4stringAg said:
Priestap just now saying this? Been known for how long his notes were questionable? Seems like a Hail Mary. Besides it doesn't matter because they had no predicate to interrogate Flynn to begin with.
Somebody badly wants Flynn convicted.
Quote:
The plea bargain has made jury trials obsolete.
Ninety-seven percent of federal criminal prosecutions are resolved by plea bargain. In state courts the numbers are comparable. The plea bargain may be the grease that keeps the criminal justice system churning, but it may also be a sign of a system in need of repair.
Judge John Gleeson, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently wrote, "An excessively high rate of guilty pleas is unhealthy for our justice system."
Why? The only scrutiny a case may receive in federal court is that afforded by a grand jury and, as long-time Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau once said, he could get a grand jury to indict a "ham sandwich."
At trial the government must prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The government must firmly convince the jury of every element of the offense and that the defendant was the person who committed the crime.
But, as Gleeson observed, "Our [grand jury] system permits indictment to be returned on an ex parte presentation consisting entirely of inadmissible evidence."
The burden falls well below the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
"The notion that defects in the grand jury's screening function will come out in the wash at trial is sound only if a meaningful percentage of cases go to trial," wrote Gleeson.
The three percent of prosecutions which go before a jury is not a meaningful amount. As a result, the cleansing effect of trial has all but disappeared. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" the bedrock of the criminal justice systemplays no role in an alarming number of cases.
What this means is that an insignificant number of offenders heading off to state or federal prison were proven guilty of anything. Sure, those defendants acknowledged their guilt by choosing to enter a guilty plea; but shouldn't the most revered legal system in the world provide something more in terms of protection for those accused of a crime? For 97 out of 100 people accused of a crime in federal court, all that has been proven against them is that a crime has been committed and that they "probably" committed itthe same standard that permits a police officer or federal agent to make an arrest.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt never enters the equation.
So what is the big deal? No one innocent of a crime would plead guilty, right?
Some alarming statistics suggest that there is some incentive to enter a guilty plea regardless of guilt or innocence.
In some jurisdictions, particularly federal court, the gap between sentences following a plea and sentences following a trial has gotten very wide.
According to Human Rights Watch , the average sentence for federal drug offenders who pleaded guilty was five years, four months, based on raw federal sentencing data for 2012; for those convicted after trial the average sentence was 16 years.
A system that lowers the threshold for proving guilt and creates incentives for the innocent to plead guilty is "unhealthy" indeed.
cbr said:
Either something is happening that will expose the prosecution further snd sullivan is facilitating it (not likely and not his job), or that piece of **** needs to be mandamused to dismiss the case, and anyone that writes an opposition needs to be hung from a tree along with sullivan and appellate judge that doesnt grant the mandamus.
A judge cant hold open a criminal case. Period.
Quote:
...9. No record of the FBI unit requesting a transcript; and yet the FBI having, discussing, debating said transcript (January 4, 2017); would imply the FBI intercepted the call as part of ongoing surveillance by the FBI.
10. To avoid exposure of illegal Flynn surveillance (no warrant, and no FISA), the FBI is now claiming "incidental collection"....
Simple answer, it was both.Quote:
Sundance makes a great point: There was no unmasking of Flynn between December 29, 2016 & January 4, 2017, yet they were scrutinizing his transcripts. How?
Just imagine the "parody" Full of Schiff could use with a Trump - Putin call where Trump is simply trying to diffuse the situation.nortex97 said:
Yes, Obama at least had high hopes of triggering an aggressive/hostile Russian response as Trump was coming into office. They'd just pinned Russia for meddling to help him (which is a lie), and they wanted to have a big situation for him to defuse as early as possible. (This also would have made the 'intelligence community' and all of the swamp denizens in it/the NSC even more influential in early 2017.)
She keeps going. I'd recommend anyone not sipping coffee go read the whole thing.Quote:
OPEN MEMORANDUM
To: Barack Hussein Obama
From: Sidney Powell
www.SidneyPowell.com
Date: May 13, 2020
Re: Your Failure to Find Precedent for Flynn Dismissal
Regarding the decision of the Department of Justice to dismiss charges against General Flynn, in your recent call with your alumni, you expressed great concern: "there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That's the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic not just institutional norms but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk."
Here is some helpif truth and precedent represent your true concern. Your statement is entirely false. However, it does explain the damage to the Rule of Law throughout your administration.
First, General Flynn was not charged with perjurywhich requires a material false statement made under oath with intent to deceive.1 A perjury prosecution would have been appropriate and the Rule of Law applied if the Justice Department prosecuted your former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for his multiple lies under oath in an investigation of a leak only he knew he caused.
McCabe lied under oath in fully recorded and transcribed interviews with the Inspector General for the DOJ. He was informed of the purpose of the interview, and he had had the benefit of counsel. He knew he was the leaker. McCabe even lied about lying. He lied to his own agentswhich sent them on a "wild-goose-chase"thereby making his lies "material" and an obstruction of justice. Yet, remarkably, Attorney General Barr declined to prosecute McCabe for these offenses.
Applying the Rule of Law, after declining McCabe's perjury prosecution, required the Justice Department to dismiss the prosecution of General Flynn who was not warned, not under oath, had no counsel, and whose statements were not only not recorded, but were created as false by FBI agents who falsified the 302.
Second, it would seem your "wingman" Eric Holder is missing a step these days at Covington & Burling LLP. Indelibly marked in his memory (and one might think, yours) should be his Motion to Dismiss the multi-count jury verdict of guilty and the entire case against former United States Senator Ted Stevens. Within weeks of Mr. Holder becoming Attorney General, he moved to dismiss the Stevens prosecution in the interest of justice for the same reasons the Justice Department did against General Flynnegregious misconduct by prosecutors who hid exculpatory evidence and concocted purported crimes.
As horrifying as the facts of the Stevens case were, they pale in comparison to the targeted setup, framing, and prosecution of a newly elected President's National Security Advisor and the shocking facts that surround it. This case was an assault on the heart of liberty our cherished system of self-government, the right of citizens to choose their President, and the hallowed peaceful transition of power.
Third, the inability of anyone in your alumni association to find "anybody who has been charged [with anything] just getting off scot-free" would be laughable were it not so pathetic.
Many of your alum feature prominently in the non-fiction legal thriller published in 2014: Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice. A national best- seller, it focusses on the egregious prosecutorial misconduct of your longest serving White House Counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler; your counter-terrorism advisor Lisa Monaco; Loretta Lynch's DAG for the Criminal Division Leslie Caldwell; and Mueller protg Andrew Weissmann. While they worked as federal prosecutors on the Enron Task Forceunder the purported supervision of Christopher Wraythey destroyed Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs; sent four Merrill Lynch executives to prison on an indictment that criminalized an innocent business transaction while they hid the evidence that showed those defendants were innocent for six years. Both cases were reversed on appeal for their over-criminalization and misconduct. Indeed, Andersen was reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court.
Fourth, even if your many alumni don't remember multiple cases that had to be reversed or dismissed for their own misconduct, Judge Emmet Sullivan should remember dismissing the corrupted case against Ted Stevens. Judge Sullivan is the judicial hero of Licensed to Lie. It is that case that caused Judge Sullivan to enter the strong Brady order the Mueller and D.C. career prosecutors violated repeatedly in the Flynn prosecution.
Fifth, there is precedent for guilty pleas being vacated. Your alumni Weissmann and Ruemmler are no strangers to such reversals. At least two guilty pleas they coerced by threats against defendants in Houston had to be thrown outagain for reasons like those here. The defendants "got off scot-free" becauselike General Flynnyour alumni had concocted the charges and terrorized the defendants into pleading guilty to "offenses" that were not crimes. Andersen partner David Duncan even testified for the government against Andersen in its trial, but his plea had to be vacated. Enron Broadband defendant Christopher Calger had his plea vacated. There are many others across the country.
Others have mentioned maybe Flynn knows something right now. If he did, he would be in a position of power in negotiating. He wouldn't be treated this way.TurkeyBaconLeg said:
One thought I have on the actions by Sullivan. It sure seems like the deep state wants to drag this out a bit longer. I wonder if they are fearful of Flynn rejoining the Trump Admin.
It sure seems like all of the actions of declass were waiting on Flynn to be exonerated. Once the DOJ dropped the case, then all hell was released on ObamaGate and the storm is upon us. With more to come.
Perhaps, Flynn is supposed to play a role in what is coming next and the swamp knows it. Thus, the delay tactic...
Quote:
.....The Fokker decision was a 2016 decision from the D.C. Circuit Court and, as such, establishes "mandatory precedent," i.e., precedent that must be followed, by all D.C. district court judges -- including Judge Sullivan. Thus, Judge Sullivan's directive that Judge Gleeson, as amicus curiae, should "present arguments in opposition to the government's Motion to Dismiss," cannot stand: It conflicts with controlling circuit court precedent, and more significantly with the U.S. Constitution......
I had this same question. Why the need to get Flynn at any cost at this point in time? I doubt Flynn will bring anything new for the Durham investigation at this point which has been going on for at least 18 months. I think its all about public perception. they view it as their last line of defense against the wave that is about to hit. They can say they were right about Flynn and Barr is political and you can't trust any future actions by him.goatchze said:Others have mentioned maybe Flynn knows something right now. If he did, he would be in a position of power in negotiating. He wouldn't be treated this way.TurkeyBaconLeg said:
One thought I have on the actions by Sullivan. It sure seems like the deep state wants to drag this out a bit longer. I wonder if they are fearful of Flynn rejoining the Trump Admin.
It sure seems like all of the actions of declass were waiting on Flynn to be exonerated. Once the DOJ dropped the case, then all hell was released on ObamaGate and the storm is upon us. With more to come.
Perhaps, Flynn is supposed to play a role in what is coming next and the swamp knows it. Thus, the delay tactic...
My hunch is that he doesn't know something now, but if free with his clearances intact, he can piece together the puzzle quickly (and would have a strong desire to do so).
He's dangerous for them if he doesn't have the millstone around his neck.
This is abuse. This is like letting Jack Tatum loose on a D-3 wideout.nortex97 said:
This is gonna leave a mark. LOL.
Got to think Barr's team got a lot out of McCabe to let this go.Quote:
First, General Flynn was not charged with perjurywhich requires a material false statement made under oath with intent to deceive.1 A perjury prosecution would have been appropriate and the Rule of Law applied if the Justice Department prosecuted your former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for his multiple lies under oath in an investigation of a leak only he knew he caused. McCabe lied under oath in fully recorded and transcribed interviews with the Inspector General for the DOJ. He was informed of the purpose of the interview, and he had had the benefit of counsel. He knew he was the leaker. McCabe even lied about lying. He lied to his own agentswhich sent them on a "wild-goose-chase"thereby making his lies "material" and an obstruction of justice. Yet, remarkably, Attorney General Barr declined to prosecute McCabe for these offenses.
Quote:
1As a "constitutional lawyer," surely you recall that perjury (or false statements) also requires intent to deceive. In Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973), the Supreme Court reversed a conviction of perjury. In Bronston, the defendant's answer was a truthful statement, but not directly responsive to the question and ultimately misled federal authorities. The Court determined: "A jury should not be permitted to engage in conjecture whether an unresponsive answer, true and complete on its face, was intended to mislead or divert the examiner; the state of mind of the witness is relevant only to the extent that it bears on whether "he does not believe [his answer] to be true." To hold otherwise would be to inject a new and confusing element into the adversary testimonial system we know." Id. at 359. The FBI agents who interviewed General Flynn specifically noted that his answers were true or he believed his answers to be truecompletely defeating criminal intent. Furthermore, General Flynn knew and remarked they had transcripts of his conversations.
You just dated yourself. Great comment BTWQuote:
This is like letting Jack Tatum loose on a D-3 wideout.
I'm just wondering procedurally how this will work with the naming of Gleeson as amicus curiae. So Sydney files for a writ of mandamus. DOJ either separately or jointly also file for a writ of mandamus. Gleeson then has to respond to both in the DC Circuit?blindey said:
I'm curious to see how quickly we see the mandamus proceedings get started. Likely that the panel will break pro-democrat and will deny relief. This will end up at SCOTUS pretty quickly. At least that's my guess.
Yeah. I'm old enough to remember Tatum at the mid-to-late stages of his career.fasthorse05 said:You just dated yourself. Great comment BTWQuote:
This is like letting Jack Tatum loose on a D-3 wideout.
When you see Stingley as a cornerback for LSU, like me, you think of his granddad with the New England Patriots and Tatum's hit. Few born after 1970 would ever think of that.
Carry on
Doesn't SCOTUS break for the Summer at the end of June? I've never seen anything happen quickly with SCOTUS, except for Bush's 2000 election.blindey said:
I'm curious to see how quickly we see the mandamus proceedings get started. Likely that the panel will break pro-democrat and will deny relief. This will end up at SCOTUS pretty quickly. At least that's my guess.
Hadn't occurred to me that Sullivan himself would file a brief, TBH. And you are right, if he did so, reassignment of the case would be the likely result or his recusal would be required.blindey said:
Really awkward.
I recall seeing a mandamus proceeding not all that long ago where the trial court judge also filed a brief. Wonder if Sullivan would do that -- especially given the very likely outcome that almost any argument he makes would almost necessitate reassignment of the case.
Exactly. Different agenda entirely. Highly improper under DOJ guidelines..Quote:
As soon as he put get him fired in the notes it was motive outside criminal justice.
