MouthBQ98 said:

---

If someone falsely confesses to a murder for whatever reason, and gets to sentencing, and then it comes out they were pressured to confess for some reason, so they then receive the sentence for the murder they didn't commit, or the only possible crimes they actually did commit, which is false reporting and maybe perjury?

Is it justice to complete sentence on someone for a crime they didn't commit simply because the 'process' is at a certain point, when it is clear that the process has been abused?

---

The overarching legal theory of "in the interests of justice" would dictate the answer is no. It is never too late legally right a legal wrong.

As Justice Gorsuch said in his confirmation hearings, "If a judge personally agrees with every ruling he makes, he's a bad judge," comes into play.

I don't disagree with your analysis, but the problem is the sheople just listen to what the MSM propaganda machine tells them to think. You can have all the logic and facts in the world on your side, but they can scream "Orange Man Bad!" louder and with a lot more megaphones. Just keep the hand-outs coming and they'll keep voting Democrat!

Not on Pacer so can't read the Flynn motions but Sullivan apparently swatted them down anyway.

Courtesy of my enlightenment this week, I believe I'll charge the Watergate jackwagons, Sullivan, and Van Grack with this: Consciousness of Guilt!

Honestly, I do think some guilt is involved here.

Watergate Prosecutors, or as I refer to them, Hillary's Posse:

Quote:

---

Here, where the Motion seeks to reverse a prosecutorial judgment previously entrusted to and made by Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, the value the Watergate Prosecutors' unique perspective on the need for independent scrutiny and oversight to ensure that crucial decisions about prosecutions of high-ranking government officials are made in the public interest, are viewed as legitimate, and are not subsequently reversed by political intervention. The integrity of prosecutorial decision making is a cornerstone of the rule of law. Amici have a special interest in restoring the public trust in prosecutorial decision making and in public confidence in the viability of future independent investigations and prosecutions if the results of such work are likely to be subjected to reversal by transparent political influence.

---

What a laughable statement. Adam Schiff would be proud.

VaultingChemist said:

---

Watergate Prosecutors, or as I refer to them, Hillary's Posse:

Quote:

---

Here, where the Motion seeks to reverse a prosecutorial judgment previously entrusted to and made by Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, the value the Watergate Prosecutors' unique perspective on the need for independent scrutiny and oversight to ensure that crucial decisions about prosecutions of high-ranking government officials are made in the public interest, are viewed as legitimate, and are not subsequently reversed by political intervention. The integrity of prosecutorial decision making is a cornerstone of the rule of law. Amici have a special interest in restoring the public trust in prosecutorial decision making and in public confidence in the viability of future independent investigations and prosecutions if the results of such work are likely to be subjected to reversal by transparent political influence.

---

What a laughable statement. Adam Schiff would be proud.

---

That's the sound of desperation. The only end result of this move (even if entertained by the trial court) puts this in the supreme court. The last thing these people want is any attention from SCOTUS. They want this to die quietly and slink away unnoticed.

Quote:

---

Here, where the Motion seeks to reverse a prosecutorial judgment previously entrusted to and made by Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, the value the Watergate Prosecutors' unique perspective on the need for independent scrutiny and oversight to ensure that crucial decisions about prosecutions of high-ranking government officials are made in the public interest, are viewed as legitimate, and are not subsequently reversed by political intervention.

The integrity of prosecutorial decision making is a cornerstone of the rule of law.

Amici have a special interest in restoring the public trust in prosecutorial decision making and in public confidence in the viability of future independent investigations and prosecutions if the results of such work are likely to be subjected to reversal by transparent political influence.

---

Three sentences, a lot of words for a lot of nothing substantive. My feeelllzz, REEEEE!

So when Mike Nifong determined that a rape had occurred in the Duke lacrosse case, his prosecutorial decision making was sacrosanct? Hell no, it wasn't.

And the integrity of Special Counsels under the current Code of Federal Regulations rules is still under DOJ supervision, first off.

Second, it was in the Mueller Report that all of the agents assigned to Team Mueller still answered to the FBI/DOJ.

So that "argument", such as it is, doesn't hold water. The Motion to Dismiss is not the Saturday Night Massacre, for heaven's sake.

Andy McCarthy sorts out the declass confusion.

Quote:

---

Again, however, the Justice Department must have a lawful purpose to publish information. DOJ is still investigating, and investigators virtually never want evidence to become public until their investigation is concluded. DOJ is no doubt very interested in the information Grenell has provided; but it has no immediate legal need or strategic desire for public disclosure.

That said, the usual rules apply. Therefore, if the classified information belongs to ODNI, then ODNI has the power to declassify it. And if ODNI has declassified the unmasking information, and believes it has a legitimate reason to disclose that information publicly, it may do so though Grenell will have to brace himself for the uproar from critics who will claim ODNI has acted politically, and potentially to the detriment of national security.

If the Justice Department's investigation is to be regarded as good-faith law-enforcement rather than politics, then DOJ cannot be perceived as declassifying and publicizing information for political purposes. From DOJ's perspective, the unmasking information need not be disclosed unless and until there is a legitimate law-enforcement reason for doing so.

By contrast, if the unmasking information belongs to ODNI, then DNI Grenell has the authority to declassify it, and perhaps to disclose it. But he would have to be able to explain why doing so was an appropriate exercise of discretion in the public interest, rather than an abuse of power for political advantage.

---

LINK

Then DOJ needs to inform ODNI as to whether they are pursuing indictments or not, and ODNI goes from there. After all, what would the dems do if the shoe was on the other foot.

How true

friendly reporters.

redundant, I'm sorry to say. The way they hand out Pulitzers these days, all of the journos would get one for blaring the names that someone else gave the paid screechers.

drcrinum said:

---

What does this mean?

---

Hmmm, he struck their pleading, so it's meaningless, but he's issuing a scheduling order for amicus curiae briefs, so it's not clear what he's doing. Perhaps he'll open it up to others?

Does this also give DOJ an unfettered opportunity to explain the ugly 'why', basically reversing roles in a way and becoming Flynn's advocates?

I talking waaaaay over my head!

boulderaggie said:

---

Does this also give DOJ an unfettered opportunity to explain the ugly 'why', basically reversing roles in a way and becoming Flynn's advocates?

---

Good question. I don't see why not. Judge could limit subject matter of briefing but I could see DOJ lawyers letting their briefing creep beyond the scope of what the judge orders.

If Barr did that, you would see wall to wall Democrats on every channel demanding his resignation. Maybe what they want, to take focus off the wrongdoings of the Obama doj and hoist all focus on Barr and trump.

Proc92 said:

---

If Barr did that, you would see wall to wall Democrats on every channel demanding his resignation. Maybe what they want, to take focus off the wrongdoings of the Obama doj and hoist all focus on Barr and trump.

---

He'd need an Office of Legal Counsel opinion for cover but his duty is clear, if Judge Sullivan's actions here merit pushback under the legal theories I posited and others.

When does a judge's exercise of his discretion become abusive and harassment of a criminal defendant? Considering his refusal for 24 offered amicii on Flynn's behalf but offering seemingly unlimited amicii against Flynn would be such an abuse in a criminal case.

So...

The prosecution says we can't pursue the case due to misconduct during investigation. Motion to dismiss with prejudice filed.

Watergate prosecutors come out from the woodwork and say no take-backs. We don't care if you were entrapped.

Powell responds with, ok can we also have people to defend our position?

Judge, from previous filings and denials of such a request, will most likely say nah.

So no Flynn has had the case dropped due to misconduct during the investigation. He now may have to accept his guilty plea due to the judge allowing other people to come in and argue why Flynn should still be guilty, but not the prosecution. And Flynn will most likely not be able to have people speak on his behalf.

Seems about right with how this train wreck of a situation has gone for that man. Thank goodness he seems to have accepted his role in this mess and is willing to fight

Quote:

---

A federal judge Wednesday temporarily denied a filing by 16 former Watergate prosecutors urging the court to deny the Justice Department's request to drop the criminal charges against Michael Flynn and sentence him to jail instead.

U.S. District Court Emmet Sullivan said in a brief order he will provide a schedule for interested parties to submit filings. The order also mooted a bid by Flynn's lawyers to block the group's brief.

The prosecutors may be able to refile its brief once Judge Sullivan implements a schedule.

---

LINK

This isn't very significant, at the moment as they can still refile but it may be a sign that Sullivan is having second thoughts about the pandora's box he was opening.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

A federal judge Wednesday temporarily denied a filing by 16 former Watergate prosecutors urging the court to deny the Justice Department's request to drop the criminal charges against Michael Flynn and sentence him to jail instead.

U.S. District Court Emmet Sullivan said in a brief order he will provide a schedule for interested parties to submit filings. The order also mooted a bid by Flynn's lawyers to block the group's brief.

The prosecutors may be able to refile its brief once Judge Sullivan implements a schedule.

---

LINK

This isn't very significant, at the moment as they can still refile but it may be a sign that Sullivan is having second thoughts about the pandora's box he was opening.

---

Here's my guess: one of his law clerks came up with the idea and they ran with it. Once the minute entry got posted and the news started running with it, his colleagues in the court house may have quietly called and/or stopped by to point out the obvious (which you stated in your post above).

Article III judges are pretty cloistered but they still talk to one another and bounce ideas off of each other. This is so harebrained that more than one fellow judge in the courthouse may have picked up the phone.

There doesn't seem to be any change from him setting a schedule for amicus briefs.

Quote:

---

Here's my guess: one of his law clerks came up with the idea and they ran with it. Once the minute entry got posted and the news started running with it, his colleagues in the court house may have quietly called and/or stopped by to point out the obvious (which you stated in your post above).

Article III judges are pretty cloistered but they still talk to one another and bounce ideas off of each other. This is so harebrained that more than one fellow judge in the courthouse may have picked up the phone.

---

Fire that clerk, then. Their legal career is doomed to failure if that is the level of their legal reasoning. Also makes the judge look bad like he needs outside advice because he's too stupid to know what to do next.

VegasAg86 said:

---

There doesn't seem to be any change from him setting a schedule for amicus briefs.

---

Not on Pacer but I assume Sydney moved to strike the amicus since the judge had never allowed one before and in the alternative if she had to file a response.

Motion to strike was denied but she doesn't have to reply to it...yet.

I don't see a change from what we discussed earlier. He denied the Watergate Prosecutors request to file in light of his "forthcoming Scheduling Order governing the submission of any amicus curiae briefs". He denied Flynn's motion as moot, since he struck the WP's pleading.

Is there something saying he isn't going to put out that Scheduling Order?

Quote:

---

Is there something saying he isn't going to put out that Scheduling Order?

---

The article from the Washington Times that I posted implied it was a new filing. Guess their reporting was wrong.

Sorry for the confusion.

Grenell delivers.

Biden is there.

I wanna know who all the redacted people are.

Biden is last but not least.

texaggierm said:

---

Biden is there.

---

And President Obama's COS.

Ambassador to Italy which makes sense given the Mifsud links.

Why the Treasury dept requests?