Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, you can have the case dismissed without Judge Sullivan's approval. An order from the DC Circuit requiring him to dismiss the case will do exactly what you say can't be done. Everything you need to know is in Fokker and the US Constitution. There is no argument to be made in support of your position. It is absolutely frivolous. The notion that a rule of criminal procedure could trump the Constitution is crazy. There is no case or controversy. The parties are in agreement. Sullivan has no authority to deny the motion to dismiss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AADAD
Flynn's attorney Sidney Powell filed to have the Judge removed.
As I said, I’m looking forward to seeing who knows the law and who is ignorant. . . This writ is a low percentage play designed to sucker in low information voters and couch-based legal “experts.”
As I said, I’m looking forward to seeing who knows the law and who is ignorant. . . This writ is a low percentage play designed to sucker in low information voters and couch-based legal “experts.”
The writ is a high percentage play, and you haven't even tried to offer support for your opinion to the contrary. Fokker and the US Constitution itself say the writ is a winner. You still haven't read Fokker, yet here you are parading your ignorance in front of everyone.
Last edited by hbdwihdh378y9; 05-20-2020 at 09:31 PM..
On January 5th, 2017, at a meeting, Obama gave guidance to key officials tasked with protecting utilization of Clinton campaign research from being discovered by Trump's new administration.
Susan Rice sends an email to herself about a meeting attended by AG Sally Yates, FBI director Jim Comey, and VP Biden.
Shortly thereafter, high-level operatives began intensely leaking selective info, incoming Nat Security Advisor was ambushed, the incoming AG was forced to recuse himself, and leaks continued with the key strategy to take down Trump.
Information on Russia was not fully shared with the Trump team, leaks and ambushes caused chaos, scared away quality staff, and National Security was damaged. Before Comey got fired on May 9th, he managed to launch a Special Counsel Probe. That ended obviously with Mueller-Time being reduced to a stumbling mumbling failure.
Further timeline:
January 4th: Following an investigation of Flynn, the leadership of the FBI reopened the case to "deal with" Flynn, as in "get [Flynn} fired." Peter Strzok and Lisa Page referred to the 7th Floor as Comey and Andrew McCabe as "running the show." Oh, we saw the "show" alright.
January 5th: Yates, Comey, CAI director John Brennan, and Director of NI James Clapper briefed Obama on Russia related matters in the WH. Biden and Rice were there. Obama gave his guidance on how to "perpetuate the Russia collusion theory Investigations, talked about the conversation Flynn had with Kislyak," according to Comey and Yates.
"Interestingly, Clapper, Comey, and Yates all said they did not brief Obama about these phone calls."
Susan Rice probably leaked it to Obama. Comey mentions the Logan Act at this meeting.
Susan Rice sends another "email" to herself going off about being "by the book", and whether and how to "withhold national security information" from the incoming Trump team.
Wow, it just goes on and on.
Blah blah blah, Tell it to the judge.
Yeah, that's right. A few folks out there lap this garbage up, and every time Trump knocks them on their can, they get furious and blow their collective head gaskets.
Just coming back to this go see if you get it yet with the new documents coming out everyday?
Just coming back to this go see if you get it yet with the new documents coming out everyday?
Boomerang I tell you.
It's so fun to just google William Barr and read all the absolute putrid garbage those loser dorks print and spin about him, the Trump Administration, how this is going for them, etc.
William Barr looks like Jackie Gleason to me... Norton, I know, that you know, that I know... You like Redact my Files! So STARTTTTTTTTTTTT redactin'!
Wray has no evidence he lied, for Barr's team to prosecute.
There is no evidence he did what they accused him of. To the contrary, it was just released, all the evidence to exonerate him, that they were withholding, along with his first law firm he chose colluding with the prosecutor, that was tied to Eric Holder.
All been addressed in Judge Sullivan's 92 page ruling in December.
As I said, I’m looking forward to seeing who knows the law and who is ignorant. . . This writ is a low percentage play designed to sucker in low information voters and couch-based legal “experts.”
We all have expertise in other areas. There is no reason for you to be condescending here.....
The writ is a high percentage play, and you haven't even tried to offer support for your opinion to the contrary. Fokker and the US Constitution itself say the writ is a winner. You still haven't read Fokker, yet here you are parading your ignorance in front of everyone.
Not only is a writ of mandamus a low-percentage play generally, but the DC Circuit is the court that applies the most stringent standard in considering them among all the Circuit Courts.
Yesterday, you were incorrectly telling us that the District Court has no subject matter jurisdiction at this point and also that the case can be dismissed without District Judge Sullivan granting dismissal (despite the fact that FRCrP 48(a) expressly requires it). Two days ago you were incorrectly telling us that motions to dismiss by the AG, if not immediately granted, are deemed denied. Today, you are incorrectly telling us that Fokker flatly mandates dismissal of this case.
I am familiar with Fokker - not because some pundit told me what was in it, but because I have read the decision itself. It is not controlling at this point in the Flynn case because they are already past the phase for charging decisions. In a nutshell, Fokker involved a District Judge who disagreed with a deferred prosecution agreement ("DPA") because he thought it was too lenient and decided he would not grant a motion to exclude time to prosecute the case. The Circuit Court reversed, saying that the District Judge could not second-guess the AG's decision to enter into DPA, no matter how lenient. Everything in that decision hinged on the idea that the Executive has the power to make charging decisions and that the Court had a limited role in questioning those decisions.
In Flynn's case, however, the proverbial horse has already left the barn. There are no prosecutorial or charging decisions left to make - the prosecution is already over. The sentencing memoranda is already submitted. That is a huge distinction when one considers the rationale set forth in Fokker when it limited judicial discretion in denying motions by the prosecution.
Should District Judge Sullivan ultimately deny the motion to dismiss and sentence him, Flynn will assuredly appeal and argue that the rationale in Fokker applies equally in his case and it is possible that he succeeds in convincing the Circuit Court that the AG should have the decision-making authority to have cases dismissed even at the sentencing stage. But make no mistake, that result is not guaranteed because Fokker, as decided, simply does not apply to a situation where there the prosecution has already concluded.
Not only is a writ of mandamus a low-percentage play generally, but the DC Circuit is the court that applies the most stringent standard in considering them among all the Circuit Courts.
Yesterday, you were incorrectly telling us that the District Court has no subject matter jurisdiction at this point and also that the case can be dismissed without District Judge Sullivan granting dismissal (despite the fact that FRCrP 48(a) expressly requires it). Two days ago you were incorrectly telling us that motions to dismiss by the AG, if not immediately granted, are deemed denied. Today, you are incorrectly telling us that Fokker flatly mandates dismissal of this case.
I am familiar with Fokker - not because some pundit told me what was in it, but because I have read the decision itself. It is not controlling at this point in the Flynn case because they are already past the phase for charging decisions. In a nutshell, Fokker involved a District Judge who disagreed with a deferred prosecution agreement ("DPA") because he thought it was too lenient and decided he would not grant a motion to exclude time to prosecute the case. The Circuit Court reversed, saying that the District Judge could not second-guess the AG's decision to enter into DPA, no matter how lenient. Everything in that decision hinged on the idea that the Executive has the power to make charging decisions and that the Court had a limited role in questioning those decisions.
In Flynn's case, however, the proverbial horse has already left the barn. There are no prosecutorial or charging decisions left to make - the prosecution is already over. The sentencing memoranda is already submitted. That is a huge distinction when one considers the rationale set forth in Fokker when it limited judicial discretion in denying motions to dismiss.
Should District Judge Sullivan ultimately deny the motion to dismiss and sentence him, Flynn will assuredly appeal and argue that the rationale in Fokker applies equally in his case and it is possible that he succeeds in convincing the Circuit Court that the AG should have the decision-making authority to have cases dismissed even at the sentencing stage. But make no mistake, that result is not guaranteed because Fokker, as decided, simply does not apply to a situation where there the prosecution has already concluded.
The system of laws is designed to protect people. In this case there is compelling evidence submitted to the court by the AG that those laws were either subverted or ignored. As such, there are many precedents where the basic tenants of justice (fairness) would apply I would think. The fact that the Judge has chosen to either ignore this is interesting only in the theoretical sense. It has real consequences...to my way of thinking there are enough legal and scholarly opinions in this case to convince me that there is a basic tort being committed against the defendant in spite of his guilty pleas. No?
The system of laws is designed to protect people. In this case there is compelling evidence submitted to the court by the AG that those laws were either subverted or ignored. As such, there are many precedents where the basic tenants of justice (fairness) would apply I would think. The fact that the Judge has chosen to either ignore this is interesting only in the theoretical sense. It has real consequences...to my way of thinking there are enough legal and scholarly opinions in this case to convince me that there is a basic tort being committed against the defendant in spite of his guilty pleas. No?
There's a old maxim in the legal profession: If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have neither, pound the table.
The argument in your post is an exercise in table-pounding.
There's a old maxim in the legal profession: If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have neither, pound the table.
The argument in your post is an exercise in table-pounding.
Not only is it not pounding the table as you so ineloquently put it, but your professionalisms are at least in my humble opinion may be blinding you to the obvious injustices in this case. Now you can argue all you want about the legality of my position, or Flynns attorney however the conduct by the FBI I think is shocking to the conscience of many educated and learned people. If that does not comport to the legal thinking....there is a flaw in the box.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Tell it to the judge.
