Quote:

---

As a licensed attorney and an officer of the Court, the defendant took an oath, was bound by professional and ethical obligations, and should have been well-aware of this duty of candor ... His deceptive conduct ... was antithetical to the duty of candor and eroded the FISC's confidence in the accuracy of all previous FISA applications worked on by the defendant," Durham wrote on Thursday, adding, "The defendant's conduct also undermined the integrity of the FISA process and struck at the very core of what the FISC fundamentally relies on in reviewing FISA applications."

Durham, who used the title of "special counsel" in the filing, pointed out that Clinesmith's deception "fueled public distrust of the FBI and of the entire FISA program itself." The special counsel argued the court's sentence "should send a message that people like the defendant an attorney in a position of trust who others relied upon will face serious consequences if they commit crimes that result in material misstatements or omissions to a court."

"The government respectfully submits that a sentence of incarceration that is at least between the middle and upper end of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range is appropriate and warranted," Durham said. "This case is outside the heartland of typical cases under 18 U.S.C. 1001 [false statements], and such a sentence would reflect the seriousness of the offense."

---

Quote:

---

Durham said that "to the extent the defendant argues that he has already been punished due to loss of employment and his possible disbarment due to this felony conviction, these circumstances should not mitigate his sentence" because "these collateral consequences are entirely the result of his own wrongdoing."

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

As a licensed attorney and an officer of the Court, the defendant took an oath, was bound by professional and ethical obligations, and should have been well-aware of this duty of candor ... His deceptive conduct ... was antithetical to the duty of candor and eroded the FISC's confidence in the accuracy of all previous FISA applications worked on by the defendant," Durham wrote on Thursday, adding, "The defendant's conduct also undermined the integrity of the FISA process and struck at the very core of what the FISC fundamentally relies on in reviewing FISA applications."

Durham, who used the title of "special counsel" in the filing, pointed out that Clinesmith's deception "fueled public distrust of the FBI and of the entire FISA program itself." The special counsel argued the court's sentence "should send a message that people like the defendant an attorney in a position of trust who others relied upon will face serious consequences if they commit crimes that result in material misstatements or omissions to a court."

"The government respectfully submits that a sentence of incarceration that is at least between the middle and upper end of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range is appropriate and warranted," Durham said. "This case is outside the heartland of typical cases under 18 U.S.C. 1001 [false statements], and such a sentence would reflect the seriousness of the offense."

---

Quote:

---

Durham said that "to the extent the defendant argues that he has already been punished due to loss of employment and his possible disbarment due to this felony conviction, these circumstances should not mitigate his sentence" because "these collateral consequences are entirely the result of his own wrongdoing."

---

LINK

At least Durham wants him in jail.

---

The Catalyst said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

I guess we should start all post in here with WTF

Quote:

---

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said his colleague Emmet Sullivan could find that "the wording of the pardon is too broad, in that it provides protections beyond the date of the pardon."

---

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2020/12/04/judge-questions-whether-trumps-pardon-of-michael-flynn-is-too-broad/?slreturn=20201104120619

---

I feel at this point that judge emmet sullivan can **** right off.

---

Quote:

---

A trial judge raised the possibility that another federal judge overseeing Michael Flynn's case could find that President Donald Trump's pardon of Flynn is too broad, if it unlawfully protects the former national security adviser from future prosecutions.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said at a hearing Friday that he doesn't think U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, his colleague presiding over the Flynn case, "has a lot of options in reference to what he does" after the pardon was granted, "unless he takes the position that the wording of the pardon is too broad, in that it provides protections beyond the date of the pardon."

"I don't know what impact that would have, what decision he would make, if he makes that determination that the pardon of Mr. Flynn is for a period that the law does not permit. I don't know if that's correct or not," the judge continued. "Theoretically, the decision could be reached because the wording in the pardon seems to be very, very broad. It could be construed, I think, as extending protections against criminal prosecutions after the date the pardon was issued."

---

Quote:

---

"I don't know if Judge Sullivan will make that determination or not," Walton added.

Walton made the comments in a public records case over FBI interviews from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller III's investigation. CNN and BuzzFeed News, represented by Ballard Spahr's Charles Tobin at Friday's hearing, want the records from Flynn's FBI interviews to be reprocessed in light of the pardon, revealing information that was initially shielded due to an exemption tied to ongoing prosecutions

---