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.
Since it was a plea bargain they dropped the charges of acting as an unregistered foreign agent, does that charge just disappear. Pretty obviously he was guilty of that charge.
DOJ guidelines say they can't do what you're suggesting (drop the more serious charge if it's deemed provable), presumably for the reason you're pointing to. This has been explained at length in various articles you would have read if you were actually interested in the facts.
Quote:
Barr claimed that this should be dismissed because the interview of Flynn as part of a Russian Counter intelligence investigation wasn't material. That really makes no sense.
Barr didn't claim that. The interview wasn't a part of a counterintelligence investigation. That investigation was over, and the substance of the interview was related to something other than "counterintelligence (the Logan Act). There was no open investigation on that topic.
What a ridiculous summary of the writ! She wants the case dismissed. There won't be a judge if she gets what she wants. She asked for the removal of the judge as a fallback position, but there's no way that request will be granted if the DC Circuit doesn't grant the primary relief she requested.
It might make sense for the Appeals Court to overturn the judges "amicus curiae" order and then order the judge to make a final decision on the DOJ's motion to dismiss before doing anything else.
If Judge Sullivan denies the DOJ's motion to dismiss, then that will trigger another appeal, which the Appeals Court will then have a clear basis on which to decide the appropriateness of that decision.
If the judge dismisses the case, then it is over. Flynn wins.
With this sort of an order, the judge would not need to be removed from the case, as long as he orders the case dismissed. And that is what should happen here.
Interesting that it was filed, but this motion is a low-percentage Hail Mary at best.
Even I didn't think you could be so stunningly ignorant of the applicable law -- or are you saying that the DC Circuit will decide the case based on who the parties are rather than based on the law? The writ (not a "motion") has a 100% chance of succeeding if the DC Circuit follows the law rather than going rogue for political reasons. Just four years ago, the DC Circuit (in an opinion written by the Circuit's current chief judge) said that the appellate court should exercise its mandamus power where a trial judge refuses to grant an unopposed motion to dismiss. And just last week, the Supreme Court said that Flynn should win on the subsidiary amicus curiae issue.
It might make sense for the Appeals Court to overturn the judges "amicus curiae" order and then order the judge to make a final decision on the DOJ's motion to dismiss before doing anything else.
If Judge Sullivan denies the DOJ's motion to dismiss, then that will trigger another appeal, which the Appeals Court will then have a clear basis on which to decide the appropriateness of that decision.
If the judge dismisses the case, then it is over. Flynn wins.
With this sort of an order, the judge would not need to be removed from the case, as long as he orders the case dismissed. And that is what should happen here.
Sullivan has already denied the motion to dismiss. That, plus the fact the defendant supports the dismissal, is all the appeals court needs to know.
Sullivan has already denied the motion to dismiss. That, plus the fact the defendant supports the dismissal, is all the appeals court needs to know.
Actually, Sullivan has not denied the DOJ's motion to dismiss. He has ordered
"amicus curiae" as part of the process of determining how he will rule.
In any case, the "amicus curiae" order should definitely be overturned by the appeals court. Then there will not be any reason for any further delay on the DOJ's motion to dismiss.
This is what makes this a little bit tricky for the appeals court. Once he makes a decision on the motion, which hopefully the appeals court will order him to make in a focused and timely manner, then the rest of this should get wrapped up and resolved pretty quickly after that.
There was no perjury trap. All Flynn had to do was tell the truth. He admittedly intentionally lied about several different things.
The government can’t “entrap†someone by somehow forcing them to lie. One makes that choice for themself.
They said the call was for the sanctions and charged him for lying. Problem is, Sanctions were never discussed with the Ambassador on the call.
The entire call was about the 32 Russian diplomats tossed by Obama the day before.
Actually, Sullivan has not denied the DOJ's motion to dismiss. He has ordered "amicus curiae" as part of the process of determining how he will rule.
In any case, the "amicus curiae" order should definitely be overturned by the appeals court. Then there will not be any reason for any further delay on the DOJ's motion to dismiss.
This is what makes this a little bit tricky for the appeals court. Once he makes a decision on the motion, which hopefully the appeals court will order him to make in a focused and timely manner, then the rest of this should get wrapped up and resolved pretty quickly after that.
Yes, he has denied it. A motion to dismiss seeks (and the judge is required to order) immediate dismissal. If the court does not immediately dismiss the case, the motion has been denied.
DOJ guidelines say they can't do what you're suggesting (drop the more serious charge if it's deemed provable), presumably for the reason you're pointing to. This has been explained at length in various articles you would have read if you were actually interested in the facts.
.
I haven't seen a discussion on the plea bargain aspects that will disappear, link?
Quote:
Barr didn't claim that. The interview wasn't a part of a counterintelligence investigation. That investigation was over, and the substance of the interview was related to something other than "counterintelligence (the Logan Act). There was no open investigation on that topic.
The investigation was not closed, that is pretty obvious. An NSA contacting the Russians regarding sanctions would be related.
Even I didn't think you could be so stunningly ignorant of the applicable law -- or are you saying that the DC Circuit will decide the case based on who the parties are rather than based on the law? The writ (not a "motion") has a 100% chance of succeeding if the DC Circuit follows the law rather than going rogue for political reasons. Just four years ago, the DC Circuit (in an opinion written by the Circuit's current chief judge) said that the appellate court should exercise its mandamus power where a trial judge refuses to grant an unopposed motion to dismiss. And just last week, the Supreme Court said that Flynn should win on the subsidiary amicus curiae issue.
A writ of mandamus seeking to have a Circuit Court direct a District Court to decide and undecided motion a particular way is an incredibly low-percentage endeavor. Even more of a longshot is a request to have the Circuit Court remove a District Judge without even first moving to have a judge to recuse himself at the trial level.
I would guess that the writ will be denied and, should the motion to dismiss not ultimately be granted, there will be an appeal based on the same issues raised in the writ which will be decided at some point in the future. That s because, typically, the Appellate Courts are loath to decide as-of-yet undecided issues except in the most emergent of circumstances.
You seem to think I'm "ignorant" because I said the writ is a low-percentage attempt at judicial relief. Instead, you believe "has a 100% chance of succeeding." I guess we will find out who is right and who is ignorant soon.
I am guessing that the ignorant person is the one who believe that failure to immediately grant a motion to dismiss amounts to a denial.
A writ of mandamus seeking to have a Circuit Court direct a District Court to decide and undecided motion a particular way is an incredibly low-percentage endeavor. Even more of a longshot is a request to have the Circuit Court remove a District Judge disqualified without even first moving to have a judge to recuse himself at the trial level.
I would guess that the writ will be denied and, should the motion to dismiss not ultimately be granted, there will be an appeal based on the same issues raised in the writ which will be decided at some point in the future. That s because, typically, the Appellate Courts are loath to decide as-of-yet undecided issues except in the most emergent of circumstances.
You seem to think I'm "ignorant" because I said the writ is a low-percentage attempt at judicial relief. Instead, you believe "has a 100% chance of succeeding." I guess we will find out who is right and who is ignorant soon.
I am guessing that the ignorant person is the one who believe that failure to immediately grant a motion to dismiss amounts to a denial.
Well given the choices Judge Sullivan is making we can be assured he is sticking to his guns. If he wants to play chicken with the AG it will, I bet, be worse for him than the AG.....and for the General.
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.
