The D.C. Circuit Orders Dismissal of The Flynn Case

440px-Michael_T_FlynnIn an extraordinarily rare action, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has ordered the dismissal of the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.  The mandamus order could well be unique and was based on clear disagreement with the actions of U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan along many of the lines that I previously discussed in columns (here and here and here and here and here).  Short of an order to remove Sullivan, this is the most stinging possible rejection of the prior orders and conduct by the Court. I have a column in USA Today on the decision.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit voted 2-1 that the case should be immediately dismissed — cutting off the upcoming hearing planned by the Judge Sullivan. The panel criticized the appointment of former judge John Gleeson to argue for prosecution . . .  against the prosecutors.  Sullivan’s orders were described as “irregular” and potentially damaging to the system of justice.

Many former prosecutors and academics insisted that Sullivan’s orders were entirely appropriate and that he should reject the motion and refuse to dismiss the case.  Indeed, the media published few dissenting views.  Indeed, UCLA Law Professor and former U.S. Attorney under Bill Clinton, Harry Litman insisted that I was “a very lonely voice in the wilderness” in academia in contesting the use of an outside lawyer make arguments in a criminal trial case that neither the defense nor the prosecution supported.  While some of us gave detailed reasons why Sullivan’s orders contradict governing case law, these objections were dismissed and even recast as nefarious.  In the Washington Post, Randall D. Eliason wrote that “the strident opposition by Flynn and his supporters to the court gathering more information suggests that they have something to hide. Let’s hope Judge Sullivan gets to the bottom of it.”

Now it appears that commentators are attacking the fact that two of the three judges (Neomi Rao and Karen L. Henderson) were Republican appointees.  It is not relevant that dissenting Judge Robert Wilkins is an Obama appointee. Only the motivations of the majority are placed into question. This is coming from many of the same people who (correctly) criticized President Trump for dismissing opinions as the work of Democratic or Obama judges.  That attack however seems entirely permissible when judges rule in favor of the Administration.

Judge Sullivan can seek an en banc review.  Some judges would likely feel uncomfortable to ordering the dismissal rather than allowing Sullivan to reach that conclusion on his own.  This is a rare and controversial move. I was expecting a remand with stern language on the law governing these decisions.  Many judges likely agree with the concerns over Sullivan’s actions and the arguments raised by Gleeson.  However, the mandamus issue could be something that other judges want to review.  The issue for Judge Sullivan is whether such an appeal advances any substantive legal purpose.  The law in this area is very clear on the deference afforded to the government. Despite Gleeson’s filing, it was absurd to argue that Sullivan should send a person to jail when the prosecutors are denying the basis for the crime.  Now two judges have expressed such disagreement with his measures that they are ordering a dismissal rather than let Sullivan proceed with a hearing.  There comes a time when the judicious course is to end the controversy, particularly when the ultimate conclusion was never in serious doubt.  Otherwise, the trial court seems to eager to hold a hearing that will shed more heat than light.

Here is the opinion: Flynn Decision

405 thoughts on “The D.C. Circuit Orders Dismissal of The Flynn Case”

  1. Too bad for Julien Assange that he’s not Trumps buddy and Barr won’t be trashing the rule of law for him.

    1. There was nearly a deal in place for Assange to testify if he was assured he could leave the US after doing so, and that he would not be extradited.

      Mueller and his team F’d up the deal.

  2. What a disgrace you are, you should resign from teaching. Obvious the only thing you know how to teach is how to stay in line. How’s that boot taste?

      1. Mespo– I was going to do a similar reply but cancelled it as tasteless. Now I am back to join you. It is appropriate for this creature.

  3. “Litman insisted that I was “a very lonely voice in the wilderness” of academia in contesting the use of an outside lawyer to make arguments in a criminal trial case that neither the defense nor the prosecution supported.”

    Far, far, far better to be a very lonely voice, than singing chorus with the mob.

    The larger the group, the lower the average IQ.

      1. You do know that that’s not a real motion, right? If not, then (a) you have a weak legal background, and (b) you need help recognizing satire.

        If Squeeky wrote it, does your response imply that you think she’s a “human zit”?

        1. Commit:

          “You do know that that’s not a real motion, right? If not, then (a) you have a weak legal background, and (b) you need help recognizing satire.

          If Squeeky wrote it, does your response imply that you think she’s a “human zit”?”
          *************************

          Interested in your “weak legal background.” Oh and provide a bar number for verification there Lord Coke!

          BTW Squeeky is Oliver Wendell Holmes when compared to the putative lawyers I occasionally read but usually ignore around here. Here’s looking at you, Natasha!

          1. You think people need to pass the bar in order to distinguish between satire and an actual legal motion?!? LOL.

            1. Committed:

              “You think people need to pass the bar in order to distinguish between satire and an actual legal motion?!? LOL.”
              **********************************

              I think Squeeky is more a legal analyst that you’ll ever be which was, of course, what we were talking about oh deflector. Jokes on you.

              1. No, “we” weren’t talking about that. But if you want to keep demonstrating that you’re so filled with whatever (hate? anger?…) that you cannot respond without insult, so be it.

          2. OH, I swear it wasn’t me who wrote it! Because I could never think of a motion as devious as that! No, that had to be a REAL lawyer like Gleeson, because it says so right there on the Motion itself. I wonder how the Appeals Court is going to rule on that because it looks like one of the best examples of lawyering I ever seen! It had to be Gleeson! I thought it was really stupid at first, but you know, it takes a first rate legal mind to write something like that!

            Me and Penelope Dread are sooo lucky someone slipped an advance copy to us at Pansies For Plato!
            🙂

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. Squeeky – you and Penelope are so lucky to know such powerful people that they slipped you a copy. Lucky you guys!!!!!

          3. “Here’s looking at you, Natasha!”

            – mespo727272
            _____________

            Stop it, man. You’re killin’ me!!!

  4. Sooooo What Next?

    The Trump Haters take it to Small Claims Court? LOL

    What a bunch of American hating commie/nazi type aholes.

  5. A sticking point that will remain as this case closes out…..Before this court order the Justice Department had responded to Gleeson and noted:

    “While (additional) documents, along with other recently available information, see, e.g., Doc. 198-6, are relevant to the government’s discretionary decision to dismiss this case, the government’s motion is not based on defendant Flynn’s broad allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. Flynn’s allegations are unfounded and provide no basis for impugning the prosecutors from the D.C. United States Attorney’s Office.”

    So according to Justice, this is all on the F.B.I. Nothing to do with them. Why should I be surprised?

    1. In a TV interview, Barr already alleged that the FBI had been “trying to lay … a perjury trap,” so this is no surprise.
      I hope he’s questioned about this under oath.
      For the record, it could not be a perjury trap; Flynn was never at risk of being charged with perjury (and wasn’t charged with perjury), since he wasn’t under oath.

      1. Recently released Brady material gives strong credence that the interview was a “perjury trap”:

        FBI Notes(believed to be from Bill Priestap) from the day before the surprise Flynn interview: “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

        1. Again: one can only be charged with perjury is the person is either under oath or signs a declaration under penalty of perjury. Neither was the case here. Flynn could not be — and was not — charged with perjury for false statements in the interview. Learn the difference between “perjury” and “false statements.” The U.S. Code for those crimes is distinct.

          Moreover, a “perjury trap” is a situation where the sole purpose for the questioning is to elicit perjurious testimony. That wasn’t the case here: there were legitimate reasons to question Flynn, not least that according to Pence, Flynn had lied to Pence about the content of the calls with Kislyak.

          1. They tried to trap him into “lying to the FBI” to be precise as per Bill Priestap’s notes from the day before the surprise interview.
            You don’t want to address the obvious Brady material that was withheld from the defense…I understand why. It’s damning.

            “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

            1. You don’t want to address the obvious Brady material that was withheld from the defense…I understand why. It’s damning.
              __________________________________________________________________________________________

              The defense was given the statements from the FBI agents that interviewed Flynn (and they listened to the Kislyak phone calls). Their statements said that both FBI agents believed that Flynn was not lying. That alone was enough to clear Flynn if there was any interest by the defense in clearing Flynn. The only possible conclusion is that Flynn willingly agreed to become the subject of this phony prosecution.

              The Flynn Flam case was just another phony controversy created by the Mueller team who was hired by the Trump administration to create a whole slew of phony controversies that were all designed to turn into nothing-burgers in the final analysis.

            2. a) You’re taking a question and interpreting it as a statement.
              b) You’re ignoring the rest of what was on the page.
              c) You’re ignoring that it’s totally legal to try to trap someone in a lie, as long as that is not your sole purpose for questioning them. Learn what “perjury trap” actually means.

              “You don’t want to ….”

              Bullsh*t. I have no problem discussing it. But if you want to discuss it, you should first read Sullivan’s long ruling about the Brady material, so you’re informed: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/144/united-states-v-flynn/

              “It’s damning.”

              No, it isn’t. On the same piece of paper, Priestap writes “If we’re seen as playing games, WH (White House) will be furious. Protect our institution by not playing games.” You don’t get to ignore everything else on the page.

              And if you really wanted to know what the question you quoted meant, the best way to find out would be to interview Priestap under oath. But you’d rather assume a meaning that’s convenient for your argument.

              1. “a) You’re taking a question and interpreting it as a statement.”
                reread the question.
                Tell me an innocent reason that the FBI should EVER ask whether they should try to entrap someone ?
                “b) You’re ignoring the rest of what was on the page.”
                follow your own advice – there is a whole string of exchanges.

                As I have said before the sequence starts with the realization that Flynn is going to have to be read in on XFH,
                And turns into a discussion of how to avoid that.
                The question about trying to get Flynn to lie is because the purpose of everything is to avoid having to tell Flynn about XFH.

                “c) You’re ignoring that it’s totally legal to try to trap someone in a lie, as long as that is not your sole purpose for questioning them. Learn what “perjury trap” actually means.”

                Nope. You may not question a witness with the specific intention of trying to get them to lie, so that you can prosecute them.
                Absolutely it is done all the time. It is still a civil rights violation, and probably a crime.

                “Bullsh*t. I have no problem discussing it. But if you want to discuss it, you should first read Sullivan’s long ruling about the Brady material, ”

                Your citing Sullivan ? Please. He has botched this case from the start.
                Read Brady, or some real judge about brady.

                “No, it isn’t. On the same piece of paper, Priestap writes “If we’re seen as playing games, WH (White House) will be furious. Protect our institution by not playing games.” You don’t get to ignore everything else on the page.”

                And yet they did play games.
                You seem to think that if you say
                We have to do this “By the book” and then do not do this “by the book” that using “by the book” is a magic incantation that makes misconduct acceptable.

                When you say “we should not play games” and then you play games, that is called evidence of consciousness of guilt.
                You are trying to convert a confession into an exoneration.

                “And if you really wanted to know what the question you quoted meant, the best way to find out would be to interview Priestap under oath.”
                that has already been done.
                But no it is not necescary.

                There is no ambiguity. The FBI subsequently DID what Preistep discussed.
                And they did it despite Priestap noting that it could look bad.

                If Priestep said

                “Is the goal to murder Flynn ?”

                And then – “it would look look bad if we murdered Flynn”

                And several days later the FBI murdered Flynn.

                Would you be pretending the remarks were ambiguous.

                The FBI discussed getting Flynn to lie to prosecute him.
                They the tried to get Flynn to lie
                It is not clear whether they succeeded – because they said he was truthful, lost their notes, and then prosecuted him for lying.

          2. “there were legitimate reasons to question Flynn”
            Nope, there is never a legitimate basis to question people about something you already know for the purpose of getting them to lie.

            We know that is what occured – because they admitted it.

            “not least that according to Pence, Flynn had lied to Pence about the content of the calls with Kislyak.”
            That too is false.
            Flynn had not been fired yet,
            FBI was wither unaware of What Flynn had told Pence OR the FBI was spying on the NSA and a sitting vice president – there is not a good way out of this for the FBI (or you).

            BTW the claim that Flynn lied to Pence is fundimentally based on Yates, not Pence or Trump.

            You can go find the video of Trump anouncing Flynn’s departure. It is one of the most confusing statements Trump ever made.
            He says Flynn was fired for lying to Pence, that he and Pence were told they were lied to, but that Trump and Pence can not figure out how they were lied to,

            Trump was very early in his presidency. He did not yet understand that he was dealing with a coup in progress, and he and Pence trusted Yates way more than they should have.

            Regardless, your timeline is wrong, so your rationalization for the interview fails.

      2. Lying to the FBI is a crime even when not under oath. They tried to set him up in that way. Your Women’s Studies degree must not have covered much law.

        1. I’m well aware that “Lying to the FBI is a crime even when not under oath,” but it’s not the crime of perjury. The crime is called “false statements.” Maybe your degree (if you have one) didn’t address the difference, but you can look it up if you want to learn now. You could even ask me to provide evidence for my claim, and I’ll give you links to the U.S. Code for the two.

            1. ” This type of mincing parsing actually tends to piss judges off.”

              LOL so according to you judges don’t care if the correct statute is applied?

              1. In a statement referring to “a perjury trap set by the FBI” everyone knows what is meant. Explaining details to people who already understand it only turns you into the pimply kid with adenoids that people want to swat when he won’t shut up.

            2. Bullsh*t. Judges don’t want people to conflate distinct crimes. You’re simply pretending they do because you, personally, can’t be bothered to refer to the correct crime (namely, false statements) and you’re not honest enough to admit it.

              1. The term “perjury trap” is not some legal term of art.
                It is a common term for trying to get someone to lie in a way you can prosecute them.

                If you think I am wrong – find me references to “18 USC 1001 trap” or something similar.

                I beleive Ginsburg uses the term “Perjury trap” in a ruling on an 18 USC 1001 case talking about the potential for abuse.
                This resulted in congress adding Materiality to 18 USC 1001

          1. “I’m well aware that “Lying to the FBI is a crime even when not under oath,” but it’s not the crime of perjury. ”

            Correct, but all forms of trying to get someone to lie for the purpose of prosecuting them is called a perjury trap.

            18 USC 1001 does not give a specific name to “the crime”
            18 USC 1001 is titled “Statements or Entries generally”

            Please do not tell me you are an actual lawyer ?

      3. More of that literally but not seriously crap.

        Flynn was being “entrapped”. What occurred is classic entrapment and it is illegal.

        There is almost no such thing as a “perjury trap” – I say almost because the stone case fits.

        The requirements for perjury are much more than lying under oath.

        You must be under oath
        You must lie
        The lie must material.
        You must have the opportunity to correct.
        The tribunal must be mislead
        the tribunal must rely on your lie in its decision.

        If any of these elements is missing – it is not perjury.

        It is “nearly” impossible to create a perjury trap.

        Stones conviction never should have occured.

        Stone’s misstatement to congress was exculpatory.
        It was not material.
        He was not provided transcripts, he had no oportunity to correct.
        The house did not rely on his “lie”.

        But Stone was entrapped – witholding the transcripts which his attorney requested, was a trap. preventing him from correcting the record.

        1. More of that literally but not seriously crap.
          Flynn was being “entrapped”. What occurred is classic entrapment and it is illegal.
          There is almost no such thing as a “perjury trap” – I say almost because the stone case fits.
          ________________________________________________________________________________________
          Neither the Stone case of the Flynn case are examples of where the defendant was trapped. In both cases the defendant went way out of there way to make a an impossible prosecution possible. Without the active assistance of the defendant neither case would have gone anywhere.

          1. “Neither the Stone case of the Flynn case are examples of where the defendant was trapped. In both cases the defendant went way out of there way to make a an impossible prosecution possible. Without the active assistance of the defendant neither case would have gone anywhere.”

            False.

            Aside from the fact that there never was a basis to interview Flynn. Which we have numerous FBI emails admitting to, we still do not know what Flynn actually said to the FBI – because they “lost” the 302.

            The FBI is the only law enforcement agency in the world that has the power to send people to jail for lying to them AND no obligation to record interviews.

            But we do have Strzok saying that Flynn was not deceptive shortly after the interview.

            As such Mueller had no basis to prosecute.

            But more broadly we also KNOW that XFH was DEAD by mid january 2017.
            That is BEFORE Mueller was appointed.

            That means Muellers appointment was either corrupt or incompetent or both.

            There is no justification for Mueller to re-investigate with the FBI already investigated and failed to find anything.
            Muellers entire inquiry into Flynn specifically was a massive civil rights violation.

            And I would note that Mueller has done this before – and he has lost millions of dollars in lawsuits for false investigations.

            As to Stone. There never was anything there. There still is not. Neither Stone nor anyone associated with him knew anything about what came from wikileaks until after it was made public.

            It would not be a crime if they did. but there is no possibility of it being a crime if they did not.

            Mueller and his team had all the records of all the emails and all the communications between everyone associated with Stone and Wikileaks in 2018.

            Except that Stone does not have the bonafides of a 3 star general the cases are remarkably similar.

            There is no underlying crime. Mueller KNEW that.

            Whether you like it or not even the prosecution of stone is more of this process crime nonsense without an underlying crime.

            Your “Stone brought this on himself” is little more than saying that a person innocent of any actual wrongdoing was arrogant enough to believe that being innocent was enough. That he was not obligated to KowTow to some federal prosecutor or later judge.

            You also seem to forget that Mueller and team were attempting to use their powers as prosecutor to deprive Stone and Flynn of their ability to make a living.

            Stone has been bankrupted because his job is political commentary. And so long as Mueller was chasing him it was near impossible to do that Job.

            Flynn was unemployable while under investigation.

            You left wing nuts seem to grasp that Chauvin having his knee on Floyd’s throat is vile.

            But you can not grasp that what Mueller and his team did to those they tortured was the same thing.

            As noted in other posts – the FBI had determined there was no substance tot he entire Trump Russian collusion delusion by mid january 2017.

            Everything that occured after that point was CORRUPT. That includes the ENTIRE Mueller investigation.

            And again – I would note this has been Mueller’s MO for decades. Ask richard Jewel, Ask Steven Hatfill ask Bruce Ivens 0h you can’t Mueller drove Ivens to suicide.

            1. Aside from the fact that there never was a basis to interview Flynn.
              ____________________________________________________________
              Not a fact. Flynn invited the agents to his office and gave them a tour of the white house.
              If anybody was entrapped it was the FBI agents. They are the ones being blamed for crimes they did not commit.

              _____________________________________________________________
              But we do have Strzok saying that Flynn was not deceptive shortly after the interview.
              ________________________________________________________________________

              Strzok also was interviewed by Mueller months later and stated in plain English that both agents believed Flynn was not lying. The statements of the FBI agents were made available to Flynn, but Flynn chose to contradict the statements of the FBI and swore to the court that he had lied to the FBI. Flynn, Mueller and the DOJ conspired to commit fraud on the court and now they are conspiring to commit the fraud of blaming the FBI for their own illegal acts.
              _____________________________________________________________
              Chauvin having his knee on Floyd’s throat is vile.
              But you can not grasp that what Mueller and his team did to those they tortured was the same thing.
              _________________________________________________________________

              What Mueller did to Flynn was intended to look like the same thing but it was phony. The prosecution of Flynn was only possible due to Flynn’s and trump’s assistance since the FBI has cleared Flynn. It is indeed shameful that so many fools cheered for Mueller, despite the fact that what Mueller was doing was clearly criminal and fraudulent.

              ______________________________________________________________________
              As noted in other posts – the FBI had determined there was no substance tot he entire Trump Russian collusion delusion by mid january 2017.
              _________________________________________________________________________________

              That is correct Strzok and Page were forced to join the Mueller team even though neither one believed there was anything to investigate in regard to Russia collusion. The only purpose in the Trump administration hiring them was so that they could be publicly humiliated and their careers destroyed for their private conversations taken out of context as a warning to the rest of the FBI.

              +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

              Everything that occured after that point was CORRUPT. That includes the ENTIRE Mueller investigation.
              ________________________________________________________________________________________

              The appointment of Mueller was corrupt from May, 16 2017 when Mueller and Rosenstein had a secret meeting with Trump in the oval office several days after Mueller had been offered the job as Special Counsel. A month later when the White House lied and said that Mueller was at that meeting to get his old job as FBI Director back it should have been obvious to everyone that the Mueller probe was a fraud, since Mueller is the only person in the country identified in the Federal Statutes as not being eligible for the FBI job.

              1. “Not a fact. Flynn invited the agents to his office and gave them a tour of the white house.
                If anybody was entrapped it was the FBI agents. They are the ones being blamed for crimes they did not commit.”

                Not correct – McCabe and Comey setup the interview.

                But lets say your facts are correct. If so then it is not an interview that is part of an investigation and 19 USC 1001 does not apply.
                In fact if Flynn invited Strzok to the whitehouse for the purpose of finding out about XFH – (this is a hypothetical), than Strzok would be prosecutable under 18 USC 1001 for lying to Flynn.

                Lying to ANY government agent persuing a legitimate investigation is an 18 USC 1001 violation.

                1. Not correct – McCabe and Comey setup the interview.
                  _________________________________________________________________

                  The interview only happened because Flynn eagerly invited them to come to his office. Without Flynn’s invitation the FBI agents would not have been able to come to Flynn’s office.
                  _______________________________________________________________________________

                  But lets say your facts are correct. If so then it is not an interview that is part of an investigation and 19 USC 1001 does not apply.
                  __________________________________________________________________________
                  The FBI agents made it clear that section 1001 did not apply by stating on the record that Flynn was not lying during that interview. Flynn helped create the phony story that he lied to the FBI. The FBI did not create that story.

                  Flynn understood that the FBI was not there as tourists they were doing their job investigating and keeping tabs on what the Russians were up to. As far as the FBI could tell Flynn was willingly helping then FBI with their fact finding. There was nothing improper about the FBI interviewing Flynn. They interviewed other people from the Obama administration and the Trump administration. The FBI interviews people who are not guilty of crimes all the time.
                  ____________________________________________________________________________
                  In fact if Flynn invited Strzok to the whitehouse for the purpose of finding out about XFH – (this is a hypothetical), than Strzok would be prosecutable under 18 USC 1001 for lying to Flynn.
                  ________________________________________________________________________
                  What lie are you talking about?

                  1. You seem to have an awful lot of information that is NOT in any records I am aware of.

                    There is a record of Comey and McCabe setting this up.

                    Where is the record of Flynn inviting them ?

                    There is a discussion before the interview of how and whether to broach 18 usc 1001.

                    I have read no evidence at all that 1001 was mentioned to Flynn.
                    Regardless, saying something applies does not make it apply.

                    “Flynn understood that the FBI was not there as tourists they were doing their job investigating and keeping tabs on what the Russians were up to.”
                    Investigating a crime and keeping tabs on the Russians are completely independent.

                    Absent a criminal investigation there is no difference in role between Flynn and Strzok. Or more accurately Flynn is Strzok indirect superior.
                    Fynn was NSA and it was Flynn’s job to know what the Russians were up to. As NSA he could share or NOT what he knew with Strzok.
                    The only thing that creates an obligation to answer Strzok and the only thing that makes jeopardy apply is the existence of a legitimate criminal investigation.

                    Further to avoid disclosing the investigation to Flynn, Flynn must be the TARGET.

                    And that ship had sailed.

                    Flynn could not be interviewed by Strzok regarding any other matter involving Russia without Strzok being required to inform Flynn Fully as Flynn was NSA

                    You seem to be missing the discussions in the FBI preceding the interview.
                    Everyone keeps fixating on the – “is the purpose to get Flynn to lie” remark – which is important, but it is part of the bigger discussion of “how do we aviod reading Flynn into XFH as we are required”

                    The Flynn investigation was not closed – because the moment they closed it they had to read him in on XFH as he was the NSA.

                    1. Where is the record of Flynn inviting them ?

                      _______________________________________________________________
                      McCabe called Flynn and inquired about an interview and Flynn invited the agents to come to his office immediately. As far as the FBI agents could tell Flynn was eager to give them an interview and help them with their investigation.

                      ________________________________________________________________
                      I have read no evidence at all that 1001 was mentioned to Flynn.
                      _______________________________________________________
                      Read the court transcripts. Flynn under oath tells the court he was aware that lying to the FBI was a crime at the the time of the interview. But what is more important is there was absolutely no reason for Flynn to be lying about anything and he knows that the FBI has the listened to the phone calls. Only really stupid people believe the story that Flynn lied in that interview.
                      ________________________________________________________________________
                      The only thing that creates an obligation to answer Strzok and the only thing that makes jeopardy apply is the existence of a legitimate criminal investigation.
                      _______________________________________________________________________
                      There was no obligation to speak to Strzok at all. Flynn chose to voluntarily invite the agents to speak with him at the WH.
                      What you refuse to face is that the FBI agents have made it clear that they believed Flynn was not lying during the interview. The FBI made it publicly known that they had found nothing for which Flynn could be charged. But not long after that the Russia investigation was taken out of the hands of the FBI and put under the direct control of the Trump DOJ. No new evidence was found. There was no evidence presented to the court. The plea was based on information created by the Trump DOJ and by Flynn. The evidence record created by the FBI was contradicted by both the defense and the prosecution. The prosecution of Flynn was a fraud and now the appellate court has helped cover up that fraud.

                      You keep trying to construct defenses for Flynn’s lying to the FBI. It did not happen and only idiots believe it did.

                    2. McCabe called Flynn – that is not an invite, not even if Flynn says come right over.
                      It is a mistake, but it does not change the fact that this was initiated by FBI

                      I would further note that if you actually conclude Flynn invited the FBI – not the other way arround, then it is NOT an investigative interview and no jeophardy can apply.

                      If Flynn took Strzok out for dinner and they discussed Kislyak and Flynn lied boldly – it would not violate 18 USC 1001 – as it is not an investigative interview.

                      18 USC 1001 is not about the FBI. It is about any govenrment agent conducting an investigation.

                      If Flynn started to enquire about XFH – 18 USC 1001 would apply to those he was questioning – so long as he had legitimate basis to enquire, and a right to know – which as NSA he clearly does.

                      While the fact that Flynn could use 18 USC 1001 against them was not discussed. The FBI/DOJ exchanges leading to Flynn;s intenview make clear that DOJ/FBI knew they were obligated to inform Flynn about XFH, they knew that was going to blow up in their faces, and the discussions were about how to avoid that.

                      Those claiming Preistep’s musings are meaningless fail to grasp that they are part of a larger discussion that was fixated on how do we get rid of Flynn. Those on the left are sort of Correct – getting Flynn to lie inorder to prosecute him was NOT the primary goal.

                      Getting SOMETHING – ANYTHING, to either
                      continue to be able to treat him as a target
                      get him fired
                      get him prosecuted

                      Were the goals.

                      The purpose of the Flynn interview was NOT absolutely clearly entrapment. But it was also CLEARLY NOT investigative.
                      Strzok was not their investigating a potential crime. He was their to get rid of a political and personal threat by any means necescary.

                      And that is not debateable.

                    3. “You keep trying to construct defenses for Flynn’s lying to the FBI. It did not happen and only idiots believe it did.”

                      Nope. I am AFTER the FBI. This is not about Flynn for me. This is about the misconduct of the FBI.

                      I do not accept that anyone has proven that Flynn lied.
                      Nor do I think it is important.

                      One thing the left has right about the Flynn Plea bargain is that it is not unusual.

                      Law enforcement often gets people to plead to something they did not do.

                      What is actually relevant here is that Flynn and Mueller were playing each other. Mueller thought as prosecutor he had the strongest hand – which MOSTLY he did. But Flynn had a trump card – ne did not do any of the things he was accused of and it was lkely that would eventually come out. But as we have seen with manafort and Stone – he stood no chance with a DC jury. Flynn had to avoid a trial.
                      As we saw with Both manafort and Stone – Mueller through bogus charges and because the prosecutors got clueluess politicized DC juries everything was going to stick.

                      So Flynn “plead” and “cooperated” – but he had nothing to give Mueller – and they knew that from the start. Flynn’s primary value to Mueller was as a scalp on the wall.

                      Flynn successfully delayed the process, and as expected the wheels eventually came off the Mueller investigation, and NOW he is challenging the entire mess.

                      NOW he is in a different position. His risk now is what it should have been in the first place. There are no charges that reputable prosecutors would return to now. Further the Trump collusion delusion has been sufficiently discredited that no one is getting Flynn in front of a jury.

                      Flynn has not been sentenced. Months ago Powel withdrew Flynn’s guilty plea. That was Sullivan’s moment to act, if he wanted to try to hold on to any of this. He should have accepted the withdrawl and proceeded to discovery. Van Grack would have been free to re-add the charges he had not filed as part of the deal. But they would have belly flopped now.
                      On the other side Sydney Powell would have gotten discovery and the case against Flynn would have fallen apart – it already has.
                      Sullivan would have been forced to dismiss before it came to trial.

                      What Sulivan is trying to do now is hold on to Flynn’s guilty plea and sentence him. But he can’t. Flynn withdrew the plea and DOJ withdrew the charges.

                      I would prefer to see Powell get the oportunity to put the FBI and Mueller on trial.
                      But Sullivan stopped that, but he did not anticipate that the entire case would get withdrawn.

                    4. Sullivan/Gleeson make the valid point that none of this would have happened had Van Grack remained as prosecutor.

                      But there is no government right to proceed with unethical prosecutors on a baseless case. Van Grack is gone – not because the DOJ is politically corrupt – but because they are not, and the Mueller Team was politically corrupt and unethical and got played and got caught.

                      Much of this should have been predictable from the start. I do not know precisely when Mueller found out that XFH have flubbed – that there was no basis for the entire SC investigation. but he certainly knew by August, and he should have known within days of starting.

                      And when he did, he was ethically obligated to end this. When he proceeded anyway, this became a race – would the completely fraudulent basis of the collusion delusion be exposed before Mueller found SOMETHING of substance to prosecute.

                      The Mueller investigation proceeded on two foundations – the bet that they could get DC juries to convict on anything, and the bet that there is always some federal crime that can be found with anyone.

                      Had Mueller found anything at all regarding Trump, Trump would have been impeached. Trump only remains president, and Flynn about to be free because Mueller found ZERO, ZIP, NADA.

                      If Mueller found that Trump defrauded insurance companies, or laundered money, or anything at all, no one would care that the base of the investigation was fraudulent.

                      The entire left and Mueller are back on their heels on this because they found NOTHING.

                      Flynn is clearly an innocent person – but even that would not have mattered – had Trump gone down.

                    5. “You keep trying to construct defenses for Flynn’s lying to the FBI. It did not happen and only idiots believe it did.”

                      Nope. I am AFTER the FBI. This is not about Flynn for me. This is about the misconduct of the FBI.
                      ___________________________________________________________________________________

                      There wasn’t any misconduct by the FBI in that interview with Flynn. The FBI was investigating Russian election interference and possible coordination with members of the Trump campaign. Flynn knew that is what they were investigating and was willing to assist. According to the FBI agents Flynn was cooperative and truthful.

                      Flynn is now claiming that he was unaware in Dec 2017 that the FBI agents had said on the record that they believed Flynn was not lying. Flynn claims that if he had known that, he would never agree to a plea. Flynn claims he was led to believe the opposite by the prosecutors and by Flynn’s own lawyers.

                      If Flynn is telling the truth now then you would think Flynn’s lawyers and the prosecutors are in considerable legal jeopardy. You would think Flynn would now want the opportunity to tell the judge about the illegal behavior of the lawyers who conspired to get him to agree to a fraudulent deal by lying to Flynn about the evidence against him. According to Flynn’s recent declaration of innocence the Covington law firm did not defend him at all. Instead they presented Flynn with false damning evidence as the prosecutions case and hid all the exculpatory evidence from Flynn. According to Flynn, Covington convinced him he was in serious legal jeopardy and was going to prison for a long time if he did not agree to the plea.

                      I don’t believe Flynn is now telling the truth. If he was telling the truth he would not be trying so hard to help the prosecution cover this all up and make it go away. The accusations Flynn has leveled against his former lawyers and the DOJ are extremely serious. So why is Flynn helping them sweep it all under the rug?

                      The answer to that question is pretty obvious -> Flynn is not the innocent victim that he is trying to claim he is.

                    6. “There wasn’t any misconduct by the FBI in that interview with Flynn.”
                      If course there was. Asking a person questions you already know the answers to is clasic entrapment.
                      Interviewing someone as a suspect when you have already determined that there is no basis to investigate is misconduct.

                      The FBI may not investigate any of us at whim forever.

                      “The FBI was investigating Russian election interference and possible coordination with members of the Trump campaign. Flynn knew that is what they were investigating and was willing to assist.”

                      First, that investigation had fallen apart by the time of the Flynn interview. FBI had interviewed the primary subsource for the Steele Dossier – the only remaning evidence for XFH that was not thoroughy descredited and that source said that it was basically Russian disinformation.

                      XFH was effectively over before Flynn was interviewed.

                      Further the recently revealed documentS – note plural, reveal that FBI/DOJ – were not specifically seeking to interview Flynn.

                      The were seeking some means to allow them to not tell him about XFH, because they were now obligated to do so.
                      The interview was a hail mary in the hope that he would make a mistake that would get him fired or prosecuted.

                      That is misconduct.

                      “Flynn is now claiming that he was unaware in Dec 2017 that the FBI agents had said on the record that they believed Flynn was not lying. Flynn claims that if he had known that, he would never agree to a plea. Flynn claims he was led to believe the opposite by the prosecutors and by Flynn’s own lawyers.”

                      True but actually irrelevant.
                      The DOJ’s legal reasons for dropping the case are primarly that there was no legal foundation for the interview, therefore no possible crime.

                      “If Flynn is telling the truth now”
                      Does not matter

                      “then you would think Flynn’s lawyers and the prosecutors are in considerable legal jeopardy.”
                      That would be correct – Flynn has a different lawyer today.

                      ” You would think Flynn would now want the opportunity to tell the judge about the illegal behavior of the lawyers who conspired to get him to agree to a fraudulent deal by lying to Flynn about the evidence against him.”
                      He has, Read Sydney Powell’s briefs and motions.

                      ” According to Flynn’s recent declaration of innocence the Covington law firm did not defend him at all. Instead they presented Flynn with false damning evidence as the prosecutions case and hid all the exculpatory evidence from Flynn. According to Flynn, Covington convinced him he was in serious legal jeopardy and was going to prison for a long time if he did not agree to the plea.”
                      Approximately correct. Regarless, there is plenty of actual evidence for the accurate version of this.

                      “I don’t believe Flynn is now telling the truth.”
                      This is not about what Flynn is saying – in fact Flynn is saying NOTHING. Flynn’s lawyer Sydney Powell is “saying” these things – in motions that are subject to criminal prosecution if false. And she is backing what she is saying by documents she has received from DOJ that the Mueller prosecutors were obligated to provide her with and did not. That is misconduct.

                      “If he was telling the truth he would not be trying so hard to help the prosecution cover this all up and make it go away.”
                      Flynn moved to withdraw he guilty plea. Powell’s expectation was that this would go to trial and she would win.

                      DOJ moved to drop the case unilaterally. AFTER they did so Flynn joined that motion.
                      Because DOJ and the defense moved to withdrawl with predjudice there is nothing inside Sullivan’s power except to order the case dropped.

                      “The accusations Flynn has leveled against his former lawyers and the DOJ are extremely serious. So why is Flynn helping them sweep it all under the rug?”

                      He is not. Sullivan could hold the former prosecutors in contempt based on the record, he also could refer them to the DOJ for prosecution or the Bar for discipline But he can not investigate. That is up to DOJ and the Bar. And they are likely to do that – whether Sullivan refers or not.

                      “The answer to that question is pretty obvious”

                      Defendants and their lawyers are not prosecutors or judges. They are not in court to seek justice.
                      They are their to serve the best interests of their clients. Sydney Powells duty is to Get Flynn out of criminal jeophardy – not to prosecute those going after him.

                      Further the only justice that will be done is the Flynn case will be dropped.

                      While the prosecutor and to a much lessor extent Flynn’s first defense councel engaged in egregious even criminal misconduct.
                      I am not aware of an instance in which a prosecutor was ever held responsible for hiding exclupatory evidence EVER.
                      In cases far more egregious than this.

                      Look up Harry Conick Sr.

                    7. Had Mueller found anything at all regarding Trump, Trump would have been impeached. Trump only remains president, and Flynn about to be free because Mueller found ZERO, ZIP, NADA.
                      ______________________________________________________________________________

                      A giant nothing burger was understood to be the final outcome of Mueller probe before the Trump administration hired Mueller as the pied piper that would lead all the stupid Democratic children on a journey off into the weeds for years. Of course they had to throw a few people like Stone and Popadopolus under the bus or even the morons might get a little suspicious that the whole thing was a fraud.

                  2. lying about the purpose of the interview – and who was interviewing who, and failing to disclose XFH to Flynn.

                    1. lying about the purpose of the interview
                      ____________________________________________________
                      Nobody lied about the purpose of the interview

                    2. “Nobody lied about the purpose of the interview”

                      Wrong – we have the FBI/DOJ emails, texts.
                      They spent the days before the interview trying to figure out how to NOT read Flynn in on XFH.

                      That was their objective. That is where the idea of interviewing them originated.

                      While the Priestap memo is important it is the earlier discussions that are more significant.
                      The seem more innocuous – until you realize – they had clear Flynn at that time and knew it,
                      and what was being plotted was finding some way to not tell the incoming NSA what they were now obligated to tell him.

                      The interview was NOT specifically to entrapp Flynn – they would have settled for getting him fired or getting a new basis to keep their investigation of him open.

                      The reason for the interview was to manufacture a reason not to tell Flynn about XFH

                      This is openly admitted.

                    3. and what was being plotted was finding some way to not tell the incoming NSA what they were now obligated to tell him.
                      _________________________________________________________________________________

                      Do you think that just because you claim that the FBI was “obligated” to tell Flynn something that makes it true?

                      And why are you obsessed about the FBI not telling Flynn something?
                      If Flynn is replaced then someone else immediately takes his place and the FBI is then “obligated” to tell Flynn’s replacement whatever you think they don’t want to tell Flynn…

                    4. “Do you think that just because you claim that the FBI was “obligated” to tell Flynn something that makes it true?”
                      No. the fact that those involved in trying to figure out how to not tell him said that they otherwise had to is relevant.

                      Further Flynn was NSA, and this was a national security investigation. Once he was no longer under investigation himself – Jan 4. 2017
                      they were obligated to tell him the moment he was officially NSA

                    5. Flynn is one of very few people in the Trump administration with prior experience with National Security.

                      After Flynn Rosenstein appointed an SC and that took the NSA out of the loop.

                      This is also part fo the problem with Rosensteins SC appointment.

                      By passing a counter intelligence investigation to the SC Rosenstein acted outside the law and removed a counter intel matter from the NSA.

                      SC;s are only legitimate for crimes where the DOJ can not investigate itself.

                      But there is so much wrong with the Mueller appointment.

    1. Amazing that you call him a “Dipsh!t” without understanding the issue. As he noted, “My reply brief has been completed and is ready to be filed,” but he needs clarification from the court re: whether he is still supposed to file it (since CADC’s order doesn’t take effect for 21 days) or not (since their order vacates Sullivan appointing Gleeson amicus). Nor is it odd that his request for clarification (which you linked to, and which is not his reply brief) is short. Your insult applies better to you than to him.

      1. “Your insult applies better to you than to him.” -Commit… to Squeeky, Girl Reporter

        Agreed.

        She’s a little know-it-all who will probably never grow up.

        1. Yeah whatever, but a few weeks ago when I provided an IN DEPTH legal analysis of the Amicus Brief, darned if I didn’t hit everything he did wrong! I would not be surprised if Sydney Powell did not read mine before doing hers!

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. “I would not be surprised if Sydney Powell did not read mine before doing hers!”

            Now that’s funny, Squeeky. ROTFLMAO.

            1. OK, sooo here is what I wrote back on May 22 here in analysis of the Laurence Tribe Amicus brief. See how many of the arguments were adopted by Powell and Deputy Solicitor Walls:
              ———–
              OK, I have rewritten and edited my Legal Opus on the group of highly-esteemed legal minds supporting Judge Sullivan. Sir Laurence Tribe leads the pack of attention-seeking legal whores, and frankly, he is beginning to remind me of William Jennings Bryan, at the Scopes Monkey Trial. Speaking of monkeys, their brief is proof of that theory that if you sit and infinite number of monkeys down at an infinite number of typewriters, you can end up with an Amicus Brief that sucks as badly as this one does!
              ———–
              OK, sooo Sir Laurence Tribe and some other eminent Legal Kleagles came out with an Amicus Brief, and what a Total Failure! Here is the link:

              https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Amicus-Barr-Flynn-Draft-5-22-20-final-final.pdf

              What a laugher of a Brief! Dang near half the 28 pages are blurbs describing what a bunch of high legal mucky-mucks the authors are. Like Laurence Tribe who has become a DNC whore-for-hire.

              Here’s one huge whopper from that brief! Footnote 7: “The D.C. Circuit’s decision in Fokker Services supplies no authority for the government’s motion to dismiss; it involved a deferred prosecution agreement rather than a guilty plea (let alone two).

              Wow, talk about some conclusory argumentation! Believe it or not, that is all the Legal Brainiacs thought necessary to dismiss Fokker! What a hoot! They lay out a bunch of wordage about “separation of powers”, and then when it comes to the case that overrules a district judge tryomh yfor exactly that reason – separation of powers – what do these Einsteins of the Bar write??? Pretty much, “It don’t apply!” and off they go!

              What a kewl trick to dispose of a case that straddles the straits of your argument like the Colossus of Roads,( Who was actually next to a harbor, not a road. 🙂 ).

              Criminy, when a mere slip-of–a-girl part time legal assistant can spot something like that, it looks me like these goobers are being overpaid. But I guess we aren’t supposed to see that once we know what a bunch of high-powered of shysters they are! Perhaps we are supposed to be sooo impressed by WHO they are, that we forget WHAT their argument is, or more precisely, WHAT their argument wasn’t.

              But not to worry! These Judicial Jerkoffs have a good case to back them up! The 1872 SCOTUS case of U.S. v. Klein! Which seemed confusing since it dealt with ex-Confederates, so I went to tat quick legal website, wikipedia, and found this:
              ————–

              “In 1871, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1870 statute was unconstitutional and that Congress had exceeded its power by invading the province of the judicial branch by prescribing the rule of decision in a particular cause. The Court also ruled that Congress had impermissibly infringed the power of the executive branch by limiting the effect of a Presidential pardon.

              Broadly speaking, Klein stands for the proposition that the legislative branch cannot impair the exclusive powers of another branch. Put another way, Klein recognizes and supports the fundamental value of separation of powers defined by the Constitution. Specifically, Klein means that Congress may not direct the outcome of a case by prescribing the rule of decision, nor may Congress impair the power and effect of a Presidential pardon. Read more broadly, Klein suggests, but does not state, that Congress may not use the Exceptions Clause to cripple the Court’s ability to be the final arbiter of what the Constitution means; this conclusion is strengthened by the Court’s holdings in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, and especially Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428.”

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Klein
              ————–
              Hmmm. So to support a “separation of powers” argument against the Good DOJ dismissing a case, they find an 1872 SCOTUS case involving the legislative branch usurping judicial power. Okay, so that is interesting, but how come that is one of the cases they use, when they got a perfectly good case from a Federal Appeals Court called Fokker, that is a whole bunch more recent and which deals exactly precisely the issue at bar??? Oh, that’s right! Because Fokker don’t apply because, well, it don’t apply!

              And what else does this Kiddy Klub forget to talk about??? Here’s a hint! It is the same number as there are states in the continental U.S. And it is a rule. Of criminal procedure. In Federal court. Give up??? They must have too, because they forgot to bring it up in any meaningful way. Sooo, I will:
              ———–

              Rule 48. Dismissal

              (a) By the Government. The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant’s consent.
              ————
              Now they make a big effing deal about it being too late for the case to be dismissed, arguing that it is now like a game of Sorry or Parchesi where once a man makes it “Home”, he can’t be brought back onto the board.

              But Rule 48 don’t say that. It don’t make no time schedules. Oh Contraire! It recognizes the right of the Prosecution to dismiss the whole dang complaint. Sooo, I wonder how come this high-powered bunch didn’t bother to get into all that???

              And speaking of Rule 48, OH! If there was only a SCOTUS case to tell us what “leave of court” means in the rule. Well, there is, and it is called Rinaldi v. Unioted States. It was a SCOTUS case and it even told us what “leave of the court” means in Rule 48. Which, Tribe makes a stab at:

              “In order to grant the government’s motion under Rule 48(a), this Court must make an independent determination that dismissal would be in the “public interest”and issue an order to that effect. Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S.22, 29, n. 15 (1977)(citing United States v. Ammidown, 497 F.2d 615, 620 (D.C. Cir. 1973)).”

              No, that is not what Rinaldi holds at all. In fact, Rinaldi hold that the “leave of court” language is PROTECT THE DEFENDANT. The GOP State Ags cited this case too, with all its implications that are inconvenient to the Tribe Crew: Here it is from their brief:

              “So it is perhaps unsurprising that the Supreme Court, in describing the purpose of the leave-of-court requirement, explained that the requirement was never intended to be used to override the government’s decision not to prosecute. “The principal object of the ‘leave of court’ requirement,” the Court explained, was “apparently to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment, e.g., charging, dismissing, and recharging, when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant’s objection.” Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 29 n.15 (1977). In other words, the rule exists to stop the government from prosecuting a defendant in an abusive manner. Applied that way, the rule is consistent with the judicial role: it gives courts a negative power to stop abusive prosecutions that are “clearly contrary tomanifest public inter-est,” United States v. Pimentel, 932 F.2d 1029, 1033 n.5 (2d Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d 504, 513 (5th Cir. 1975)),but it does not confer a positive power to compel prosecutions.”

              And speaking of Rules, the Rules of Criminal Procedure is Plural! There is more than one rule sitting out there. How about we revisit Tribe’s argument that once the case is set for sentencing, the Prosecution is out of it.

              They sort of make a line of demarcation and say that once the case has entered the sentencing phase, the Prosecutors are SOL. But they present no real legal basis for imposing this time restraint. They have imagined it up in the same conclusory manner in which they dismissed Fokker. They sort of scoot away from anything like having a final, signed order, or an actual sentence, and all that sort of inconvenient truth. Because there is Rule of Federal Criminal Procedure that addresses the whole sentencing thing, Rule 32. Specifically, Rule 32(I) to wit;
              ——–
              i) Sentencing.

              (1) In General. At sentencing, the court:

              (A) must verify that the defendant and the defendant’s attorney have read and discussed the presentence report and any addendum to the report;

              (B) must give to the defendant and an attorney for the government a written summary of—or summarize in camera—any information excluded from the presentence report under Rule 32(d)(3) on which the court will rely in sentencing, and give them a reasonable opportunity to comment on that information;

              (C) must allow the parties’ attorneys to comment on the probation officer’s determinations and other matters relating to an appropriate sentence; and

              (D) may, for good cause, allow a party to make a new objection at any time before sentence is imposed.</b)

              (2) Introducing Evidence; Producing a Statement. The court may permit the parties to introduce evidence on the objections. If a witness testifies at sentencing, Rule 26.2(a)–(d) and (f) applies. If a party fails to comply with a Rule 26.2 order to produce a witness's statement, the court must not consider that witness's testimony.

              (3) Court Determinations. At sentencing, the court:

              (A) may accept any undisputed portion of the presentence report as a finding of fact;

              (B) must—for any disputed portion of the presentence report or other controverted matter—rule on the dispute or determine that a ruling is unnecessary either because the matter will not affect sentencing, or because the court will not consider the matter in sentencing; and

              (C) must append a copy of the court's determinations under this rule to any copy of the presentence report made available to the Bureau of Prisons.

              (4) Opportunity to Speak.

              (A) By a Party. Before imposing sentence, the court must:

              (i) provide the defendant’s attorney an opportunity to speak on the defendant’s behalf;

              (ii) address the defendant personally in order to permit the defendant to speak or present any information to mitigate the sentence; and

              (iii) provide an attorney for the government an opportunity to speak equivalent to that of the defendant’s attorney.

              (B) By a Victim. Before imposing sentence, the court must address any victim of the crime who is present at sentencing and must permit the victim to be reasonably heard.

              (C) In Camera Proceedings. Upon a party’s motion and for good cause, the court may hear in camera any statement made under Rule 32(i)(4). –
              ——
              So does all this sound to you like the whole Court process has come to a screeching halt PRIOR TO SENTENCING like the Amici argue? To such a screeching halt and bright line that the Prosecution can no longer dismiss the complaint?

              Nope, in fact Rule 32 provides all manner of chance for further input, and I have bolded some of it for you. So for Flynn, we are still at a point PRIOR to the sentencing hearing. And yet, the Amici brief argues that NOPE, the process is dead now for the Defendant and the Prosecution. Based on what??? Nothing. They pretty much just holler “separation of powers” and never connect it all up, and try to ignore Fokker, Rinaldi, and the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

              In short, this brief is probably proof that committees should not write briefs. I mean this is the kind of legal argumententation thatt one might expect from One L’s. Who, I bet actually wrote this bunch of drivel. The authors ought to be hiding their faces in shame. But they probably won’t! They are too busy eating cake in an Ivory Tower and getting awards for being sooo smart.

              ———–
              You are welcome! I read this mind-rot so you guys did not have to!

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter
              ———-
              That was then, and it was plenty of time for it to be passed around the D.C. legal community!

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

        2. “She’s a little know-it-all who will probably never grow up.”

          Evidently you haven’t noticed that Squeeky does know a lot.

            1. Anonymous – Squeeky is a very talented woman and to call her a child harks back to the treatment of women in the 19th and 20th Century.

        1. I know. You are right. But I was in the middle of a kitten crisis and did not have time to think of a better term. I am bottle-feeding 4 little kittens and trying to trap their mother.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. Squeeky:

            We are free to be rude. No apologies are need.

            I usually try hard in my own posts to cull the ad hominem.

            But no one on the left can distinguish between “your argument is stupid, and here is why” and “you are stupid”.
            Si exchanges with those on the left tend to degenerate into insults.
            Because that is what fallacious arguments do

            Regardless now and then it is necescary to call a dipshit a dipshit.

            And those on the left think pointing out that they are wrong is rude.

  6. The type of police misconduct that took place in the Flynn case was obvious but not unusual. The prosecutorial abuse as well leaped out from the indictment itself. So was the plea-bargaining abuse. It goes on all the time,. In fact, that’s what the protests are about. I believe the term to use here is irony.

    1. There was no indictment, so whatever you had in mind by “The prosecutorial abuse as well leaped out from the indictment itself,” you haven’t described it. You can find the plea documents here: https://www.lawfareblog.com/michael-flynn-plea-agreement-documents
      No police were involved, so there was no police misconduct.
      Not sure what you think the “prosecutorial abuse” and “plea-bargaining abuse” are here.

      1. “No police were involved, so there was no police misconduct.”

        Misconduct by the FBI.

        “Not sure what you think the “prosecutorial abuse” and “plea-bargaining abuse” are here.”

        I’m sure you read Flynn’s reply to the court. It’s laid out in great detail if you actually care. You could also listen to what Barr had to say.

        1. Neither Flynn’s reply to the court nor Barr’s statements can tell us what SteveJ considers to be “prosecutorial abuse” and “plea-bargaining abuse.” People are not the Borg, and until Steve says what he had in mind, we don’t know what *he* is thinking. I wasn’t asking what other people have said about it, which is why I wrote “you” (SteveJ), not “Flynn’s legal team” or “Barr.”

          1. Trying to get a person to lie so that they can be prosecuted is called entrapment. It is unethical, it is probably a criminal civil rights violation.
            And it does not result in a prosecutable offense.

            But Barr did not rely on that to withdraw prosecution. Because several weeks prior to the FBI’s interview of Flynn the FBI admitted in writing it had no basis to continue investigating Flynn. 18 USC 1001 only applies to investigations.

            If you lie to a government agent about your dinner – that is not a crime.

            I would further note that the FBI agents are dnagerously close to an 18 USC 1001 charge for lying to flynn.
            18 USC 1001 is NOT limited to FBI agents. In fact it has nothing to do with the FBI, it applies to ALL federal “investigations”.

            Had Flynn become aware of XFH and started to “investigate” its origens – lying to Flynn as Strzok and Comey and McCabe did would be a violation of 18 USC 1001.

            This is part of why Flynn HAD to be taken out. Flynn was the incoming NSA. The XFH team was going to have to “read him in” to what they had been doing, it was unavoidable, and they were well aware that unlike most of the rest of Trump’s team Flynn would grasp the seriousness of the misconduct they were engaged in. He would shut them down immediately, and he would start an investigation.

            Again if you were reading the stuff that was released you would know that the whole XFH team was floundering – becuase they KNEW that they were going to have to read Flynn in. It is highly unlikely that Strzok asked the Flynn investigation to be kept open specifically because he planned to entrap Flynn.

            The reason Strzok ordered the investigation to remain open is that they could legitimately keep what they were doing secret from Flynn only so long as Flynn was a target. The moment he was cleared – which he was on Jan 4. 2017, and he was approved as NSA they were going to be required to “read him in” XFH was a national Security investigation and solidly within his domain.

      2. The FBI is police – they engaged in misconduct.
        The Mueller prosecutors engaged in prosecutorial misconduct.

        1. The FBI is police – they engaged in misconduct.
          ______________________________________________________________

          The FBI investigated and found Flynn to have not done anything for which he could be charged.
          Then the Trump administration appointed a Special Counsel that shut down the FBI Russia counter-intelligence investigation and came up with the phony story that Flynn lied to the FBI. That story contradicted the statements made by both FBI agents that interviewed Flynn. The FBI agents said that they believed Flynn was not lying.

    2. The type of police misconduct that took place in the Flynn case was obvious but not unusual.
      _____________________________________________________________________________________

      The type of police conduct that you imagine may not be unusual, but the police in this case are on the record saying that the defendant committed no crime for which he he should be charged.

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

      1. Funny how you show up to defend the FBI and point at the DOJ. I think Justice now is laying blame on the agency. Keep it up. Both are corrupt so you all can hardly miss.

        1. Funny how you show up to defend the FBI and point at the DOJ.
          ______________________________________________________________________
          I don’t like false statements presented as truth. The FBI investigated and arrived at the conclusion that Flynn had done nothing criminal for which he could be charged . After that the FBI investigation was shut down and the Special Counsel took full control. The purpose of the Mueller probe was not to arrive at the truth. The FBI’s assessment that Flynn was not lying was discarded and new phony story was put in its place.

          Flynn was well aware he had no reason to lie to the FBI agents and was also well aware they knew everything he had said to Kislyak. The problem was that given the circumstances the story that Flynn lied to the FBI was never believable and so it took both Flynn and Trump to help sell this unbelievable story to the public.

          https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/pres-trump-says-he-fired-flynn-for-lying-to-pence-and-the-fbi-1108420163773

  7. ALL ROADS LEAD TO OBAMA

    Strzok Notes:

    “Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling transition team?”

    – Barack Obama

    “Kislyak calls but appear legit.”

    – James Comey

    “‘VP’ mentioned the ‘Logan Act’ during the meeting,…”

    – Joe Biden

    “…the “7th floor [is] involved,”

    – Peter Strzok
    ___________

    Former FBI director James Comey told President Obama that the 2016 conversations between Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and incoming national-security adviser Michael Flynn were not criminal in nature, according to notes from former agent Peter Strzok released by Flynn’s legal team. The page of notes was taken by Strzok appears to describe a January 5, 2017 meeting of President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and national security officials. This meeting occurred amid accusations that incoming Trump administration officials had colluded with Russian operatives. Strzok was not present at the meeting, and it is unclear what record of the meeting he consulted in taking the notes.

    Strzok writes that “P,” presumably President Obama, asked, “Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling transition team?”

    Strzok records that “D,” or Director Comey, responded “Kislyak calls but appear legit.”

    In transcripts of conversations between Flynn and Kislyak released on May 29 of this year, Flynn is recorded asking the Russian ambassador not to escalate tensions in response to U.S. sanctions. Those sanctions were implemented by the Obama administration following reports that Russia attempted to interfere in the U.S. general election.

    Strzok’s notes also indicate that “VP” Biden mentioned the “Logan Act” during the meeting,…

    While the FBI had monitored Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, the agency moved to close the case on January 4, 2017, indicating it had found “no derogatory information” on Flynn. However, that same day Strzok intervened to keep the case open. Strzok told an unknown individual that day that the “7th floor [is] involved,” apparently referring to senior FBI leadership at the bureau’s headquarters.
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “We will stop him.”

    – Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page

    “[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”

    – Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
    _________________________________

    The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious criminal act in American political history.

    The co-conspirators are:

    Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann, Comey,
    Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr,
    Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove, Steele, Simpson,
    Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry,
    Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,
    Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,
    James E. Boasberg et al.

  8. from dissenting judge wilkins: “On the record before the district court, there is no clear evidence contrary to the government’s representations.

    and then he tosses it in trashcan by stating “The justifications the district court offers in support of further inquiry?for instance, that only the U.S. Attorney signed the motion, without any line prosecutors, and that the motion is longer than most Rule 48(a) motions?are insufficient to rebut the presumption of regularity to which the government is entitled.

    So theres no clear evidence contrary to goverment’s position change and then claim can’t drop because of 48(a) couz too lengthy explanation and only signed by one attorney.

    1. I saw that when I read the Order, and thought it hilarious. Like the Majority said, Wilkins swung for the fence and missed! They dessicated his every point in their part. Only the dry husk of a big mound of bull manure is left, to be blown about in the wind. Or, to make a medicinal tea.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  9. Pelosi is refusing to apologize for saying Republicans are trying to get away with Floyd murder.

    Democrat– Police Officer
    Democrat– Chief of Police
    Democrat — Mayor
    Democrat – Attorney General
    Democrat– City Council
    Democrat– Governor

    Must be Republicans fault

    Fleeing the state– Business and taxes and probably many whites

    Enjoy!

  10. Aside from the legal mumbo jumbo and partisan BS, Flynn was given a ‘get out of jail free card’ based on his allegations of having been coerced into admitting guilt in lying on record and that ‘they yelled at him’. So, Flynn’s position is that he, a three star general, high ranking political operative, and life long soldier fell prey to pushy FBI guys and was made to say things that weren’t true. Yup.

    1. Yes, the FBI can even get a three star general to falsely plead guilty by threatening to bring other unrelated charges in addition to threatening to go after his son. That plus having an incompetent/compromised lawyer makes it easy. Easy until super-lawyer Sidney Powell came to the rescue. Easy until new DOJ leadership released damning Brady material that had been withheld.

      1. Correct Ivan.

        The Innocence Project has found evidence that exonerated hundreds of prisoners, many of whom took a plea bargain to avoid extremely drastic charges if they went to trial. But according to the esteemed Laurence Tribe the falsely convicted should not be freed from jail,’cause, you know, they swore their guilt, and like Judge Sullivan states, they should now be prosecuted for perjury. That’s haute, Harvard Law School style Liberalism today.

        There was a time when Liberals proudly supported the rights of the accused, even more so, when misconduct by police agencies was eventually disclosed. In the Flynn case it was the DoJ ITSELF that found clear misconduct by the FBI, and likely US Attorney Durham will bring indictments later this summer of shocking levels of “lawfare” waged by Obama DoJ holdovers against the Trump Campaign and and Trump Administration.

        But now “lawfare” is the ethical norm among Liberals, who have long ago forfeited claims they are “the” civil libertarians. Now it’s Beria- justice: “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” Then it’s off to Siberia.

        Hey, I didn’t vote for Drump and don’t much like him. But I still support the US Constitution and the idea of “equal protection under the law” … Too bad Harvard Law professors and their colleagues no longer support the same maxim.

        1. “according to the esteemed Laurence Tribe the falsely convicted should not be freed from jail,’cause, you know, they swore their guilt”

          Tribe didn’t say or imply that “the falsely convicted should not be freed from jail.”

          “like Judge Sullivan states, they should now be prosecuted for perjury”

          Sullivan didn’t state or imply that either, though he did ask an amicus to discuss the possibility.

          Why are you falsely claiming they said/implied these things? Can’t you present an honest argument using what they actually said?

          Do you “support the maxim”: Thou shall not bear false witness? If so, then don’t pretend that people have said things they didn’t say.

                1. I truly feel sorry for you re: your incessant need to insult / your pleasure in insulting people.
                  I also find it bizarre that you claim to be a lawyer but apparently have little interest in discussing legal issues. The fact is that when I’m wrong about some legal issue (which I sometimes am), I’d much rather learn what’s correct than persist in an error. But you’d rather proclaim yourself correct than support your claim with actual evidence and legal discussion, which are necessary for teaching/learning.

                  1. Committed:
                    “I truly feel sorry for you re: your incessant need to insult / your pleasure in insulting people.
                    I also find it bizarre that you claim to be a lawyer but apparently have little interest in discussing legal issues.”
                    ************************
                    Don’t. Your phony concern is neither wanted nor warranted. But since your in a sorry mood, know that I feel sorry for a guy who has to make a living being dishonest on a legal blog. No serious person has the time or inclination to propagandize so serially and flimsily as you do without a financial incentive. You know nothing. You contribute nothing. You repeat the sputum of others. You pontificate about things you cannot possible know about as settled fact. You are a paid antagonist and not a very bright one. You present as fact your twisted opinions. You don’t want to learn; you want to pollute the learning well. You lie and distort everything and then chastise those who call you on it. And then you pathetically try to don the robes of rationality and lament why no one lets you horn into their conversations. You virtue signal and then you whip out the crocodile tears when rebuffed. Spare ’em for me. I know loathsome when I see it. You’ve got it in spades.

                    1. You’ve only underscored your incessant need to insult / your pleasure in insulting people.
                      Feeling sorry for you is absolutely warranted.

                    2. Insidious prevarication culminating in melodramatic righteous indignation.

                      Incessantly.

                      A strategic but ineffective smokescreen for Obama et al. as the beast closes in on its prey.

                      His last act will present his head exploding violently.

                  2. The fact is that when I’m wrong about some legal issue (which I sometimes am), I’d much rather learn what’s correct than persist in an error.

                    If you were interested in justice instead of a politically motivated outcome, you’d quickly realize Mark has been a very reliable teacher of the law. If you don’t like to be mocked, then try to learn what justice is before learning about the law.

                    1. You seem unwilling to accept that someone can have legitimate views about justice that are different from yours.

                      And LOL that you think my concern about Mark’s insults are about me being mocked (as if I cared about his opinions of me, RME) rather than about it being sick for an adult to get his rocks off denigrating people. It’s bad for society. No wonder you all like Trump. He gets off on insulting people too, and that’s one the things most of his supporters like about him: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/

                    2. Olly:

                      Truth hurts, Olly. That’s why Committed bleats “as if I cared about his opinions of me.” Yeah sure he doesn’t. Note he’s never denied being a paid troll which anyone with integrity or any self-pride would do early and often. He’s what we thought him to be – an empty keyboard for hire.

          1. “Sullivan didn’t state or imply that either, though he did ask an amicus to discuss the possibility.”
            That is pretty litterally sating or implying that.
            SCOTUS had just weeks before said federal judges can not appoint amicus’s unilaterally or for purposes such as these.

            Sullivan is out in never never land.

            “Why are you falsely claiming they said/implied these things?”
            Because he did. He also accused Flynn of treason (and walked it back a few hours later) and of crimes that he was not accused of.

            “Can’t you present an honest argument using what they actually said?”

            sarastro92 has.

            “Do you “support the maxim”: Thou shall not bear false witness? If so, then don’t pretend that people have said things they didn’t say.”

            Do you know what imply means ? You can not direct another person to explore something without implying there is merit in it.
            In fact you are more than implying. you are stating that it appears there is alteast probable cause to beleive it is true.

        2. There are 500 people on the exonerated list who plead guilty and were later proven innocent.

          This is not at all rare.

          It is well known that given enough time the police can get a confession from anyone.

          And given enough latitude by the courts prosecutors can get a guilty plea out of anyone.

      2. Correct Ivan. The Innocence Project has found evidence that exonerated hundreds of prisoners, many of whom took a plea bargain to avoid extremely drastic charges if they went to trial. According to the esteemed Laurence Tribe the falsely convicted should not be freed from jail,’cause, you know, they swore their guilt, and like Judge Sullivan states, they should now be prosecuted for perjury. That’s haute, Harvard Law School style Liberalism today.

        There was a time when Liberals proudly supported the rights of the accused, even more so, when misconduct by police agencies was eventually disclosed. In the Flynn case it was the DoJ ITSELF that found clear misconduct by the FBI, and likely US Attorney Durham will bring indictments later this summer of shocking levels of “lawfare” waged by Obama DoJ holdovers against the Trump Campaign and and Trump Administration.

        But now “lawfare” is the ethical norm among Liberals, who have long ago forfeited claims they are “the” civil libertarians. Now it’s Beria- justice: “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” Then it’s off to Siberia.

        Hey, I didn’t vote for Drump and don’t much like him. But I still support the US Constitution and the idea of “equal protection under the law” … Too bad Harvard Law professors and their colleagues no longer support the same maxim.

  11. One possible reason the Dems won’t ask their stooge judges to continue this travesty is that just released documents show Obama and Biden neck deep in this crap after Comey told them there was nothing wrong with Flynn’s call. The two stooges pushed prosecution. This is getting to be a hot potato.

    1. Flynn supporters are not hiding anything.

      We are hoping to H that this is not done. That the misconduct of the prosecutors and the FBI is going to be investigated.

      We absolutely want furtther inquiry. We want the original Flynn 302 found. We want all of Strzok’s emails and texts on Flynn.

      We want all the prosecutors communications with Flynn’s original defense attorneys.

      We want contempt citations and criminal referals for sworn falsification for the false statements that Mueller prosecutors made to the courts. We want those prosecutors disbarred.

      What was done here was vile.

      1. “We want all of Strzok’s emails and texts on Flynn.”

        Since you mention that more emails were found. As reported in just the news https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/newly-released-notes-indicate-comey-believed-flynns

        Strzok notes: Comey deemed Flynn calls with Kislyak ‘legit,’ but investigated anyway
        Notes also suggest Obama asked for ‘the right people’ to look into the matter.
        By Daniel Payne Last Updated: June 24, 2020 – 3:09pm

        New notes disclosed in a federal court filing this week appear to suggest that former FBI Director James Comey believed Gen. Michael Flynn’s calls to a Russian ambassador were “legit” several weeks before federal agents interviewed him about those calls anyway.

        The partially redacted notes, disclosed by the Department of Justice on Tuesday, appear to refer to a meeting between President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Comey, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and National Security Adviser Susan Rice during the waning days of the Obama administration.

        Rice in an email she sent to herself had previously referenced a meeting that took place on Jan. 5 with those individuals.

        The notes, authored by former FBI special agent Peter Strzok, appear to suggest that Comey at the time believed that Flynn’s phone calls to then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were “legit.”

        Yet the FBI would nevertheless interview Flynn later in the month regarding the calls; the interview was part of the bureau’s investigation into the ultimately disproven Trump-Russia collusion theory.

        A day before the Jan. 5 meeting, the FBI had planned to close its investigation into Flynn before higher authorities, possibly Comey himself, intervened and pushed for its continuance.

        The notes also suggest that President Obama during the meeting asked that “the right people” be assigned to the Flynn case.

        They also appear to indicate that Vice President Biden at some point brought up the Logan Act, an obscure 1799 law that prohibits unauthorized American citizens from negotiating official national business with foreign countries in dispute with the U.S. Only two people have ever been charged under the law — one in 1802, the other in 1852 — with neither case resulting in a conviction.

        1. This goes a bit further at incorporating Obama and Biden.

          What we had before documented they were aware.

          In what we have now they are directing.

          That makes them part of the conspiracy.

            1. I agree but that has not been proven yet.

              There are Strzok texts from early 2016 that claim Obama was personally being briefed twice a week on progress – but purportedly XFH did not yet exist.

              There is also discussion about OCONUS lures in 2015, and there is some evidence that a WH driven investigation of 3 GOP candidates started in very late 2015.

              But we have not had those fleshed out.

              But let me ask something else.

              Who today beleives that Obama was not involved in Fast and Furious or IRS Gate ?

              The fish rots from the head.

  12. So with the prosecution just dismissing the case here, can a Biden- appointed US Attorney come back in February and refile the charges? If so, I hope they do.

    1. The case isn’t over yet. We have to wait to see whether it’s reheard en banc or appealed, and if so, what that ruling is.
      If it’s dismissed with prejudice, then it cannot be refiled. However, it was a plea agreement, and Flynn wasn’t charged with some crimes that he could have been charged with. So if the plea is dismissed with prejudice, Flynn can still be charged with other crimes, like his false FARA filing, and possibly with perjury (e.g., if he lied in the personal declaration he filed in January).

      1. oh it’s over but you keep on wasting your breath on it commit

        you’ve been trolled by whomever turned you into a Democrat unpaid cheerleader in the first place

          1. How about you list these “indications” you allude to?

            I’d love to be paid for this. Right now I’m doing it for free. Do you have suggestions about who will pay me?

            1. IF you’d set up an account on Patreon, I imagine you could make some easy money getting paid to *not* do this anymore…

        1. You can pretend that it’s over, but it isn’t over unless it’s either confirmed that it will not be reheard en banc or heard on appeal by SCOTUS, or until there’s a ruling if it is instead reheard / heard on appeal. In the meantime, learn patience instead of pretending to know.

          Also, learn the difference between the noun “Democrat” and the adjective “Democratic/democratic.” FWIW, I’m not actually happy with a lot of elected Democrats. I simply think that Republicans are generally worse. So it’s bizarre that you characterize me as a “Democrat unpaid cheerleader.”

            1. Are you a paid Republican cheerleader?

              Personally, I assume that no one here is paid.

      2. The case against Flynn is unfortunately over TheDC Circuit would give Flynn cover as GOP has a majority on the DC Circuit It is also unlikely that the Biden Justice Department would Resurrecti those charged less they look vindictive and petty , too much like the morally bankrupt Barr tenure

        1. Vinny – they are asking that the charges be dismissed with prejudice, so they cannot be raised again.

          1. That is actually a requirement.

            It is specifically because the request was for dismissal with prejudice that Sullivan has no rule 48(a) oversite.

        2. Hopefully the Flynn case is NOT over.

          The claim that those supporting Flynn want this buried is absolutely FALSE.

          From the time Sidney Powell took on Flynn as a client we have found more and more and more evidence that Flynn was ACTUALLY INNOCENT – that is a legal standard, and that the FBI, DOJ Mueller prosecutors behaved unethically and probably criminally.

          I would note this is highly unlikely to be over.
          Flynn has a massive civil rights lawsuit that is probably coming.
          If he can file somewhere aside from the DC courts.

          Regardless, we are hoping that Durham is investigating further.

          Frankly I think there needs to be an actual special prosecutor to investigate the special prosecutor.

          Before Flynn was interviewed by Strzok the FBI knew not only was the Flynn case over, but the entire CrossFire Huricane investigation was over.

          The Flynn interview from before Flynn uttered his first word was a crime. Yates efforts to sack Flynn was unethical and possibly illegal.

          Rosenstiens appointment of Mueller was illegal and unethical in numerous different ways.

          WE know all the actors knew this. Yet they proceded with an illegal investigation framing innocent people.

          Yes, Flynn’s supporters are not hiding anythign – we want BLOOD. The blood of those who perpatrated this Fraud.

          I do not know if Flynn is a “good person” – but I do know that Everyone who was after him from Strzok through McCabe, Comey, Yates and the Mueller team was BENT. They should all be disbarred at the least. None should ever serve in government again. Many should serve in levenworth.

    2. No the case is dismissed with prejudice.

      That is a major part of why Sulivan was wrong. The Rule 48(a) provision of judicial oversite is NOT to prevent prosecutors from dropping cases. It is to protect defendants from serial prosecutions – where the prosecution drops the case and refiles.

      By dropping the case with prejudice Sullivan is required to rubber stamp DOJ.

      This will not be refiled ever.

      I would have prefered a different outcome – and there might have been a moment in which Sullivan could have done that.

      Contra the left Flynn’s supporters are not looking to hide anything.

      We want this dug into deeper.

      I would have prefered to see Sullivan accept Flynn’s plea withdraw.

      that would have restored full discovery rights to Flynn and Sidney Powell would have dug up even more.

      Most of us still beleive the original Flynn 302 is still hiding somewhere.

      While this exonerates Flynn – for those of us supporting him – this is NOT enough.

      Those who pushed this need punished. We do not want this to be “over”.
      Sullivan did not “do justice” nor is the DC appeals court doing so.

      Justice is the prosecution of those who spent the past 3 years lying to the courts and the country and tormenting innocent people.

      The Stone prosecutor is in the news claiming Barr exerted political influence.

      Barr did act unusually – and unfortunately too late. Barr should have stopped the Stone witch hunt much earlier.

      Lets remind everyone – that if CrossFire Huricane is corrept or incompetent – and that is Horowitz’s finding.
      Then Mueller is atleast as corrupt or incompetent.

      Mueller has a long long history of using the law to cudgel innocent people.
      HE should have been reigned in long ago.

      He and his staff should be prosecuted. At the very least they all should be disbarred.

  13. The fact that one of the judges was appointed by Trump and Trump has been issuing political pressure to help his friend Flynn in the case is very relevant.

    The fact that one of the judges was appointed by Obama is not relevant because Obama does not have anything to do with the case.

    See the difference there?

    1. You completely forgot that a Federal Judge is not to put themselves in a prosecutorial role. But, being an obvious Trump hater, why would you care about that?

      Your claim that Obama is not interested in this, is foolish at best. Obama started his opposition to the Trump Presidency on the day he left the White House. He started his attempts to destroy Trump as a Candidate and as a duly elected President, even before that, and used our own government to destroy Trump.

      Your silliness in a situation which has many legal ramifications, is not becoming, even to a Trump hater.

      You can hate anyone you want, so long as it doesn’t endanger our freedoms. Wake up and smell the weeds.

    2. There is no difference. We already know that Obama hated Flynn and it appears he was all over this case and others.

    3. Obama judges are political stooges who rule on ideology rather than what we used to call ‘laws. Yes, there is a difference.

  14. What’s being said elsewhere is that the review in this case would have to be requested by other appeals judges, as a request by Sullivan himself would place him in an adversarial position vis a vis defense counsel. The bat signal has gone out to the Obama appointees on the DC Circuit to keep this travesty running.

    This whole imbroglio demonstrates that partisan Democrats are vicious people, by the way.

  15. “Obama fired him in 2014 over Flynn’s opposition to the Iranian nuclear arms deal. Obama also took issue with Flynn’s overly aggressive attitude toward combating radical Islamic terrorism.”

    – Boston Herald
    _____________

    General Michael Flynn attacked Obama’s foreign ancestry.

    And now America fully grasps why the Founders required the President to be a “Natural Born Citizen” (Obama is not) “…to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Article 2, Section 1

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Barack Obama will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.

    Barack Obama’s father was a foreign citizen at the time of his birth.

    – A “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.

    – The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”

    – Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”

    – The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.

    – Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.

    – The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words or phrases like “natural born citizen” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations, 1758, did.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758

    Book 1, Ch. 19

    § 212. Citizens and natives.

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:

    “…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

    From John Jay

    New York 25 July 1787

    Dear Sir

    I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d

    Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

    Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,

    which sailed Yesterday.

    Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to

    provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

    administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief

    of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

    Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect

    Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere

    I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

    John Jay

    1. Obama is no longer eligible because he served two full terms and can’t serve a third. The rest of this is pointless.

      1. Obama, admittedly, was criminally ensconced in the office of the president by the Deep Deep State, a wholly owned subsidiary of the global communist party, aka the “Swamp” that President Trump is endeavoring mightily and honorably to “drain.”

        Obama is not, was not and never will be a “natural born citizen.

        Obama is not, was not and never will be eligible for the office of president.

        The “rest of this” is irrefutable fact established by the best evidence as the actual historical texts and documents you just laid eyes on.

      1. Barrack Obama and Fauxahontas Warren: “you didn’t build that.” Karl Marx would have been very proud.

Leave a Reply