Agree, potential flipper for sure

There is a good video on the Grenell thread that explains the process.

There's a clip in the Grennell unmasking thread of Adm. Rogers walking through the checks and balances of how that works.

akm91 said:

---

There's a clip in the Grennell unmasking thread of Adm. Rogers walking through the checks and balances of how that works.

---

That's how Rogers said it was supposed to work. That's not how it worked in reality. Clapper changed all that.

ETA: Same with the Woods Procedures. Comey's FBI completely ignored them when it suited their political or personal purposes.

This is BS.

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

This is BS.

---

I commented a few pages back that the Motion to Dismiss covers Flynn for this. Flynn accepted van Grack's representation that the alleged lie was material, he did not make that representation himself. I think Flynn ultimately winds up okay.

That said, something is wrong with his honor and I'll doubt we will ever know what.

Patentmike said:

---

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

This is BS.

---

I commented a few pages back that the Motion to Dismiss covers Flynn for this. Flynn accepted van Grack's representation that the alleged lie was material, he did not make that representation himself. The motion to dismiss is largely based on the government's inability to prove materiality. I think Flynn ultimately winds up okay.

That said, something is wrong with his honor and I'll doubt we will ever know what.

---

Oops, this was supposed to be an edit, not a quote.

will25u said:

---

---

January 5th is the same day as the infamous Oval Office meeting with Obama, Biden, Comey, Yates, et al.

drcrinum said:

---

Senor Cardgage said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

https://sidneypowell.com/media/open-memorandum-to-barack-obama/

Sidney Powell: Open Memorandum to Barack Obama.

---

Link is gone.

---

It's back:
https://sidneypowell.com/media/open-memorandum-to-barack-obama/

---

That's good

Here is the unmasking video for anyone who is mostly looking at this thread.

The swamp is DEEP

Sarge 91 said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

---

This will draw a mandamus action from Sydney Powell.

---

By the way, something is very, very wrong with Sullivan' order. If you read the Fokker case cited by Sullivan as authority for his "inherent power" to appoint amicus, the case says nothing of the kind. In Fokker, the government and the criminal defendant sought to enter a deferred prosecution agreement (think deferred adjudication - be a good boy for 18 months and we dismiss). The Court, on its own, decided that was too good a deal for the defendant and denied the request. So far, the facts are lining up with the Flynn case. The government and the defendant filed a mandamus action with the Court of Appeals, seeking an order vacating the denial of the DPA. The Court of Appeals appointed an amicus attorney, not to advocate on behalf of the government, but to advocate on behalf of the judge, and argue that his decision was reasonable and within his discretion.

In short, it was the appellate court that appointed an amicus to "represent" the judge. That does not convey "inherent authority" for a district judge to appoint amicus to argue against a joint motion to dismiss. Further, in Fokker, the appellate court decided the judge was wrong and he should have accepted the DPA. This is exactly want Flynn and DOJ want to happen. A first year law student knows you don't cite a case the result of which was exactly what your opponent wants.

Either Sullivan is grasping at straws for some unfathomable reasons, or he has the most incompetent law clerks ever assigned to a district judge.

Yep. Flynn knows the playbook. Deep State will try to win at all costs. Wouldn't be surprised if people started having accidents at this point.

Que Te Gusta Mas said:

---

They've got pictures of Sullivan with a dead girl or a live boy.

---

....or both...... ....at the same time....

Quote:

---

Either Sullivan is grasping at straws for some unfathomable reasons, or he has the most incompetent law clerks ever assigned to a district judge.

---

He hired them.

So either he's "past his prime" for a federal judge or he has an agenda that is political and not legally based.

drcrinum said:

---

https://sidneypowell.com/media/open-memorandum-to-barack-obama/

Sidney Powell: Open Memorandum to Barack Obama.

---

That was brutal, I believe Clapper would call that "the kill shot".

Couple of comments.

Hawg,, how are they going to find out what ails Sullivan? I can't imagine anyone using a phone/text, etc. to threaten or extort. I assume it would have to be in person, or by way of several individuals. That would be EXTREMELY hard to find. I never would have thought he was off the rails, until this action today. Of course, I'm ignorant of the legal profession, but even I know something is wrong.

Secondly, the Left is expending a HELL of a lot of capital (or seems to be) for something that will likely be overturned on appeal, or a new trial. The ONLY reason I can think of, other than pride and ego, is Flynn must have some kind of staggering information he hasn't shared with anyone else.

aggiehawg said:

---

Sullivan's legal reasoning is very unsound, to the point that he is inviting constitutional infractions that would not survive appellate review but what is worse is that Sullivan knows that.

What could be so bad that a federal judge intentionally torches his own career to avoid exposure?

---

My answer to the more curious decision making like this is thus:

I don't know. Let's bring John Brennan in under oath and ask him what he thinks and then go from there.

Here is the paywalled OpEd I referenced earlier:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/11/flynn-case-isnt-over-until-judge-says-its-over/

Quote:

---

John Gleeson served as a U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of New York and chief of the Criminal Division in the U.S. Attorney's Office in that district. David O'Neil served as the acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Criminal Division and assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. Marshall Miller served as the highest-ranking career official in the Criminal Division and as chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District.

The Justice Department's move to dismiss the prosecution of former national security adviser Michael Flynn does not need to be the end of the

case -- and it shouldn't be. The Justice Department has made conflicting statements to the federal judge overseeing the case, Emmet G. Sullivan. He has the authority, the tools and the obligation to assess the credibility of the department's stated reasons for abruptly reversing course.

The department's motion to dismiss the Flynn case is actually just a request -- one that requires "leave of the court" before it is effective. The executive branch has unreviewable authority to decide whether to prosecute a case. But once it secures an indictment, the proceedings necessarily involve the judicial branch. And the law provides that the court -- not the executive branch -- decides whether an indictment may be dismissed. The responsible exercise of that authority is particularly important here, where a defendant's plea of guilty has already been accepted. Government motions to dismiss at this stage are virtually unheard of.

Prosecutors deserve a "presumption of regularity" -- the benefit of the doubt that they are acting honestly and following the rules. But when the facts suggest they have abused their power, that presumption fades. If prosecutors attempt to dismiss a well-founded prosecution for impermissible or corrupt reasons, the people would be ill-served if a court blindly approved their dismissal request. The independence of the court protects us all when executive-branch decisions smack of impropriety; it also protects the judiciary itself from becoming a party to corruption.

There has been nothing regular about the department's effort to dismiss the Flynn case. The record reeks of improper political influence. Hours after the career prosecutor abruptly withdrew, the department moved to dismiss the indictment in a filing signed only by an interim U.S. attorney, a former aide to Attorney General William P. Barr whom Barr had installed in the position months before.

The department now says it cannot prove its case. But Flynn had already admitted his guilt to lying to the FBI, and the court had accepted his plea. The purported reasons for the dismissal clash not only with the department's previous arguments in Flynn's case -- where it assured the court of an important federal interest in punishing Flynn's dishonesty, an interest it now dismisses as insubstantial -- but also with arguments it has routinely made for years in similar cases not involving defendants close to the president. And all of this followed a similarly troubling reversal, also preceded by the withdrawal of career prosecutors, in the sentencing of Roger Stone.

Courts often inquire as to the reasons for a government motion to dismiss, but this is the rare case that requires extra scrutiny, to ensure that, in the Supreme Court's words, "the waters of justice are not polluted.

Fortunately, the court has many tools to vindicate the public interest. It can require the career prosecutor to explain why he stepped off the case, as another federal judge recently did when the Trump administration attempted to replace a trial team litigating the politicization of the census. It can appoint an independent attorney to act as a "friend of the court," ensuring a full, adversarial inquiry, as the judge in the Flynn case has done in other situations where the department abdicated its prosecutorial role. If necessary, the court can hold hearings to resolve factual discrepancies.

And the court could compel the department to reveal the one thing it has thus far refused to show -- the actual evidence underlying the prosecution. To help Flynn, the department has made public documents it jealously guards in almost every other case, including confidential memos and internal deliberations. But it has balked at disclosing the transcripts of the very conversations with the Russian ambassador that Flynn admitted he lied about when the FBI interviewed him.

The department once argued that those conversations confirmed Flynn's guilt. It now claims those conversations were innocuous. By ordering disclosure of the transcripts, the court can empower the American public to judge for itself -- and assess why the department is trying to walk away from this important case.

Flynn's guilt has already been adjudicated. So if the court finds dismissal would result in a miscarriage of justice, it can deny the motion, refuse to permit withdrawal of the guilty plea and proceed to sentencing.

---

I'm sorry but I couldn't access this OpEd by my computer. I had to use alternate methods. Since it's paywalled, here is the whole article I reference earlier. As you can see, Sullivan did exactly as this former judge & assistant US attorney (John Gleeson) recommended that he do. That's why I think they colluded on this.

Solid thinkin' there, Wonk!

BTW, I don't hear many folks anywhere mention the supposed "agreement" to not prosecute Jr. if Flynn pleaded guilty. You would think that if a document like that were produced, game over.

I'm beginning to believe it either hasn't been released, or it doesn't exist, even though I believe it could have easily taken place.

Get ready for the suicides.... shot twice in the back of the head