Appeals court denies Michael Flynn and Justice Department's effort to end his case

[calamity]

Another major loss for Trump.

(CNN)--A federal appeals court ruled Monday against Michael Flynn and the Justice Department in their request to quickly shut down his criminal case.

The 8-2 decision restores power to a judge to question the Justice Department's moves in the politically divisive case, when Attorney General William Barr dropped charges against President Donald Trump's former national security adviser earlier this year despite twice pleading guilty to lying under oath to lying to the FBI.

Michael Flynn and Justice Department's effort to end his case is denied - CNNPolitics

8-2 is pretty solid.

 

[bearpoker]

Another major loss for Trump.



8-2 is pretty solid.

The Judicial Branch is doing a great job of holding the line against Trump's attack on the Constitution.

 

[bluesmoke]

The Judicial Branch is doing a great job of holding the line against Trump's attack on the Constitution.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Trump is running the herd through democracy while the Dems look on.

 

[haymarket]

Another major loss for Trump.



8-2 is pretty solid.

This is very very welcome news.

 

[bearpoker]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Trump is running the herd through democracy while the Dems look on.

Mitch has them pretty well stymied. Right now, all our hopes are on the election.

 

[Lutherf]

This is setting a remarkably bad precedent. If this ruling is allowed to stand then we may as well not have a justice system. This allows malicious prosecution, the withholding of exculpatory evidence by the prosecution, coercion of pleas and then, even if all the evidence is found to be contrived, the right of a biased judge to impose a sentence even when the prosecution acknowledges that its actions were improper and supports the withdrawal of a plea.

That isn't justice. It's pure bureaucracy.

 

[Cordelier]

This is setting a remarkably bad precedent. If this ruling is allowed to stand then we may as well not have a justice system. This allows malicious prosecution, the withholding of exculpatory evidence by the prosecution, coercion of pleas and then, even if all the evidence is found to be contrived, the right of a biased judge to impose a sentence even when the prosecution acknowledges that its actions were improper and supports the withdrawal of a plea.

That isn't justice. It's pure bureaucracy.

That's ridiculous, and you know it Luther. The case against Flynn was sound. We wouldn't even be having this argument if Flynn was a member of the Obama Administration convicted under the same circumstances. If anyone is perverting justice here, it is the present Attorney General of the US and his blatant leniency toward friends of the President.

 

[chuckiechan]

This is setting a remarkably bad precedent. If this ruling is allowed to stand then we may as well not have a justice system. This allows malicious prosecution, the withholding of exculpatory evidence by the prosecution, coercion of pleas and then, even if all the evidence is found to be contrived, the right of a biased judge to impose a sentence even when the prosecution acknowledges that its actions were improper and supports the withdrawal of a plea.

That isn't justice. It's pure bureaucracy.

That means every judge becomes a prosecutor and is no longer impartial. BTW, who’s jail can he put someone in? Federal is under the Justice Department. Does he have an old Conex container behind his courthouse?

They are kicking it to SCOTUS because TDS’ers all stick together. After all, judges are still lawyers but in different clothes.

 

[smallvoice]

Mitch has them pretty well stymied. Right now, all our hopes are on the election.

Nah, we will do our best to keep them stymied until the voters come to their senses and give us back the House. It appears that both of us are pinning hopes on the election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CaughtInThe]

The courts and the voters are literally going to have to save Trump republicans from themselves.

 

[calamity]

This is setting a remarkably bad precedent. If this ruling is allowed to stand then we may as well not have a justice system. This allows malicious prosecution, the withholding of exculpatory evidence by the prosecution, coercion of pleas and then, even if all the evidence is found to be contrived, the right of a biased judge to impose a sentence even when the prosecution acknowledges that its actions were improper and supports the withdrawal of a plea.

That isn't justice. It's pure bureaucracy.

Wow! That has to be the most dishonest post I've seen all month, and there were a lot of lying posts to compare it to. But, Damn. That bolded part is absolutely absurd.

It takes gall to argue that an 8-2 decision is the "end of our justice system." Hey, did you ever consider that they know something you do not?

 

[calamity]

The courts and the voters are literally going to have to save Trump republicans from themselves.

They really are something else.

A 5-4 SCOTUS decision comes down on the Right's favor.

Trumper: Now that's Justice.

An 8-2 decision comes down against.

Trumper: It's the end of our Justice System!

 

[OpportunityCost]

That's ridiculous, and you know it Luther. The case against Flynn was sound. We wouldn't even be having this argument if Flynn was a member of the Obama Administration convicted under the same circumstances. If anyone is perverting justice here, it is the present Attorney General of the US and his blatant leniency toward friends of the President.

They held a judge was an interested party in the case. That alone is a terrible precedent.

They are allowing the judicial branch to overstep the decisions of the executive branch on prosecution, which until now, the judicial wasn't even allowed to examine their motivations. One of the questions revolved around the motivations of the justice system to be based in corruption, despite the outlining of the DOJ thinking in the Writ filing. Examine the opposite and see how outraged the judicial opposition would become: make a decision totally revolving around the unproven theory that a given judge was corrupt---the outrage would have been palpable.

The DC circuit is determining that the judicial branch has the power to launch prosecutions over the power granted by the Constitution solely to the executive branch. This is ripe for an overturn because the naked power grab precedent upsets checks and balances severely.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Wow! That has to be the most dishonest post I've seen all month, and there were a lot of lying posts to compare it to. But, Damn. That bolded part is absolutely absurd.

It takes gall to argue that an 8-2 decision is the "end of our justice system." Hey, did you ever consider that they know something you do not?

We have an adversarial system in which judges are the impartial barrier between the government and the defendant. The government, as the executive branch, makes prosecution decisions, the judge rules on them----acting to make any prosecutorial decisions whatsoever terminates his impartiality and gives extreme favor to the government, which already has vast power advantages over defendants.

Would you want a judge to decide that as you are winning a case (prosecution is ready to dismiss), he must step in and make sure you are prosecuted? That's not justice and neither is this.

 

[calamity]

We have an adversarial system in which judges are the impartial barrier between the government and the defendant. The government, as the executive branch, makes prosecution decisions, the judge rules on them----acting to make any prosecutorial decisions whatsoever terminates his impartiality and gives extreme favor to the government, which already has vast power advantages over defendants.

Would you want a judge to decide that as you are winning a case (prosecution is ready to dismiss), he must step in and make sure you are prosecuted? That's not justice and neither is this.

Too bad that is not what happened. We know what happened. That you don't or refuse to admit it is not my problem.

Fail less.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Too bad that is not what happened. We know what happened. That you don't or refuse to admit it is not my problem.

Fail less.

That you have read nothing on this case and don't know that's EXACTLY what happened isn't my problem. Gleeson already exposed bias before being appointed as an amici to examine the motivations of the prosecution. Because you probably don't know Gleeson wrote an article about Flynn before being appointed by Sullivan.

Just so you are aware, SCOTUS has ruled 9-0 to establish precedent against amici examining prosecutorial discretion because that power belongs to the prosecution and not the judiciary.

You remember checks and balances don't you?

 

[Cordelier]

They held a judge was an interested party in the case. That alone is a terrible precedent.

They are allowing the judicial branch to overstep the decisions of the executive branch on prosecution, which until now, the judicial wasn't even allowed to examine their motivations. One of the questions revolved around the motivations of the justice system to be based in corruption, despite the outlining of the DOJ thinking in the Writ filing. Examine the opposite and see how outraged the judicial opposition would become: make a decision totally revolving around the unproven theory that a given judge was corrupt---the outrage would have been palpable.

The DC circuit is determining that the judicial branch has the power to launch prosecutions over the power granted by the Constitution solely to the executive branch. This is ripe for an overturn because the naked power grab precedent upsets checks and balances severely.

What are you even talking about, OC?? District Court judges are parties in plenty of Appellate Court cases. It happens all the time.

Secondly, once a defendant has been convicted - as Flynn has been - and the trial moves into it's sentencing phase, the decisions of the prosecutor become advisory only. It is entirely within the purview of the Judge to decide upon the appropriate sentence - if any - for the convicted.

 

[Tangmo]

The prosecution can only move that the judge dismiss the case.

The judge declined to dismiss, which a judge can do because each judge has the final say in each case.

Flynn's lawyers filed with the appeals court for a writ of mandamus and got it from the 3 judge panel, 2-1, ordering the judge to dismiss the case. Judge Sullivan appealed to the full court of appeals and won, 8-2 so Sullivan will proceed. I'm not aware at the moment whether Barr and Trump will try Scotus for relief.

Flynn is a very big fish to hang on the wall. It's one of FBI's best catches ever. This must make Barr nervous.

 

[OpportunityCost]

What are you even talking about, OC?? District Court judges are parties in plenty of Appellate Court cases. It happens all the time.

Secondly, once a defendant has been convicted - as Flynn has been - and the trial moves into it's sentencing phase, the decisions of the prosecutor become advisory only. It is entirely within the purview of the Judge to decide upon the appropriate sentence - if any - for the convicted.

The interested parties are the defendant and the government---the judges role is impartial. The defendant was changing his plea. Sullivan refused to grant Brady motions he KNEW were exculpatory. Motions to dismiss can occur during sentencing, there is precedent. Anything else you wanted to throw at the wall?

 

[OpportunityCost]

The prosecution can only move that the judge dismiss the case.

The judge declined to dismiss, which a judge can do because each judge has the final say in each case.

Flynn's lawyers filed with the appeals court for a writ of mandamus and got it from the 3 judge panel, 2-1, ordering the judge to dismiss the case. Judge Sullivan appealed to the full court of appeals and won, 8-2 so Sullivan will proceed. I'm not aware at the moment whether Barr and Trump will try Scotus for relief.

Flynn is a very big fish to hang on the wall. It's one of FBI's best catches ever. This must make Barr nervous.

Sullivan was ordered to decide the case with dispatch, if he continues what he is doing, he is proving all of the defense's allegations regarding how he intends to proceed. lets see if he ignores the warnings the circuit gave him, and they gave him plenty.

 

[Tangmo]

Sullivan was ordered to decide the case with dispatch, if he continues what he is doing, he is proving all of the defense's allegations regarding how he intends to proceed. lets see if he ignores the warnings the circuit gave him, and they gave him plenty.

Judge Sullivan of the Washington USDC knows how to process cases, he knows the law and he knows a traitor when he sees one which is why the judge used the word "treason" in the courtroom in questioning Flynn. Sullivan knew he'd have to cover his tracks for it, he was prepared to cover 'em and cover his tracks is what he did.

Sullivan has no reason to delay the case as all a judge has to do is to deny the motion by DoJ, cite the obvious reasons then haul Flynn back in again, deny his guilty plea withdrawal motions and send the miserable traitor up the river.

Putin and Trump really wanted to save Flynn given Flynn was BFF with Putin long before Trump ever met Putin although Trump and Russian oligarchs had been doing money deals for more than a decade before Trump was installed at potus. Flynn who's campaigning now for Trump did more than anyone in 2016 to connect Trump to his trailer park base right down to the language and the issues. Indeed FBI taking Flynn out in February 2017 was a master stroke. Now with the 8-2 ruling by the full appeals court comes the blow.

If it hadn't been for Judge Sirica of this same court it's likely Watergate would not have been exposed. I'm curious to see where Judge Sullivan takes us in this relationship of PutinTrumpFlynn being BFF along with their munchkin supporters who have fought like hell for your masters for four years in trying to spring Flynn. So no, there isn't much you Rowers can say at this point.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Judge Sullivan of the Washington USDC knows how to process cases, he knows the law and he knows a traitor when he sees one which is why the judge used the word "treason" in the courtroom in questioning Flynn. Sullivan knew he'd have to cover his tracks for it, he was prepared to cover 'em and cover his tracks is what he did.

Sullivan has no reason to delay the case as all a judge has to do is to deny the motion by DoJ, cite the obvious reasons then haul Flynn back in again, deny his guilty plea withdrawal motions and send the miserable traitor up the river.

Putin and Trump really wanted to save Flynn given Flynn was BFF with Putin long before Trump ever met Putin although Trump and Russian oligarchs had been doing money deals for more than a decade before Trump was installed at potus. Flynn who's campaigning now for Trump did more than anyone in 2016 to connect Trump to his trailer park base right down to the language and the issues. Indeed FBI taking Flynn out in February 2017 was a master stroke. Now with the 8-2 ruling by the full appeals court comes the blow.

If it hadn't been for Judge Sirica of this same court it's likely Watergate would not have been exposed. I'm curious to see where Judge Sullivan takes us in this relationship of PutinTrumpFlynn being BFF along with their munchkin supporters who have fought like hell for your masters for four years in trying to spring Flynn. So no, there isn't much you Rowers can say at this point.

Holy **** are off base on this one.

"Masters" what a ****ing joke of a post.

 

[Tangmo]

Holy **** are off base on this one.

"Masters" what a ****ing joke of a post.

De Nile isn't only a river in Egypt.

Yet there is one thing the Rowers can't deny at this point and it is Russia and the elections of the Potus. Judge Sullivan used the word "treason" while questioning Flynn in court.

A vote for Trump is indeed a vote for Putin. And to spring Flynn while destroying US sovereignty. The Republican Party has become the largest pro Russia political party of the world outside of Russia itself. You'd rather see Putin as Potus than a Democrat.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Nah, we will do our best to keep them stymied until the voters come to their senses and give us back the House. It appears that both of us are pinning hopes on the election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe a generation from now. I've heard it from some really smart people that most people won't be voting for republicans ever again.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Wow! That has to be the most dishonest post I've seen all month, and there were a lot of lying posts to compare it to. But, Damn. That bolded part is absolutely absurd.

It takes gall to argue that an 8-2 decision is the "end of our justice system." Hey, did you ever consider that they know something you do not?

They way I look at it, with Barr in charge of the DOJ, we are on the verge of having no justice system anyway. Tonight Barr defended Trumps suggestion that people in N. Carolina vote twice. Once by mail and once in person. Trump actually said that and then doubled down on it.

Does Barr not know it's a felony to vote twice?