How Flynn can still win his case.

[iguanaman]

Criminal complaints are thrown out all the time, even when the defendant has pleased guilty, even years later, when the prosecutor realizes some defect had existed in the prosecution.
With respect to Flynn, the problem was discovered by the prosecution quite early on and, in the interest of justice, dropped the charges.

There has been no "defect" in the prosecution and Sullivan has been given the case back by the appeals court. The DOJ attempted a backdoor pardon and the courts have called them on it.

 

[prometeus]

Simply show up to court and there not be a prosecutor there.

Seriously? How about just taking the plea on record at face value? No need for prosecution.

 

[Helix]

What's still incredible all these months later is Flynn had to know the conversations were recorded, because he's talking to the Russian ambassador, and still lied his ass off to the FBI. He knows better than that, in part because he's very experienced in such matters as former Director of the DIA.

I guess it was just arrogance, but it's still a mystery why he did it because even arrogance shouldn't cause someone with his background to commit a felony that he knows will be caught, and he's betting on the FBI and federal prosecutors just not caring that he spit in their faces with those lies. He could just refuse the interview.... get a lawyer. Etc.

i can only speculate. maybe he figured the whole thing was off the record, so he just went with deny, deny, deny. that seems to be the Tweety administration motto. when they get caught, they just fall back to "so what."

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Criminal complaints are thrown out all the time, even when the defendant has pleased guilty, even years later, when the prosecutor realizes some defect had existed in the prosecution.
With respect to Flynn, the problem was discovered by the prosecution quite early on and, in the interest of justice, dropped the charges.

The judge decides if the criminal complaint is thrown out, not the prosecutors. The prosecution can recommend a dismissal (they have done this) but the final say is the judge's to make. Always.

If the basis for this prosecution was bogus, then someone at the DOJ has to answer for that. If the prosecutors knew the facts that they convinced Flynn to testify to were false, that is called suborning perjury and there are dire consequences for those prosecutors. They don't just get to say "Oh, never mind," and walk away.

 

[Athanasius68]

And how exactly are those criminal complaints thrown out? That's right a judge has hearing, listens to evidence and then rules on the motion... EXACTLY what Sullivan has proposed..

Or when the prosecutor says they no longer wish to pursue...

 

[Athanasius68]

The judge decides if the criminal complaint is thrown out, not the prosecutors. The prosecution can recommend a dismissal (they have done this) but the final say is the judge's to make. Always.

If the basis for this prosecution was bogus, then someone at the DOJ has to answer for that. If the prosecutors knew the facts that they convinced Flynn to testify to were false, that is called suborning perjury and there are dire consequences for those prosecutors. They don't just get to say "Oh, never mind," and walk away.

The purpose of the judge;s involement is to protect the defendant from a prosecutor deciding he wants to halt a prosecution in order to give him more time to build a case. the defendant would have to agree. In this situation, the defendant agrees with the decision to drop the charges.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Or when the prosecutor says they no longer wish to pursue...

You are wrong. It is is the judge, and only the judge, who makes the final decision. ALWAYS.

 

[BlueTex]

Or when the prosecutor says they no longer wish to pursue...

Complete ignorance of how a court actually operates...

 

[Athanasius68]

What's still incredible all these months later is Flynn had to know the conversations were recorded, because he's talking to the Russian ambassador, and still lied his ass off to the FBI. He knows better than that, in part because he's very experienced in such matters as former Director of the DIA.

I guess it was just arrogance, but it's still a mystery why he did it because even arrogance shouldn't cause someone with his background to commit a felony that he knows will be caught, and he's betting on the FBI and federal prosecutors just not caring that he spit in their faces with those lies. He could just refuse the interview.... get a lawyer. Etc.

Or he is being asked to recall an innocuous conversation that had occurred almost a month earlier and didn't recall all the details of that conversation..
Its a question of what the government believes-- Comey and the FBI agents thought there was no "lie." Mueller thought otherwise.

 

[Athanasius68]

Complete ignorance of how a court actually operates...

If a prosecutor says we don't wish to pursue a charge, the courts don't get to say you must prosecute. Prosecution ie enforcing the the law is entirely an executive department power.

 

[Athanasius68]

You are wrong. It is is the judge, and only the judge, who makes the final decision. ALWAYS.

A judge cannot tell the prosecutor he must prosecute somebody.
The judge can tell the prosecutor he cant prosecute somebody. But that would be because the judge believes the rights of the accused are being violated in some fashion. In other words, the judge is supposed to protect the defendant from an overbearing state, not add to the defendants burden.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

The purpose of the judge;s involement is to protect the defendant from a prosecutor deciding he wants to halt a prosecution in order to give him more time to build a case. the defendant would have to agree. In this situation, the defendant agrees with the decision to drop the charges.

On what planet does the defendant "have to agree"?

"Your honor, I object! I'm entitled to be prosecuted and by God I will be prosecuted! Don't you dare dismiss these charges!" LMAO!

THE JUDGE gets to decide when a prosecution is dropped, and it is usually long before the defendant has falsely testified to his guilt as part of a plea bargain.

You can keep pushing this ridiculous idea that the prosecution and the defendant get to decide whether or not the case gets dropped, but it will never be true.

 

[BlueTex]

A judge cannot tell the prosecutor he must prosecute somebody.
The judge can tell the prosecutor he cant prosecute somebody. But that would be because the judge believes the rights of the accused are being violated in some fashion. In other words, the judge is supposed to protect the defendant from an overbearing state, not add to the defendants burden.

A judge can certainly hold a defendant in contempt without the prosecution. He does that at a HEARING.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

If a prosecutor says we don't wish to pursue a charge, the courts don't get to say you must prosecute. Prosecution ie enforcing the the law is entirely an executive department power.

Not once the defendant has pleaded guilty and the prosecution has signed off on his allocution.

The way you are arguing, the judge has no purpose in the proceedings, as if he is simply a spectator.

Flynn lied to the FBI or he lied to the court when he allocuted his crimes. If he lied to the court, that means the DOJ was in on the deception. Somebody has to answer for that. Suborning perjury is a serious crime.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

A judge cannot tell the prosecutor he must prosecute somebody.
The judge can tell the prosecutor he cant prosecute somebody. But that would be because the judge believes the rights of the accused are being violated in some fashion. In other words, the judge is supposed to protect the defendant from an overbearing state, not add to the defendants burden.

Once the defendant pleads guilty and has allocuted his crimes to the court, you're saying that the prosecutor can then dismiss the charges on the basis that everything the defendant said under oath was a lie.

A plea agreement always stipulates that the defendant allocute truthfully to the crimes of which he was charged. If Flynn testified truthfully, there is no justification for dropping the charges. If he lied to the court, that is perjury, and those who put him up to it are guilty of suborning perjury.

 

[Athanasius68]

"Your honor, I object! I'm entitled to be prosecuted and by God I will be prosecuted! Don't you dare dismiss these charges!" LMAO!

Double jeopardy. Should the defendant be acquitted, the prosecution can't retry.
Permissiion by the defendant protects the defendant from an overzealous prosecutor who wishes 'more time' to build the prosecution.
Flynn has no objection to the dropping of the case.

THE JUDGE gets to decide when a prosecution is dropped, and it is usually long before the defendant has falsely testified to his guilt as part of a plea bargain.

The prosecutor cannot be compelled by the judiciary to prosecute.
Its not their job to enforce the laws of the country.

 

[Athanasius68]

A judge can certainly hold a defendant in contempt without the prosecution. He does that at a HEARING.

The issue is one of dropping the charges against Flynn due to new evidence that makes the prosecution untenable.
The rest is all minutiae.

 

[Athanasius68]

Not once the defendant has pleaded guilty and the prosecution has signed off on his allocution.

The way you are arguing, the judge has no purpose in the proceedings, as if he is simply a spectator.

Flynn lied to the FBI or he lied to the court when he allocuted his crimes. If he lied to the court, that means the DOJ was in on the deception. Somebody has to answer for that. Suborning perjury is a serious crime.

The job of the judge is to ensure that the rights of the defendant is protected.
The prosecutor is saying he is dropping the charges.
The defendant has no objection to the prosecutor dropping the case.
There is nothing for the judge to do other than the ministerial aspects of closing it down.

 

[bongsaway]

Wishful thinking on your part. If what you are suggesting would work, why hasn't it been done already?

 

[BlueTex]

The issue is one of dropping the charges against Flynn due to new evidence that makes the prosecution untenable.
The rest is all minutiae.

Criminal contempt is minutiae?

 

[Athanasius68]

Once the defendant pleads guilty and has allocuted his crimes to the court, you're saying that the prosecutor can then dismiss the charges on the basis that everything the defendant said under oath was a lie.

A plea agreement always stipulates that the defendant allocute truthfully to the crimes of which he was charged. If Flynn testified truthfully, there is no justification for dropping the charges. If he lied to the court, that is perjury, and those who put him up to it are guilty of suborning perjury.

The DOJ is saying, based upon the new evidence, there was no way it could meet its threshhold of proving the allegation.

What happened was basically this:
The DOJ (ie Mueller) told Flynn that he mislead the FBI, this is the evidence that supports the allegation, you are going to be convicted. But lets make a deal. Flynn said ok. And pled guilty.

Subsequently, new evidence has been uncovered that showed that the government could not maintain a conviction. The DOJ then sought to drop the charges.

There is no perjury on Flynn's end because perjury requires the person to have knowingly told a lie. Flynn's statement to the court was based upon what the government told him the evidence was.

 

[cabse5]

have you managed to get through the week so far without lying to the FBI and then pleading guilty to it? i have. let's keep a running tab. when you accidentally lie to the FBI and then plead guilty to it, start a thread, and we'll continue our discussion. until then, happy Wednesday.

Let's choose this scenario: Flynn can meet with Russian diplomats which is his right as National Security Advisor of the oncoming Trump administration. There can be all the outcry that Russia influenced the 2016 election.
The FBI could've 'framed' a question to Flynn something like this: Knowing that we know Russia influenced the 2016 election, did you meet with any Russian diplomats? Flynn lies and says no. The FBI says gotcha.

 

[Athanasius68]

Criminal contempt is minutiae?

The issue is dropping of the charges. All the rest of the maneuvering simply delays that inevitability.
The OP had said if the DOJ is somehow ordered to renew its prosecution of Flynn, that they just not show up. There is nothing for Sullivan to do.
But it is all speculative.
The charges will be dropped because the executive chooses to drop them and nobody has the power to tell the executive otherwise.

 

[BlueTex]

The issue is dropping of the charges. All the rest of the maneuvering simply delays that inevitability.
The OP had said if the DOJ is somehow ordered to renew its prosecution of Flynn, that they just not show up. There is nothing for Sullivan to do.
But it is all speculative.
The charges will be dropped because the executive chooses to drop them and nobody has the power to tell the executive otherwise.

Sullivan's issue is contempt and/or perjury by Flynn... Sullivan can certainly order the DOJ to appear at hearing and explain themselves before issuing a ruling on their motion to dismiss. If they don't show up, they themselves would be in contempt.

 

[Helix]

Let's choose this scenario: Flynn can meet with Russian diplomats which is his right as National Security Advisor of the oncoming Trump administration. There can be all the outcry that Russia influenced the 2016 election.
The FBI could've 'framed' a question to Flynn something like this: Knowing that we know Russia influenced the 2016 election, did you meet with any Russian diplomats? Flynn lies and says no. The FBI says gotcha.

Same question to you. Have you lied to the FBI and then pled guilty to it yet this week?