• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another Mueller hit man bites the dust in Flynn case

M

marke

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
34,752
Reaction score
3,961
Location
north carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
marke said:
Another leading leftist prosecutor has resigned amid rising public criticism of the botched FBI persecution of General Flynn.

Mueller prosecutor Brandon Van Grack withdraws from Flynn case amid firestorm of criticism

This seems to indicate more good things to come in the way of repairing our damaged Justice Department from the Obama years.
Click to expand...

THIS JUST IN! THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS DROPPING ITS CASE AGAINST GENERAL FLYNN! Justice prevails again against Mueller and his team of leftist Hillary-loving, Trump-hating, diseased attack dogs!
 
The Flynn case ended when Flynn pled guilty. All there is left to do now is sentence him...and they don't need an FBI agent to do that.

The justice department is asking the judge to drop the case. I think that would be a great injustice to the American people if he did.
 
Not surprising. As many of us expected, Trump had Barr quash the Flynn thing. That way he doesn't have to issue a pardon, and his base can start dishonestly squealing about "exoneration!" and "deep state!"

The stupid noise will help distract from the COVID failures that got tens of thousands killed.
 
Moot said:
The Flynn case ended when Flynn pled guilty. All there is left to do now is sentence him...and they don't need an FBI agent to do that.

The justice department is asking the judge to drop the case. I think that would be a great injustice to the American people if he did.
Click to expand...

Oh they already did. The set-up is so blindingly obvious. They even went to the trouble of having one US Attorney recommend dropping it to Barr and having Barr officially agree, as if this wasn't Barr acting on Trump orders to tell his underlings to drop the case. My ass.

I mean, they're allowed to do it. For better or worse the DOJ is the executive branch. So Barr can order underlings to drop any case. I'd hazard an educated guess that the reason the prosecutor left the case as per the OP is that he knew this was coming and did not feel it ethical. So he's out and a toady drops it.
 
Now let's drop Roger Stone's case for lying to Congress. Unless they prosecute everyone that's lied to Congress.
Uh oh, look out Hillary.
 
I'm not entirely sure what this means for Flynn.
But I am sure that some of the reactions I'm seeing here on DP were predictable.
 
The mere fact that Flynn was told he didn't need an attorney because this wasn't a criminal investigation - when documents proved that is what the interview was to be about - is reason enough that the case should be dropped since it is singularly based upon that interview.
 
So Flynn can't win in court and Barr drops the case. Hopefully the next administration can prosecute both of them.
 
Mr Person said:
Oh they already did. The set-up is so blindingly obvious. They even went to the trouble of having one US Attorney recommend dropping it to Barr and having Barr officially agree, as if this wasn't Barr acting on Trump orders to tell his underlings to drop the case. My ass.

I mean, they're allowed to do it. For better or worse the DOJ is the executive branch. So Barr can order underlings to drop any case. I'd hazard an educated guess that the reason the prosecutor left the case as per the OP is that he knew this was coming and did not feel it ethical. So he's out and a toady drops it.
Click to expand...

Are Federal judges under the purview of the DOJ? I don't think they are considering that only congress can impeach a federal judge.
 
Moot said:
Are Federal judges under the purview of the DOJ? I don't think they are considering that only congress can impeach a federal judge.
Click to expand...

No, judges are in the judicial branch.

DOJ is executive.



I'm not sure what you are referring to, though. I wasn't saying anything about impeachment a federal judge. I'm saying that the way the DOJ suddenly dropped the Flynn case reeks.

It's presented as if some US Attorney (Spencer) reviewed the Flynn case, decided it was a travesty, recommended to Barr that it be dropped, so they seek to drop it. I'm saying that in reality, this was Trump ordering Barr to order a US Attorney to drop the case, and that they can do, since the DOJ is in the executive branch. The aim is three-fold: protect a loyal toady, give red meat to the base (cries of "deep state!" "they just want to get Trump!"), and distract from the fallout from his COVID failures.

Oh and a fourth: now he doesn't have to defend issuing a pardon.
 
More fun facts, the attorney who is pretending to have thought this up (rather than being ordered to by Barr):


U.S. Attorney Jeffrey B. Jensen
Jeff Jensen, U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Missouri

Jeff Jensen was nominated by President Donald Trump on July 14, 2017, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on October 4, 2017.

Meet the U.S. Attorney





Better yet, he was put on the Attorney General's Advisory Committee of United States Attorneys (AGAC). Yeah, this reeks.


As of January 2017, AGAC membership consists of:

Richard Moore - Southern District of Alabama, Chair
John W. Huber - District of Utah, Vice Chair
Justin E. Herdman - Northern District of Ohio
Robert Hidgon – Eastern District of North Carolina
Jeff Jensen – Eastern District of Missouri
Jessie K. Liu – District of Columbia
Joshua Minkler – Southern District of Indiana
Brian Schroder - District of Alaska
Robert Trent Shores – Northern District of Oklahoma, ex officio[4]

Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys - Wikipedia
 
Mr Person said:
No, judges are in the judicial branch.

DOJ is executive.



I'm not sure what you are referring to, though. I wasn't saying anything about impeachment a federal judge. I'm saying that the way the DOJ suddenly dropped the Flynn case reeks.

It's presented as if some US Attorney (Spencer) reviewed the Flynn case, decided it was a travesty, recommended to Barr that it be dropped, so they seek to drop it. I'm saying that in reality, this was Trump ordering Barr to order a US Attorney to drop the case, and that they can do, since the DOJ is in the executive branch. The aim is three-fold: protect a loyal toady, give red meat to the base (cries of "deep state!" "they just want to get Trump!"), and distract from the fallout from his COVID failures.

Oh and a fourth: now he doesn't have to defend issuing a pardon.
Click to expand...

I was talking about who has jurisdiction over federal judges and used impeachment as an example. I agree, judges are in the judicial branch.

So my question is, if the judge presiding over the case doesn't agree to drop the case, then is it really over? After all, all that's left to do is sentence him.
 
Moot said:
I was talking about who has jurisdiction over federal judges and used impeachment as an example. I agree, judges are in the judicial branch.

So my question is, if the judge presiding over the case doesn't agree to drop the case, then is it really over? After all, all that's left to do is sentence him.
Click to expand...

When any prosecutor moves to dismiss the charges, the judge does have to grant the motion for the charges to be dismissed. It's pretty rare for judges not to, though.

We shall see.



EDIT: rather important meaning changing edit included.
 
The Operation Crossfire Hurricane perpetrators suffer a loss. First of many, I hope.
 
Mr Person said:
More fun facts, the attorney who is pretending to have thought this up (rather than being ordered to by Barr):


U.S. Attorney Jeffrey B. Jensen
Jeff Jensen, U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Missouri

Jeff Jensen was nominated by President Donald Trump on July 14, 2017, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on October 4, 2017.

Meet the U.S. Attorney





Better yet, he was put on the Attorney General's Advisory Committee of United States Attorneys (AGAC). Yeah, this reeks.


As of January 2017, AGAC membership consists of:

Richard Moore - Southern District of Alabama, Chair
John W. Huber - District of Utah, Vice Chair
Justin E. Herdman - Northern District of Ohio
Robert Hidgon – Eastern District of North Carolina
Jeff Jensen – Eastern District of Missouri
Jessie K. Liu – District of Columbia
Joshua Minkler – Southern District of Indiana
Brian Schroder - District of Alaska
Robert Trent Shores – Northern District of Oklahoma, ex officio[4]

Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Remember when Trump had Sessions put Huber in charge of investigating Hillary Clinton? How did that witch hunt turn out?

"...U.S. Attorney John Huber’s multiyear look into accusations of corruption by Hillary Clinton has found nothing to file charges against — an outcome that doesn’t surprise current or former law enforcement officials, The Washington Post reported Thursday.

Then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions tasked Huber, Utah’s U.S. attorney, with looking into the Clintons in November 2017 at the urging of President Donald Trump and others. The inquiry focused on the Clinton Foundation and its ties to the sale of Uranium One and the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state, The Washington Post reported..."

Report: Probe into alleged Clinton corruption closes​
 
Mr Person said:
When any prosecutor moves to dismiss the charges, the judge does have to grant the motion for the charges to be dismissed. It's pretty rare for judges not to, though.

We shall see.



EDIT: rather important meaning changing edit included.
Click to expand...

But he's already pled and been found guilty based on the evidence. So how can the judge accept a motion to dismiss based on the lack of evidence?


From what I gather a motion to dismiss after he's been found guilty won't expunge the conviction from Flynn's record. Nor does it prevent charges from being filed on other crimes that Flynn and his son engaged in...such as a kidnapping plot, violating foreign lobbying laws, lying on FARA application, undermining US foreign policy, etc...
 
Moot said:
But he's already pled and been found guilty based on the evidence. So how can the judge accept a motion to dismiss based on the lack of evidence?


From what I gather a motion to dismiss after he's been found guilty won't expunge the conviction from Flynn's record. Nor does it prevent charges from being filed on other crimes that Flynn and his son engaged in...such as a kidnapping plot, violating foreign lobbying laws, lying on FARA application, undermining US foreign policy, etc...
Click to expand...

There are other bases for a motion to dismiss.

For example, a motion to dismiss with prejudice can be based on egregious prosecutorial misconduct that irreparably damages the defense (in MA). I'd have to go digging to check on what you suggest. I have never seen a case and do not know anyone who has where the government moved to dismiss charges after a guilty plea but before sentencing. I do appeals, so my job is getting someone a new trial. I haven't yet had a case where I had a viable basis to try to convince the government to dismiss charges, and with the way legal research goes, you generally figure out the specific mechanics of something only when it is relevant to your case. So for example, I might vaguely know that evidence should be suppressed if the government discovered it only after entering the curtilage of one's house without probable cause, but I couldn't speculate about how a specific case would work out since I haven't had to research that in a good eight years or more.

There are cases where the defense can prove innocence in a later motion for new trial, the government if convinced will then not object to the relief and also move to dismiss charges. Innocence project stuff. ie, Charges Dismissed Against Chicago Man Convicted Due to Police Misconduct

So, bottom line: there definitely is a mechanism. I just haven't had to research how exactly it needs to be framed.
 
Mr Person said:
There are other bases for a motion to dismiss.

For example, a motion to dismiss with prejudice can be based on egregious prosecutorial misconduct that irreparably damages the defense (in MA). I'd have to go digging to check on what you suggest. I have never seen a case and do not know anyone who has where the government moved to dismiss charges after a guilty plea but before sentencing. I do appeals, so my job is getting someone a new trial. I haven't yet had a case where I had a viable basis to try to convince the government to dismiss charges, and with the way legal research goes, you generally figure out the specific mechanics of something only when it is relevant to your case. So for example, I might vaguely know that evidence should be suppressed if the government discovered it only after entering the curtilage of one's house without probable cause, but I couldn't speculate about how a specific case would work out since I haven't had to research that in a good eight years or more.

There are cases where the defense can prove innocence in a later motion for new trial, the government if convinced will then not object to the relief and also move to dismiss charges. Innocence project stuff. ie, Charges Dismissed Against Chicago Man Convicted Due to Police Misconduct

So, bottom line: there definitely is a mechanism. I just haven't had to research how exactly it needs to be framed.
Click to expand...

I am willing to bet judge Sullivan will make both sides get in front of him and explain. Sullivan will make them both sweat to show he is not political.
 
an injustice has been corrected. congratulations General Flynn.
 
Mr Person said:
There are other bases for a motion to dismiss.

For example, a motion to dismiss with prejudice can be based on egregious prosecutorial misconduct that irreparably damages the defense (in MA). I'd have to go digging to check on what you suggest. I have never seen a case and do not know anyone who has where the government moved to dismiss charges after a guilty plea but before sentencing. I do appeals, so my job is getting someone a new trial. I haven't yet had a case where I had a viable basis to try to convince the government to dismiss charges, and with the way legal research goes, you generally figure out the specific mechanics of something only when it is relevant to your case. So for example, I might vaguely know that evidence should be suppressed if the government discovered it only after entering the curtilage of one's house without probable cause, but I couldn't speculate about how a specific case would work out since I haven't had to research that in a good eight years or more.

There are cases where the defense can prove innocence in a later motion for new trial, the government if convinced will then not object to the relief and also move to dismiss charges. Innocence project stuff. ie, Charges Dismissed Against Chicago Man Convicted Due to Police Misconduct

So, bottom line: there definitely is a mechanism. I just haven't had to research how exactly it needs to be framed.
Click to expand...


Well, it should be interesting to see what the judge does. Dismiss without prejudice?


"...Cases dismissed “with prejudice” usually can't be reopened. A judge will only reopen a dismissal with prejudice case under very narrow, specific circumstances. Cases dismissed “without prejudice,” on the other hand, can typically be reopened for any reason...."

How to Reopen a Lawsuit | Legal Beagle​
 
Moot said:
Well, it should be interesting to see what the judge does. Dismiss without prejudice?

"...Cases dismissed “with prejudice” usually can't be reopened. A judge will only reopen a dismissal with prejudice case under very narrow, specific circumstances. Cases dismissed “without prejudice,” on the other hand, can typically be reopened for any reason...."

How to Reopen a Lawsuit | Legal Beagle
​
Click to expand...

I'd expect the prosecutors to have requested dismissal with prejudice given the motive here.

Can a federal judge order a case dismissed without prejudice when the government moved for dismissal with prejudice? :shrug: I'll just wait and see. I probably could get the answer fairly quickly, but that's work.



Note: that link is to the civil law counterpart. A number of rules operate differently in the criminal context
 
Comey and Nadler have already expressed their outrage. They both may be sweating but only one is a nervous sweat
 
tweet

Does anyone else find it a little odd that the defense of Flynn is based on the premise that the man chosen to defend America from the most sophisticated foreign intelligence services was completely bamboozled by a couple of mid-level FBI agents?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom