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

[Aunt Antifa]

Nope


That still, small voice that says: He’s right!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup.

 

[Tangmo]

The plot thickens.

 

[smallvoice]

I think its highly probable he will if he loses or wins...

As it should be.


That still, small voice that says: He’s right!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mrjurrs]

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.

Nice talking points...the courts disagree.

 

[chuckiechan]

Nice talking points...the courts disagree.

Federal appellate judges want to be on the SCOTUS list, and getting involved in a controversy is not the way to do it. They are spineless.

I wonder what would happen if Flynn did something to put him in contempt and Sullivan had him marched off to ?????? There are court holding cells, but beyond that, AFAIK, the rest is under DoJ. Is Sullivan going to lock Flynn in his garden shed at home?
And then can Flynn sue sullivan for false imprisonment?

 

[Athanasius68]

Barnet clearly said that Flynn lied to the investigators. He just disagreed with other FBI agents about the reason for such lie. But such disageement does not change the fact that Flynn DID lie and Mueller had a valid reason to charge him.

There is a reason why the law under which Flynn was charged requires the government to prove that the "misleading" statement was "material" to the government function. And that is to protect a witness from an over-zealous prosecutor from going after him or her because the witness maybe forgot something, understood things differently, or even did not wish to divulge embarrassing information, in statements given to a government official.
Or maybe even don't want to risk losing a job.

There was no reason to think Flynn was a Russian agent. Thus there was no reason to interview him. Thus whatever he said was not "material" to anything the government was doing.

 

[pamak]

There is a reason why the law under which Flynn was charged requires the government to prove that the "misleading" statement was "material" to the government function. And that is to protect a witness from an over-zealous prosecutor from going after him or her because the witness maybe forgot something, understood things differently, or even did not wish to divulge embarrassing information, in statements given to a government official.
Or maybe even don't want to risk losing a job.

There was no reason to think Flynn was a Russian agent. Thus there was no reason to interview him. Thus whatever he said was not "material" to anything the government was doing.

There is a reason why the law permits the judge to examine government's claims. That is because governents often lie and are capable of making corrupt deals with defendants. So, I am not interested in what Barr says. I am only interested in examining if his claim match the available facts he has provided. In Flynn's case, ii is clear that the facts show tha Flynn lie was material because his lie to Pence about the conversation he had with a Russian ambassador indicated a security threat and the FBI was obliged to investigate such indication.

 

[pamak]

This is a the logical goal!

If this is the case though (and Trump loses the election), I see as the most likely outcome Trump pardoning Flynn before leaving office

I guess this thread has officially reached the end.

Sullivan has my respect for standing his ground.

He could have been a good candidate for a future SCOTUS judge but unfortunately he is too old

 

[jgarden477]

The granting of a Presidential Pardon carries with it the assumption that a crime was committed and the acknowledgement of guilt by the recipient!

In "Burdick vs The United States," a sitting-President granted a newspaper editor a "presidential pardon" as a means of forcing him to take the stand in court and reveal his sources!

Under those circumstances, Burdick refused to accept Wilson's presidential pardon and established the precedent whereby private citizens aren't required to accept pardons and the "baggage" they carry!

Should the courts require his presence, Flynn is now obligated to serve as a witness, given that his testimony can't be used to incriminate himself!

As for the President, granting himself a "presidential parent" would require the commission of crimes that he acknowledges having committed - given that Trump is never been in the habit of admitting to anything, that would set the state for a Supreme Court decision!

Either it would confirm that Trump would have to admit to those crimes that he confessed committing or the Supreme Court would be placed in the position of explaining as to why its decision contradicted case and its interpretation over the last approximately 230 years!

There are reasons as to why past Presidents haven't pardoned themselves!

 

[chuckiechan]

The granting of a Presidential Pardon carries with it the assumption that a crime was committed and the acknowledgement of guilt by the recipient!

In "Burdick vs The United States," a sitting-President granted a newspaper editor a "presidential pardon" as a means of forcing him to take the stand in court and reveal his sources!

Under those circumstances, Burdick refused to accept Wilson's presidential pardon and established the precedent whereby private citizens aren't required to accept pardons and the "baggage" they carry!

Should the courts require his presence, Flynn is now obligated to serve as a witness, given that his testimony can't be used to incriminate himself!

As for the President, granting himself a "presidential parent" would require the commission of crimes that he acknowledges having committed - given that Trump is never been in the habit of admitting to anything, that would set the state for a Supreme Court decision!

Either it would confirm that Trump would have to admit to those crimes that he confessed committing or the Supreme Court would be placed in the position of explaining as to why its decision contradicted case and its interpretation over the last approximately 230 years!

There are reasons as to why past Presidents haven't pardoned themselves!

At the end of the day, the country has not yet gotten so craven as to continue trying to destroy ex presidents and VP’s. Don’t get your hopes up. The democrats are facing a bleak 2022 and don’t need to throw fuel on the fire.
Who wants to live in a world where all laws are enforced and all violations are punished?

 

[pamak]

At the end of the day, the country has not yet gotten so craven as to continue trying to destroy ex presidents and VP’s. Don’t get your hopes up. The democrats are facing a bleak 2022 and don’t need to throw fuel on the fire.
Who wants to live in a world where all laws are enforced and all violations are punished?

Let's see if the GOP which echo your words when we will talk about immigration compromises. Personally, I want people who are all about "zero tolerance" to be punished for every violation of the law, but I do accept the point you make (and have said something similar in the past) that people like Trump cannot be prosecuted for any crime when they have a big popular support. There is no way that any prosecutors can find a group of ten or so jurors who will unanimously arrive at the conclusion that Trump violated a law.

 

[Athanasius68]

There is a reason why the law permits the judge to examine government's claims. That is because governents often lie and are capable of making corrupt deals with defendants. So, I am not interested in what Barr says. I am only interested in examining if his claim match the available facts he has provided. In Flynn's case, ii is clear that the facts show tha Flynn lie was material because his lie to Pence about the conversation he had with a Russian ambassador indicated a security threat and the FBI was obliged to investigate such indication.

There is a reason why a 'judge' is called a 'judge.' He or she is supposed to impartially adjudicate between two conflicting claims. If one party says there is no dispute, a judge isn't supposed to tell the party he or she is wrong.
If both parties say there is no dispute, it certainly isn't for the judge to order that the dispute continue.

 

[Athanasius68]

The granting of a Presidential Pardon carries with it the assumption that a crime was committed and the acknowledgement of guilt by the recipient!

In "Burdick vs The United States," a sitting-President granted a newspaper editor a "presidential pardon" as a means of forcing him to take the stand in court and reveal his sources!

Under those circumstances, Burdick refused to accept Wilson's presidential pardon and established the precedent whereby private citizens aren't required to accept pardons and the "baggage" they carry!

Should the courts require his presence, Flynn is now obligated to serve as a witness, given that his testimony can't be used to incriminate himself!

As for the President, granting himself a "presidential parent" would require the commission of crimes that he acknowledges having committed - given that Trump is never been in the habit of admitting to anything, that would set the state for a Supreme Court decision!

Either it would confirm that Trump would have to admit to those crimes that he confessed committing or the Supreme Court would be placed in the position of explaining as to why its decision contradicted case and its interpretation over the last approximately 230 years!

There are reasons as to why past Presidents haven't pardoned themselves!

A pardon vacates the crime as if it never been charged.

 

[pamak]

There is a reason why a 'judge' is called a 'judge.' He or she is supposed to impartially adjudicate between two conflicting claims. If one party says there is no dispute, a judge isn't supposed to tell the party he or she is wrong.
If both parties say there is no dispute, it certainly isn't for the judge to order that the dispute continue.

We spent dozens of posts discussing exactly this claim in this thread. Repeating your original claim is meaningless

 

[Athanasius68]

We spent dozens of posts discussing exactly this claim in this thread. Repeating your original claim is meaningless

Not really. It continues to be correct.

 

[pamak]

Not really. It continues to be correct.

Well, those who want to verify that you continue making absurd claims can re-read the 19 pages of this thread where in contrast to what you say, we DID spent dozens of posts discussing your and my claims about Flynn, the DOJ and judge Sullivan.

 

[MamboDervish]

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.

Or none of the above.

 

[Tangmo]

At the end of the day, the country has not yet gotten so craven as to continue trying to destroy ex presidents and VP’s. Don’t get your hopes up. The democrats are facing a bleak 2022 and don’t need to throw fuel on the fire.
Who wants to live in a world where all laws are enforced and all violations are punished?

Certainly not PutinTrump & Rowers.

As far as they are concerned each of 'em is the law.

Unto themselves.

A Potus Biden can deny Flynn his retirement pay and benefits for accepting a pardon and thereby admitting to his criminal and treasonous activities. Because Flynn is also in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Strip him of his rank also.

 

[chuckiechan]

Certainly not PutinTrump & Rowers.

As far as they are concerned each of 'em is the law.

Unto themselves.

A Potus Biden can deny Flynn his retirement pay and benefits for accepting a pardon and thereby admitting to his criminal and treasonous activities. Because Flynn is also in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Strip him of his rank also.

Flynn was just a stand-in for a president the judicial, prosecutorial and media elites despised. He was set up and prosecuted for reasons a simple Google search will explain.

 

[Tangmo]

Flynn was just a stand-in for a president the judicial, prosecutorial and media elites despised. He was set up and prosecuted for reasons a simple Google search will explain.

Flynn is guilty twice over and he's lucky he didn't get worse -- far worse. The judge used the word "treason" to Flynn in open court and bent over backwards not to lock him up then and there.

Flynn sitteth at the right hand of Putin of the PutinTrump & Rowers Mafia and Flynn sat at the right hand of Trump through the campaign and in the WH while Flynn soiled the building with his treason. Flynn did more than anyone in the campaign to connect Trump with his base and sealed it with the lock her up mantra at the convention.

After the convention lock her up tirade by Flynn Adm. ret. Mike Mullin the 17th chairman of JCS and the recognized living authority on civil-military relations called Flynn and advised him to chill. Neither Flynn nor Trump is anyone to take good and honest advice however.

The problem with your thesis is that no one is a stand-in for the President of the United States. It was the Potus Trump who tried unsuccessfully to corrupt Comey as FBI director, not Flynn (and not Pence and not the AG and so on). Nailing Flynn does not nail Trump and while one could nail Trump's entire family right down to the kid Trump would still not be nailed or affected legally or Constitutionally and neither would Flynn's top boss Putin.

Each Putin and Trump would lose an asset precious to him yet neither Putin nor Trump would be affected individually or officially. What removing Flynn from the WH did was to deprive Trump of his main asset with the base and remove Flynn from Putin's orders to him. And you being a Rower lost your most precious asset besides which is why you Rowers are still hollering.

Bottom line is that Flynn was singularly, justifiably, legally and necessarily shorn from Trump and Putin for all four of the years. Flynn mucked himself up so badly he himself extended the fiasco into the past two years. Flynn moreover needs to be busted to pfc and separated from all retirement programs authorized by Congress to the Pentagon. That there was zero possibility Trump as CinC would even consider this is further proof of the guilt of each of 'em, Trump for violating the oath and Flynn for violating his Commission as an officer of the armed forces which he remains in retirement and receiving retirement pay -- that's p-a-y, pay.

 

[Athanasius68]

Nailing Flynn does not nail Trump

It goes a long way because the effort against Flynn was about his supposed knowledge and role in the Trump/Russia conspiracy. Thats' the only reason why he matters.
Flynn was not involved in any such conspiracy because so such conspiracy existed.