MouthBQ98 said:

---

Amen. For decades, people have been voluntarily taking the option to plead guilty In somewhat vague circumstances because the Negotiated plea terms for doing so are considered an acceptable cost compared to the risk of trial. Courts have accepted this for decades without punishing the defendant for taking that option.

---

Mark Levin discussed this very point yesterday. This will set a precedent that defendants can no longer change their pleas. Ridiculous.

drcrinum said:

---

https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/05/14/recent-decisions-of-the-court-of-appeals-for-dc-circuit-show-sullivan-must-dismiss-flynn-case/

Quote:

---

...........But in the final paragraph he will say that, notwithstanding everything he has found to be true as reflected in his opinion, he has no choice under the law but to grant DOJ's motion and dismiss the case.

He'll order that his opinion be published in the Federal Supplement, with the goal being that his account will be the definitive historical account of the Gen. Flynn saga.

He'll do what the law commands him to do, but he'll do it in such a way that he's a hero to all his left-wing legal cronies.

---

Very long legal read by Shipwreckedcrew. Conclusion above.

---

This sounds like Weissman's Mueller's second part -- Obstruction of Justice -- of the Mueller report.

Kind of a parting shot of "What if...", and "Suppose that..." crap to give another administration down the line the ammo to get somebody...anybody...that crosses, or did cross, the Dems.

Anything to keep a liberal, whining, crying, feet-kicking, purple-faced temper tantrum in the news...recalcitrant kids...geez.

aggiehawg said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

What is your take on Sullivan's hostility to Flynn?

---

Suggesting that Flynn could be tried for treason, which can carry a death sentence was highly improper, as no such charges were before him.

---

And what, exactly, would the treason charge be based on, one must ask? "Indeed, Mr. Flynn's request that Russia avoid "escalating" tensions in response to U.S. sanctions in an effort to mollify geopolitical tensions was consistent with him advocating for, not against, the interests of the United States."

I suppose the treason in theory would be that he did so when the US President (Barry Hussein Sotero) wanted Russia to escalate against the United States.

Quote:

---

What he is doing now could end in his being tossed off of the bench entirely, or very strongly urged to retire.

---

I was reading this and thinking about the judiciary as it seems to be today. It made me wonder if any judge would ever consider his actions misconduct, and even if they did, would they do anything about it.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1255911503074476032.html

Shipwreckedcrew has a twitter account. Somebody new for me to follow. This is an interesting thread he wrote 2 weeks ago.

aggiehawg said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

So could Sullivan be doing this in order to prompt his removal from the case?

He seems to be hell bent on doing what he is expressly required by law to do, which is to allow the dismissal.

Assuming he (for whatever reason) just doesn't want to be the guy that does that, could he be doing crazy, blatantly improper things in order to force it out of his court/hands?

---

If he wants out of this case that badly, here's a thought...he can recuse himself. he has lost his objectivity and allowed his personal animus towards Flynn, instead of the applicable law, to cloud his judgment. He can admit something similar to that and simply withdraw.

What he is doing now could end in his being tossed off of the bench entirely, or very strongly urged to retire.

---

With a Dem House, the most that will happen is all his cases get re-assigned, like happened in Galveston.

fasthorse05 said:

---

Quote:

---

What he is doing now could end in his being tossed off of the bench entirely, or very strongly urged to retire.

---

I was reading this and thinking about the judiciary as it seems to be today. It made me wonder if any judge would ever consider his actions misconduct, and even if they did, would they do anything about it.

---

There are avenues available to file complaints.

https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-conduct-disability

aggiehawg said:

---

If they had enough on Flynn to get a regular court approved wiretap, why not on Page too?

Unless...the whole Inovo deal was a set-up to be able to obtain a legal wiretap but they couldn't reveal that in the charging instrument/plea deal. There's always Holder in the mix at Covington & Burling, after all. Could he have been the mastermind behind this? I have serious doubts but this has been such a quirky set of events with little rational connection of the dots, it is hard to be absolutely confident that something like didn't and couldn't happen.

Flynn had long been a thorn in Obama's side. Maybe he enlisted the aid of his old wingman one last time?

---

If not FISA or Title III, another possibility without going full 'cloak and dagger' on (say) UK intel .... unmasking wasn't necessary because Flynn's identity was intuitively obvious by simply reading in the transcript. Occam's razor.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

It is an interesting theory that it would have been very easy for someone at state to mention to Kislyak that he should drop a line to Flynn to establish communications with the incoming administration. That may not have been necessary however as it was inevitable Kislyak would call the new cabinet as they were announced. That was his job after all, so pretty much those listening had only to wait. Now, pushing a topic of conversation is something else. It is arguable that the sanctions were made knowing that the Russians would inevitably inquire about them with their opposites in both the outgoing and incoming administrations.

---

All the flurry of Russia stuff and the sanctions as Obama was heading for the exit seemed weird at the time. Especially after he didn't bat an eye during the Crimea episode. I don't trust the motives for any of it at this point

aggiehawg said:

---

benchmark said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Still need probable cause. And a judicially approved wire tap would be on record somewhere. And that fact would also have to be specifically mentioned in the charge and plea deal, because such evidence was obtained pursuant to a judicially approved warrant.

It wasn't, ergo there was no Title III warrant, is my position.

---

Wouldn't rule it out looking at how they handled their FISA warrants. 'Common' wiretaps are a fairly low bar when combined with judge shopping.

---

It wouldn't make sense to go to the FISA court for Page on the basis of the dossier, in which Flynn was also named I might add, but use a Title III warrant on Flynn. Although both require probable cause, in practice the FISA court's is much lower in practice.

If they had enough on Flynn to get a regular court approved wiretap, why not on Page too?

Unless...the whole Inovo deal was a set-up to be able to obtain a legal wiretap but they couldn't reveal that in the charging instrument/plea deal. There's always Holder in the mix at Covington & Burling, after all. Could he have been the mastermind behind this? I have serious doubts but this has been such a quirky set of events with little rational connection of the dots, it is hard to be absolutely confident that something like didn't and couldn't happen.

Flynn had long been a thorn in Obama's side. Maybe he enlisted the aid of his old wingman one last time?

---

I've noticed several people speculating that the transcripts of Flynn's calls may have been provided by a friendly foreign government who had him under surveillance (likely at the request of their US counterparts to hide it from scrutiny). The likely candidates would be members of FVEYs, notably the Brits located at NSA/Fort Meade.

Quote:

---

All the flurry of Russia stuff and the sanctions as Obama was heading for the exit seemed weird at the time. Especially after he didn't bat an eye during the Crimea episode. I don't trust the motives for any of it at this point.

---

I questioned the motive behind the sanctions on Russia a few weeks back. Since Obama directed nearly his entire IC to find out why the Russians were not responding, he had a distinct expectation of what he wanted them to do.

Why not just send Sec State Kerry to Moscow and ask?

Not to mention the late (Dec 15, 2016) executive order about the sharing of intel between agencies.

You know why, wise teacher.

Sydney's about to take action. Says she has some motions about ready to file.

aggiehawg said:

---

Sydney's about to take action. Says she has some motions about ready to file.

---

rab79 said:

---

So if Flynn committed perjury by pleading guilty to something he didn't do, do criminal defendants that plead innocent commit perjury as well when they are guilty? ridiculous I know but so is the Flynn perjury scenario.

---

Sounds confusing, doesn't it? But I think the the perjury issue would come during the allocution.

Quote:

---

After pleading guilty, a defendant is typically offered a formal opportunity to address the court to express remorse, and explain personal circumstances that might be considered in sentencing. This is known as an allocution statement. ... From the court's perspective, judges cannot simply accept a defendant's guilty plea.

---

LINK

I haven't gone back read the transcript but I'm not altogether convinced Judge Sullivan actually got to that part substantively, insofar as he blew up his own hearing with the treason accusation and had to go into recess.

(Further, Sullivan twice expressed doubts over the materiality of the statement as the basis of the false statement case and materiality is an element of the offense. Under Rule 11, the judge must find every element of the offense is supported before he can accept the plea. He failed to do so, so his acceptance of the guilty plea may have been reversible error.)

But the implication is that it is something else Flynn could have said other than the actual words, "I plead guilty" to support a possible perjury charge. Now whether Judge Gleeson legally can make that charge, or even Judge Sullivan can make that charge, is highly suspect as Article III judges do not have prosecutorial authority.

Perjury is not the same as criminal contempt of court. Not can it be made into a criminal contempt of court under the rules. When lawyers get sanctioned for lying to a federal court it is because they are officers of the court that warrants the punishment, not a separate charge of perjury because they are not under oath but are under the duties to not mislead the court as officers, thereto.

aggiehawg said:

---

Perjury is not the same as criminal contempt of court. Not can it be made into a criminal contempt of court under the rules. When lawyers get sanctioned for lying to a federal court it is because they are officers of the court that warrants the punishment, not a separate charge of perjury because they are not under oath but are under the duties to not mislead the court as officers, thereto.

---

Still waiting for the FISA court judges to be as upset about real lies as Sullivan is about this BS.

BOOM!

DP...

VegasAg86 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Perjury is not the same as criminal contempt of court. Not can it be made into a criminal contempt of court under the rules. When lawyers get sanctioned for lying to a federal court it is because they are officers of the court that warrants the punishment, not a separate charge of perjury because they are not under oath but are under the duties to not mislead the court as officers, thereto.

---

Still waiting for the FISA court judges to be as upset about real lies as Sullivan is about this BS.

---

So am I. <sigh>

Quote:

---

Sounds confusing, doesn't it? But I think the the perjury issue would come during the allocution.

---

So it isn't the guilty plea per se that leads to the threat of perjury but what was said in the process of pleading guilty.

rab79 said:

---

Quote:

---

Sounds confusing, doesn't it? But I think the the perjury issue would come during the allocution.

---

So it isn't the guilty plea per se that leads to the threat of perjury but what was said in the process of pleading guilty.

---

Yes. But still, even that is weak sauce. And for the legal reasons I posted earlier it would be up to DOJ, not the judge and certainly not by an amicus appointed by the judge. They just lack the Constitutional authority to do that.

rab79 said:

---

Quote:

---

Sounds confusing, doesn't it? But I think the the perjury issue would come during the allocution.

---

So it isn't the guilty plea per se that leads to the threat of perjury but what was said in the process of pleading guilty.

---

Also, materiality is based on facts outside the accused's personal knowledge. The accused accepts the government's assertion of materiality, he doesn't affirmatively represent it for himself. If Flynn did so, that's horrid practice by Covington.

Quote:

---

Also, materiality is based on facts outside the accused's personal knowledge. The accused accepts the government's assertion of materiality, he doesn't affirmatively represent it for himself. If Flynn did so, that's horrid practice by Covington.

---

Just to clarify here, materiality is an element of both perjury and a false statement charge. And that is a determination of the prosecution at first instance but can later be found to be lacking as a matter of law, as the DOJ asserted in their motion to dismiss.

And yes, Flynn's Covington & Burling lawyers were remiss in their representation of Flynn. Blatantly so.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Also, materiality is based on facts outside the accused's personal knowledge. The accused accepts the government's assertion of materiality, he doesn't affirmatively represent it for himself. If Flynn did so, that's horrid practice by Covington.

---

Just to clarify here, materiality is an element of both perjury and a false statement charge. And that is a determination of the prosecution at first instance but can later be found to be lacking as a matter of law, as the DOJ asserted in their motion to dismiss.

And yes, Flynn's Covington & Burling lawyers were remiss in their representation of Flynn. Blatantly so.

---

One of those times I put in data and not my conclusion. My point is that I don't think an admission of materiality can support a perjury or false statement charge because of the above. "Materiality" is a conclusion, not a discrete fact.

I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. Sorry if I gave that impression.

Just wanted to clarify for the IANALs who are quite understandably confused by all of this. It is hard enough for me to understand all of the stuff that's being thrown out there after Sullivan's invitation for multiple amicii.

In my view, Sullivan did the legal equivalent of chumming the waters with that move. The expected and designed response is to further blur the waters with multiple discrete charges being conflated, lumped together, mischaracterized and otherwise deliberately made confusing with a flurry of op-eds.

Judge Sullivan has already delivered his first rose (Bachelor reference) to Gleeson. But will he award others?

aggiehawg said:

---

I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. Sorry if I gave that impression.

Just wanted to clarify for the IANALs who are quite understandably confused by all of this. It is hard enough for me to understand all of the stuff that's being thrown out there after Sullivan's invitation for multiple amicii.

In my view, Sullivan did the legal equivalent of chumming the waters with that move. The expected and designed response is to further blur the waters with multiple discrete charges being conflated, lumped together, mischaracterized and otherwise deliberately made confusing with a flurry of op-eds.

Judge Sullivan has already delivered his first rose (Bachelor reference) to Gleeson. But will he award others?

---

Good points.

For the IANALs, the Govt Motion to Dismiss did not say Flynn lied in his plea. The Motion said that the Special Counsel office's analysis on materiality was incomplete and incorrect.

Quote:

---

For the IANALs, the Govt Motion to Dismiss did not say Flynn lied in his plea. The Motion said that the Special Counsel office's analysis on materiality was incomplete and incorrect.

---

Agree, fully.

drcrinum said:

---

---

If the 302 made it into their computer system then it should be available somewhere. And if strzock, page, and mccabe were emailing early versions back and forth for editing then that should be available too, right?

DOJ/FBI leadership really were something else. You too, wray.