Federal judge not rubber-stamping Justice Department's dropping of Flynn charges

  
Via:  john-russell  •  3 weeks ago  •  25 comments

By:   CBSPolitics

Federal judge not rubber-stamping Justice Department's dropping of Flynn charges
That's a likely reference to the considerable debate the Justice Department's action has prompted over the last week, with some former law enforcement officials who were involved in the investigation expressing their dismay over the planned dismissal through public statements or newspaper opinion pieces.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



May 13, 2020 / 6:54 AM / AP

Barr defends dropping Michael Flynn case

Washington — A federal judge made clear Tuesday that he wouldn't immediately rule on the Justice Department's decision to dismiss its criminal case against former Trump administration national security adviser Michael Flynn, saying he would instead let outside individuals and groups weigh in with their opinions.

The move suggests U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan isn't inclined to automatically rubber-stamp the department's plan to dismiss the Flynn prosecution.

Flynn pleaded guilty, as part of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, to lying to the FBI about conversations with the then-Russian ambassador to the United States during the presidential transition period.

But the Justice Department said last week that the FBI had insufficient basis to question Flynn in the first place and that statements he made during the interview were not material to the broader counterintelligence investigation into ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.

The department said dismissing the case was in the interest of justice, and that it was following the recommendation of a United States attorney who had been appointed by Attorney General William Barr to investigate the handling of the Flynn investigation.

The decision must first go through Sullivan, who said in a written order Tuesday night that "given the current posture of this case," he anticipated "that individuals and organizations will seek leave of the Court" to file briefs expressing their opinions.

That's a likely reference to the considerable debate the Justice Department's action has prompted over the last week, with some former law enforcement officials who were involved in the investigation expressing their dismay over the planned dismissal through public statements or newspaper opinion pieces.

The judge said he expects to set a scheduling order governing the submission of such briefs, known as amicus curiae - or friend-of-the-court - briefs.

In a court filing Tuesday night, lawyers for Flynn objected to an amicus brief that a group identifying itself as "Watergate Prosecutors" had said it intended to submit, saying the brief and others like it have "no place in this Court."

"A criminal case is a dispute between the United States and a criminal defendant. There is no place for third parties to meddle in the dispute, and certainly not to usurp the role of the government's counsel," Flynn's attorneys wrote.

It is also possible that Sullivan could ask for additional information from the department about its decision, including more details about why it was abruptly abandoning a case it had pursued in court since 2017, when Flynn pleaded guilty.

In an interview Tuesday evening with Fox News, Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec said the department's position was clear in the motion to dismiss the case.

"We do not believe this case should have been brought, we are correcting that and we certainly hope that in the interest of true justice, that the judge ultimately agrees and drops the case against General Flynn," she said.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

This will serve to publicize the miscarriage of justice being perpetrated by the Trump lackey Barr. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago

Horse shit what a fucking lie look at the evidence it totally contradicts this  ridiculous article. Why not just post you aren't for the rule of law but prefer  the banana republic type of governance.For fuck sakes what a joke the applauding of misconduct by government officials.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  MUVA @1.1    3 weeks ago

TWO THOUSAND bi partisan former prosecutors and other DOJ personnel have signed a letter calling for Barr to resign because of his behavior in this case. 

Does that sound "ridiculous"? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

https://medium.com/@dojalumni/doj-alumni-statement-on-flynn-case-7c38a9a945b9

We, the undersigned, are alumni of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) who have collectively served both Republican and Democratic administrations. Each of us proudly took an oath to defend the Constitution and pursue the evenhanded administration of justice free from partisan consideration.

Many of us have spoken out   previously   to condemn President Trump’s and Attorney General Barr’s political interference in the Department’s law enforcement decisions, as we did when Attorney General Barr overruled the sentencing recommendation of career prosecutors to seek favorable treatment for President Trump’s close associate, Roger Stone. The Attorney General’s intervention in the Stone case to seek political favor for a personal ally of the President flouted the core principle that politics must never enter into the Department’s law enforcement decisions and undermined its mission to ensure equal justice under the law. As we said then,   “Governments that use the enormous power of law enforcement to punish their enemies and reward their allies are not constitutional republics; they are autocracies.”

Now, Attorney General Barr has once again assaulted the rule of law, this time in the case of President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn. In December 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States. Subsequent events strongly suggest political interference in Flynn’s prosecution.

Despite previously acknowledging that he “had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI,” President Trump has repeatedly and publicly complained that Flynn has been mistreated and subjected to a “witch hunt.” The President has also said that Flynn was “essentially exonerated” and that he was “strongly considering a [f]ull [p]ardon.” The Department has now moved to dismiss the charges against Flynn, in a filing signed by a single political appointee and no career prosecutors. The Department’s purported justification for doing so does not hold up to scrutiny, given the ample evidence that the investigation was well-founded and — more importantly — the fact that Flynn admitted under oath and in open court that he told material lies to the FBI in violation of longstanding federal law.

Make no mistake: The Department’s action is extraordinarily rare, if not unprecedented. If any of us, or anyone reading this statement who is not a friend of the President, were to lie to federal investigators in the course of a properly predicated counterintelligence investigation, and admit we did so under oath, we would be prosecuted for it.

We thus unequivocally support the decision of the career prosecutor who withdrew from the Flynn case, just as we supported the prosecutors who withdrew from the Stone case. They are upholding the oath that we all took, and we call on their colleagues to continue to follow their example. President Trump accused the career investigators and prosecutors involved in the Flynn case of “treason” and threatened that they should pay “a big price.” It is incumbent upon the other branches of government to protect from retaliation these public servants and any others who are targeted for seeking to uphold their oaths of office and pursue justice.

It is now up to the district court to consider the government’s motion to dismiss the Flynn indictment. We urge Judge Sullivan to closely examine the Department’s stated rationale for dismissing the charges — including holding an evidentiary hearing with witnesses — and to deny the motion and proceed with sentencing if appropriate. While it is rare for a court to deny the Department’s request to dismiss an indictment, if ever there were a case where the public interest counseled the court to take a long, hard look at the government’s explanation and the evidence, it is this one. Attorney General Barr’s repeated actions to use the Department as a tool to further President Trump’s personal and political interests have undermined any claim to the deference that courts usually apply to the Department’s decisions about whether or not to prosecute a case.

Finally, in our previous statement, we called on Attorney General Barr to resign, although we recognized then that there was little chance that he would do so. We continue to believe that it would be best for the integrity of the Justice Department and for our democracy for Attorney General Barr to step aside. In the meantime, we call on Congress to hold the Attorney General accountable. In the midst of the greatest public health crisis our nation has faced in over a century, we would all prefer it if Congress could focus on the health and prosperity of Americans, not threats to the health of our democracy. Yet Attorney General Barr has left Congress with no choice. Attorney General Barr was previously set to give testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on March 31, but the hearing was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We urge the Committee to reschedule Attorney General Barr’s testimony as soon as safely possible and demand that he answer for his abuses of power. We also call upon Congress to formally censure Attorney General Barr for his repeated assaults on the rule of law in doing the President’s personal bidding rather than acting in the public interest. Our democracy depends on a Department of Justice that acts as an independent arbiter of equal justice, not as an arm of the president’s political apparatus.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  MUVA @1.1    3 weeks ago

Yep, it just shows how bad the bias really is.   Had this exact same thing happened to say Susan Rice, the same people praising this delay would be screaming bloody murder.

Absolutely no doubt about it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.3    3 weeks ago

Trump supporters are almost completely divorced from reality. 

Barr is disgracing himself for the history books. He better really pray his "side" gets to write history, although of course that is not going to happen. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.4    3 weeks ago
Trump supporters are almost completely divorced from reality. 

You better hope not because there goes half the work force paying for all the partisan free shit Auntie Nana is asking for

Hope you like government cheese ......

Barr is a good man simply trying to clean up the mess left behind by the big O and his swamp rat show.   How anyone can defend the stink left by that group is beyond any reasonable, thinking person.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

It reeks of partisan bias.  

They make that judgement without most of the facts cogent to the case.

Thank God they are "former" DOJ personnel.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.7  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    3 weeks ago
TWO THOUSAND bi partisan former prosecutors and other DOJ personnel have signed a letter calling for Barr to resign because of his behavior in this case.  Does that sound "ridiculous"? 

Prosecutors and "other personnel"?

Does that include janitors and elevator operators?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.8  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    3 weeks ago
TWO THOUSAND bi partisan former prosecutors

How many of them read the notes that they wanted to get Flynn "FIRED", how many knew they already had the call they were interviewing him about.  If the call contained illegal activity where are the charges for that. How many of these 2000 support Trump?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.2  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago
This will serve to publicize the miscarriage of justice

Yes...….the miscarriage was performed by the FBI. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

"A criminal case is a dispute between the United States and a criminal defendant. There is no place for third parties to meddle in the dispute, and certainly not to usurp the role of the government's counsel," Flynn's attorneys wrote.

I Think she's got it!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    3 weeks ago

24 times this Judge  ruled that outside parties weren't allowed to submit arguments in support of Flynn. 

Here's Judge Sullivan in this case "The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal cases. Options exist for a private citizen to express his views about matters of public interest, but the Court’s docket is not an available option.”

Talk about an assault on the rule of law!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1    3 weeks ago

Sidney Powell filed motions seeking to compel the government to produce exculpatory evidence "improperly" withheld from Flynn, and later she requested dismissal of the charge against Flynn for outrageous prosecutorial misconduct.

 Judge Sullivan went to great lengths to shoot down every one of Powell’s requests for evidence. A 100 page opinion. One could conclude it to be a biased opinion.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3  Greg Jones    3 weeks ago

The whole case against Flynn was based on a lie (or several). The record of evidence now revealed shows that the FBI under the direction of the Obama administration, set up a "perjury trap", and that Flynn was coerced into making a "confession" to a crime he did not commit. The question of whether or not the charges should be dropped are pretty well moot by now, as Trump will exonerate him. Barr's actions are completely legal and are meant to remedy the unlawful actions of the previous administration and its improper use of the FBI and the Obama DOJ. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @3    3 weeks ago
Barr's actions are completely legal and are meant to remedy the unlawful actions of the previous administration and its improper use of the FBI and the Obama DOJ. 

As opposed to Judge Sullivan's which are without precedent.

 
 
 
loki12
4  loki12    3 weeks ago

I guess this low functioning semi-retarded clinton appointee is too stupid or arrogant to actual read the recent Supreme court cases. what a worthless POS he is.

  the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision, not based on arguments presented by Sineneng-Smith, but by third parties the court brought in to submit arguments that the panel of judges themselves had suggested.

"[T]he appeals panel departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion," Ginsburg wrote, later stating that "a court is not hidebound by the precise arguments of counsel, but the Ninth Circuit’s radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ginsburg-eviscerates-9th-circuits-handling-of-immigration-consultants-case

They won't even have to hear arguments to slap this little bitch Sullivans decision down.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  loki12 @4    3 weeks ago
I guess this low functioning semi-retarded clinton appointee is too stupid or arrogant to actual read the recent Supreme court cases. what a worthless POS he is.

To his own detriment, eventually. It's only a matter of time that the DOJ will join Sidney Powell in objecting to the court’s apparent solicitation of "amicus curiae briefs" in a criminal case, given that the executive branch holds the sole constitutional authority to determine whether to prosecute a case. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
5  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom    3 weeks ago

Remember why Flynn was fired in the first place?  He was fired for lying to the Vice President.  The other crap came up later.  He was one of the first people Trump threw under the bus.  Now they are snuggling up to him?  Trump could have simply pardoned him, so why drop the charges at this point? The man has something he wants to say, and this freak show administration wants to keep him from saying it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @5    3 weeks ago
Remember why Flynn was fired in the first place? 

Do you remember?  An inexperienced White House staff was under intense pressure via the FBI leaking to a complicit media. The FBI made it out that Flynn had to go and the media backed them all the way! Rep Devin Nunes urged the new President to stand firm and keep Flynn until the facts were known. The President took the advice of his novice advisors and fired Flynn.  

Nunes warned him: There'll be blood in the water and they're not going to stop!

How prophetic.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6  Sean Treacy    3 weeks ago

The Judge already  embarrased himself in more ways than one with his treason rant, I guess now he wants to be impeached. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    3 weeks ago

It just proves he can't be unbiased in this matter.

He needs to be removed from the case.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Sparty On @6.1    3 weeks ago
He needs to be removed from the case.

From the bench entirely.   Bias is one thing, what he displays is beyond the pale.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7  XDm9mm    3 weeks ago

Simple solution to the entire situation.

Have the DoJ continue with the "prosecution" (aka persecution) and when they present their "case" before the Judge simply note that;

'Due to the extraordinary and illegal activities of the prosecutors previously involved with the persecution, sorry your Honor, prosecution, we cannot in good faith continue with the charade and find any evidence previously developed so tainted by illegalities and extreme political bias that we rest our case immediately and suggest the court totally exonerate the accused and immediately return his good name to him and provide him a legal pathway to recoup any and all monies and properties lost from the government and individually all involved with his persecution.'

At which point the defense should present a very simple case and simply note;

'What he said. The defense rests.'

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
8  The Magic Eight Ball    2 weeks ago

he can drag things out but in the end, the judge can not force the DOJ to prosecute... 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online






Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Dean Moriarty
bugsy
Ender


42 visitors