assessment of the facts.

  15. OT: Looks like Florida is the beneficiary of North Carolina’s stupidity and the people of N. Carolina lose out. The Republican convention will be held in Florida.

  16. Focus on what I actually said: “Russia had recently interfered significantly in our election, and Flynn never condemns the Russian interference [in the 2016 election].” Reread the transcripts that you just linked to. You’ll see that I’m correct.

    You claim that my “interpretation of those calls is biased and incorrect to say the least.” Bias is a matter of opinion, and you haven’t quoted anything from me that you assert is “incorrect.”

    “the interviewing agents THEMSELVES did not believe Flynn had lied to them”

    What Comey said in that excerpt (which is from Exhibit 5 in the Motion to Dismiss) was “[the agents who interviewed Flynn] discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.”

    News flash: people sometimes don’t realize that someone is lying. Trump lies all the time without changing his posture, etc. Regardless of what they thought at the time, there’s evidence that Flynn made false statements in situations where that’s illegal (some from the interview, but some from elsewhere, like the FARA filings). The agents didn’t have access to the full set of evidence when they carried out the interview. As a simple example, K.T. McFarland wasn’t interviewed until much later in 2017, and I don’t know if the FBI had obtained copies of the emails and text messages in early 2017 either.

    And I want to point out: if you accept Comey’s statement that they didn’t see physical indications of lying, then you should also accept the rest of what he said in his testimony, such as:
    Rep. Turner: … what was the purpose to ask him these questions about what happened in the conversation?
    Comey: To find out whether there was something we were missing about his relationship with the Russians and whether he would — because we had this disconnect publicly between what the Vice President was saying [which was that Flynn and Kislyak didn’t discuss sanctions] and what we knew [from the call transcripts]. And so before we closed an investigation of Flynn, I wanted them to sit before him and say what is the deal? … [T]he context was there was an open counterintelligence investigation that had been open for months, trying to figure out is there some sort of covert relationship between Mr. Flynn and the Russian Government. And then when Mr.Flynn has a communication [redacted] with the Russian Ambassador, and that it appears again, from what we can see from the outside — that he for some reason hasn’t been candid with the Vice President about this, my judgment was we could not close the investigation of Mr. Flynn without asking him what is the deal here. That was the purpose.

    You don’t get to cherry-pick and say “oh, this part is convenient to my argument, but I reject this other part that isn’t convenient.” Do you accept Comey’s statement about the reason for the interview?

    “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.”

    Nope. Priestap’s notes from 1/24/2017 said things like “What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” and “If we’re seen as playing games, WH will be furious. Protect our institution by not playing games.” Asking a question about the goal and articulating 2 possibilities is not proclaiming that the goal is the second of those 2 possibilities. Moreover, “perjury trap” has a specific meaning. It doesn’t just mean that you’ve gotten the person to lie, but that you have no legitimate reason to interview the person and the sole point of questioning is to get the person to lie. But the FBI **had** a legitimate reason to question him: the discrepancy between the call transcripts and Pence’s claim that Flynn had told Pence that he hadn’t discussed sanctions with Kislyak. And recall that in his resignation letter, Flynn stated that he’d given Pence “incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian Ambassador.” There was very clearly a legit reason to interview Flynn.

    2. Focus on what I actually said: “Russia had recently interfered significantly in our election, and Flynn never condemns the Russian interference [in the 2016 election].”

      ___________________________________________________________
      That is a story which has little evidence to support it.

      With the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn both saying they did not believe Flynn was lying there is no case against Flynn. The only way a case became possible was if Flynn helped the FBI sell a story which contradicted the evidence that came from the FBI.

      1. That should be:
        Flynn helped the DOJ sell a story which contradicted the evidence that came from the FBI.

    3. You claim the FBI’s legitimate reason for the interview was because Mike Pence’s public statements about what Gen. Flynn told him did not match private information the FBI had. The problem with that claim is that the FBI needs to have a potential crime as a pretext for the interview. The NSA being false with the VP or the VP stating false info to the public are not crimes for the FBI to investigate. Their interview with Flynn had nothing to do with investigating him for espionage, as they had already closed that investigation, which was only technically open due to bureaucratic ineptitude.

      That was the whole reason for the claim of potential violations the Logan Act. That was the pretext they used for the interview, not some ridiculous incongruent statement nonsense. Since the Logan Act doesn’t apply to the transition team of the incoming administration, nothing Flynn told them in the interview could have been material to their investigation, because what they claimed to have been investigating is not a crime.

  17. If Flynn is guilty of perjury for his earlier quilty plea, wouldn’t the prosecution then be guilty of suborning that perjury?

    1. Anonymous – I think both the prosecution and defense would be guilty of suborning perjury.

    2. If Flynn is guilty of perjury for his earlier quilty plea, wouldn’t the prosecution then be guilty of suborning that perjury?

      ________________________________________________
      Yes absolutely

      And Flynn’s lawyers also were in on getting a false Statement of Facts presented to the court.

  18. I didn’t suggest that it would.

    I was pointing out that Sailor1’s point #1 is false. Sullivan and Gleeson didn’t “oust” Flynn. Trump ousted Flynn.

  19. There is no good faith argument that Flynn’s lies were not material. Anyone saying otherwise is either ignorant of the law, or dishonest. I don’t think Prof. Turley is ignorant of the law.

    1. There is no good faith argument for your assertion. You are clearly dishonest. You may also be ignorant of the law. They are not mutually exclusive.

        1. Emperor:

          Churchill would have (and did) say:

          “Never give in—never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

    2. There is no good faith argument that Flynn’s lies were not material.
      _________________________________________________-
      The FBI did not believe they were even lies – much less material lies.

    3. wrong, duh, you guys are so clueless

      anybody want to take or offer odds that Flynn’s case WON”T be dismissed, eventually?

      I don’t see the bookmakers offering any. it’s a done deal.

  20. Gleeson and Sullivan have come up with a legal “one two” knockout punch that would make Kafka proud:

    1. In a criminal case, oust an Executive Branch funtionary from his Constitutionally valid, exclusive role.

    2. Without a Hearing, automatically stack a “Perjury” sentence enhancement on top of a conviction that the Executive Branch Attorney (on eminently lawful authority) expressly renounces/abandons.

    1. LOL. Flynn was fired by Trump from his job as NSA, and both Trump and Pence said it was partly because Flynn lied to Pence.

      Do you believe Trump and Pence — that Flynn was fired in part because Flynn lied to Pence?

      1. He may have. But even if we had proof-positive that he did, it would not be a crime. Lying to your boss gets you fired, as Flynn found out. But it does not get you sent to jail.

      2. That is not material to the charges against Flynn. He was not tried for lying to Pence.

        1. No one said he was charged by the FBI for lying to Pence.
          But Flynn lying to Pence is absolutely material to why Flynn was *interviewed*.

          1. No, son, just no. It was all about the witch hunt. Flynn was a thorn in Obama’s side. Some fellow-travellers decided to get Flynn along with doing their best to hamper Trump’s Presidency with a series of phony scandals.

          2. Without the original 302 nobody has any idea whether Flynn lied at all. The evidence of multiple major edits to the document–including edits by Lisa Page who had no part in the interview–indicates strongly that Flynn did not lie. And you elide the facts that the FBI clearly sought to entrap Flynn (no 1001 warning, telling him he didn’t need a lawyer for their friendly chat, taking advantage of the Trump team by not telling WH legal counsel that they were coming to talk to Flynn, leaking to WaPo’s Nakashima who wrote a deceptive piece the day before the interview that Flynn was not a target). Even if he did lie to Pence, why did the FBI care if one member of the Trump team ‘lied’ to another member? You are wrong on so many fact pattern levels that you should keep your own counsel.

            1. “Without the original 302 nobody has any idea whether Flynn lied at all”

              That’s not true. The agents who interviewed him are both witnesses to what he said, and Flynn and the agents can all be called to testify under oath about it (though Flynn could plead the 5th).

              And although I see lots of people referring to “the original 302,” I’ve never seen anyone state the date of that 302, nor how they’ve determined that it’s “the original” one. What’s the date for the 302 you’re referring to?

              “Even if he did lie to Pence, why did the FBI care if one member of the Trump team ‘lied’ to another member?”

              You can read for yourself what Comey, McCord and Yates testified to about that. All three documents were appended to the Motion to Dismiss as exhibits: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6883959/Flynn-Govt-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf

              “You are wrong on so many fact pattern levels”

              Then quote something I actually wrote that you think is false. Empty accusations are only that, but if you can show me that I said something false, I’d like to correct it.

              1. ” “the original 302,” I’ve never seen anyone state the date of that 302, nor how they’ve determined that it’s “the original” one.”

                The original 302 no longer seems to exist though it may eventually be found. The new 302 was written by someone not present at the interview. That information can be seen in emails that were published by the FBI.

                This character is very uninformed.

            2. Without the original 302 nobody has any idea whether Flynn lied at all.
              ________________________________________________________

              The FBI agents that interviewed Flynn said they did not believe he was lying. They heard what Flynn actually said in both the interview and the phone call. With both FBI agents making that assessment it would be impossible to bring charges for a section 1001 charge.

          4. Sorry, that should have been “charged by the DOJ,” not “by the FBI.”

            1. Sorry, that should have been “charged by the DOJ,” not “by the FBI.”
              ________________________________________________________

              That is an important distinction. Even Prof Turley tries to blame the FBI for the prosecution. The FBI did just the opposite. The FBI created an evidence record that in theory made it impossible to prosecute Flynn.

              What that means is that if Flynn had always maintained he did not lie then the other two participants in that interview have indicated they would back Flynn up on that. Whatever you might interpret as a lie by Flynn those three would be prepared to explain in a credible way why you have it wrong.

              The only way Flynn could possibly be prosecuted in Dec 2017 is if Flynn suddenly disagrees with the other two participants in the interview and claims he did lie and fooled the agents into believing he was not lying. Flynn’s current lawyers have presented credible evidence that Flynn (and his son) had in fact done nothing at all for which he could be prosecuted.
              The FARA reporting errors were not Flynn’s fault. The only conclusion that leads to is that either Flynn voluntarily chose to help the DOJ or that he is extremely dim-witted and extremely easy to manipulate.

Comments are closed.