╌>

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

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  john-russell  •  4 years 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
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    4 years ago

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

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2  Vic Eldred    4 years 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
Professor Principal
2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    4 years 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
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1    4 years 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
Professor Participates
3  Greg Jones    4 years 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
Professor Principal
3.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @3    4 years 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.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
5  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom    4 years 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
Professor Principal
5.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @5    4 years 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
Professor Principal
6  Sean Treacy    4 years 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
Professor Principal
6.1  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    4 years ago

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

He needs to be removed from the case.

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
8  The Magic 8 Ball    4 years ago

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

 
 

Who is online

Kavika
Tacos!
devangelical
Ronin2


68 visitors