Crime Appeals Court to rehear Michael Flynn case

[Bloody Pulp]

@Cubo de Sangre start here for an easy to digest break down of things. I forget who introduced this guy to the last Flynn thread but this guy and Robert Barnes do a good job breaking it all down if you have long commute to listen to some audio like I did.

they cover a lot of the new developments in the Flynn saga and make it easy to understand for folks who may not have a legal background to draw upon.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

@Cubo de Sangre start here for an easy to digest break down of things. I forget who introduced this guy to the last Flynn thread but this guy and Robert Barnes do a good job breaking it all down if you have long commute to listen to some audio like I did.

they cover a lot of the new developments in the Flynn saga and make it easy to understand for folks who may not have a legal background to draw upon.

Thanks, bro. Real quick, what makes this teller of the tale a credible one?

 

[Bloody Pulp]

Thanks, bro. Real quick, what makes this teller of the tale a credible one?

he was actually on the Flynn is guilty side to start. But more it’s just the way they explain everything and Barnes is sharp. He called the 2-1 appeals panel decision exactly as it came down. I called it being a decision in favor of Flynn but he went further and called which judges would vote how and why they would. And even if you disagree with them in the end, you will understand most of what is going on as they actually go over the briefs for and against and precedent cases in detail along with the new info recently released.

 

[BFoe]

Barack Obama’s former DNI general counsel, who also said the Steele dossier played no role in the Russia election interference investigation, thinks Flynn is definitely guilty. More at 11:00.

I mean, the first paragraph alone

“The gist of the Department of Justice’s seemingly unprecedented motion to dismiss charges against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn is that Flynn’s admitted lies to FBI agents could not have been “material[,]” because there was no predication for an investigation at the time of his interview by the FBI.”

“The department also apparently feels it necessary to half-heartedly argue that Flynn’s statements might not have been false, a tellingly silly argument in light of Flynn’s multiple admissions that they were.”

the DOJ’s move to dismiss is not remotely close to “unprecedented.” Quite the opposite. The literally unprecedented part of this is Sullivan refusing to grant the rule 48 motion and the DC circuit overturning their own panels decision. Both of which are FAR more rare occurrences.

“Flynn’s admitted lies to FBI agents” and his “multiple admissions” let’s pretend Flynn isn’t contending that he didn’t lie and was coerced into saying he did to save his son from prosecution and also gloss over the whole “both agents who interviewed him said they didn’t think he was lying and neither did their bosses at FBI part.

good faith article ensues

Really, a pissing match about my source? A tell-tale move when you can’t debate the source.

Spoiler: Immature pissing match about source

Your source was what, the WSJ? Not a terrible source, to be sure, it’s pretty well known.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/
Wow, it got a rating of “Mostly Factual.”
Overall, we rate the Wall Street Journal Right-Center biased due to low biased news reporting in combination with a strongly right biased editorial stance. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High, due to anti-climate, anti-science stances and occasional misleading editorials.
Misleading editorials like the one you posted, in fact.
My source?
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/lawfare-blog/
Overall, we rate Lawfare Blog Least Biased based on evidence-based balanced reporting. We also rate them Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and for being used as a resource for verified fact-checkers.
My source has never failed a fact check, and in fact, is used by fact checkers because of its accuracy. Give me a break with the lame source attack. It’s a fine attack if someone has a blatantly fucked up source—but mine isn’t.

The DOJ’s move is quite the opposite of unprecedented? How many more cases do you know where an AG tried to drop a case against a witness who had already plead guilty to it?
Their argument re: rule 48(a) is based on a misunderstanding. Sullivan did not have to grant any such thing.
https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/why-do-rule-48a-dismissals-require-leave-of-court/

 

[Bloody Pulp]

Really, a pissing match about my source? A tell-tale move when you can’t debate the source.

Spoiler: Immature pissing match about source

Your source was what, the WSJ? Not a terrible source, to be sure, it’s pretty well known.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/
Wow, it got a rating of “Mostly Factual.”
Overall, we rate the Wall Street Journal Right-Center biased due to low biased news reporting in combination with a strongly right biased editorial stance. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High, due to anti-climate, anti-science stances and occasional misleading editorials.
Misleading editorials like the one you posted, in fact.
My source?
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/lawfare-blog/
Overall, we rate Lawfare Blog Least Biased based on evidence-based balanced reporting. We also rate them Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and for being used as a resource for verified fact-checkers.
My source has never failed a fact check, and in fact, is used by fact checkers because of its accuracy. Give me a break with the lame source attack. It’s a fine attack if someone has a blatantly fucked up source—but mine isn’t.

The DOJ’s move is quite the opposite of unprecedented? How many more cases do you know where an AG tried to drop a case against a witness who had already plead guilty to it?
Their argument re: rule 48(a) is based on a misunderstanding. Sullivan did not have to grant any such thing.
https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/why-do-rule-48a-dismissals-require-leave-of-court/

I didn’t just attack your source. I explained who he was and broke down how partisan the very first paragraph he wrote was to demonstrate he was not arguing in good faith. Much as you.

If you were paying attention I already outlined a
few such cases but here:

“The Government’s action dismissing the Flynn prosecution because it resulted from a guilty plea is neither unusual nor indicative of favoritism. In addition to the more than 500 innocent people on the National Registry of Exonerations who had entered guilty pleas, Petitioner’s Appendix includes court orders dismissing charges against three defendants by Judge Leon in 2012 upon a two-page motion to dismiss filed by the Government one year after their guilty pleas. App.81- 3 Respondent’s “best case” is twenty years old and allowed a hearing only to cast “sunshine” on the mere “conclusory interest” the Virgin Islands prosecutor initially provided.
In Re Richards, 213 F.3d 773 (3d Cir. 2000). Notably, the Third Circuit held that the burden of proof does not shift to the prosecutor to prove that dismissal is in the public interest.Id. at 788.4
To the contrary, the evidence long suppressed indicated that General Flynn was singled out for special adverse treatment by the highest levels of the FBI, investigated and interviewed with no basis whatsoever, and “evidence” against him was falsified. ECF Nos. 162, 170, 188, 198.
USCA Case #20-5143 Document #1846621 Filed: 06/10/2020 Page 12 of 26

9
83. Further, on a two-page motion by Attorney General Eric Holder, Respondent himself dismissed criminal charges against former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens after the jury convicted him on multiple counts, for the same reasons the Department of Justice revealed here: suppression of exculpatory evidence. And the Third Circuit in
United States v. Smith, 55 F.3d 157 (4th Cir. 1995), reversed a district judge’s denial of the Government’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss, which was made after the defendant had pleaded guilty and cooperated with the Government. The
en banc Fifth Circuit did also.
United States v. Hamm, 659 F.2d 624 (5th Cir.1981) (en banc). Nor is dismissal unusual following guilty pleas in high-profile cases where, as here, prosecutors “persuaded” defendants to plead guilty for conduct that was not criminal. The guilty pleas were vacated for former Arthur Andersen partner David Duncan and Enron Broadband executive Christopher Calger

The leave of court is meant to protect the defendants from malicious prosecutors, not the government from not being able to prosecute people. So a prosecutor can’t drop a case if it looks like it’s not going his way and then keep re-charging it hoping for a better result and if he doesn’t get it just drop the case and then re-charge again.

now it’s your turn to provide even ONE case where a just refused to grant a rule 48 motion or a circuit court taking a case en banc to vacate their own panels decision granting a writ of mandamus. We’ll wait.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

@Cubo de Sangre start here for an easy to digest break down of things. I forget who introduced this guy to the last Flynn thread but this guy and Robert Barnes do a good job breaking it all down if you have long commute to listen to some audio like I did.

they cover a lot of the new developments in the Flynn saga and make it easy to understand for folks who may not have a legal background to draw upon.

Sounds like Judge Sullivan needs to find a new line of work.

 

[andnowweknow]

Sounds like Judge Sullivan needs to find a new line of work.

He's actually just the one in charge...

Poor Flynn.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

He's actually just the one in charge...

Poor Flynn.

Crazy he hasn't already ruled for himself and saved everyone the time.

 

[ka pow]

A sanction is a penalty put on another nation to attempt to achieve compliance to some rule or law.
I won’t keep going back and forth because we did this in another thread. I will say this:
There is no difference, either objectively, or legally, between the following sentences:
Flynn lied to the FBI about discussing sanctions with Kislyak.
Flynn lied to the FBI about discussing PNG expulsions with Kislyak.
Flynn lied to the FBI about discussing the Russian response to U.S. sanctions with Kislyak.

All 3 sentences mean the same thing, and carry the same legal ramifications. I have no idea what awful media outlet you ripped this argument from, but it makes absolutely no sense and demonstrates that you aren’t knowledgeable about this case. Simple as that.

Sanction and expulsion have different meanings and were different events. The FBI accused Flynn of lying about discussing sanctions because it was more scandalous. The FBI was a part of a political smear campaign.

According to the heavily edited 302, Flynn said he didn't remember discussing the expulsion of diplomats but Flynn also suggested that it was possible that he did. How is it lying to admit to not remember specific details of a past event? Are people not allowed to say they can't remember?

 

[BFoe]

I didn’t just attack your source. I explained who he was and broke down how partisan the very first paragraph he wrote was to demonstrate he was not arguing in good faith. Much as you.

If you were paying attention I already outlined a
few such cases but here:

“The Government’s action dismissing the Flynn prosecution because it resulted from a guilty plea is neither unusual nor indicative of favoritism. In addition to the more than 500 innocent people on the National Registry of Exonerations who had entered guilty pleas, Petitioner’s Appendix includes court orders dismissing charges against three defendants by Judge Leon in 2012 upon a two-page motion to dismiss filed by the Government one year after their guilty pleas. App.81- 3 Respondent’s “best case” is twenty years old and allowed a hearing only to cast “sunshine” on the mere “conclusory interest” the Virgin Islands prosecutor initially provided.
In Re Richards, 213 F.3d 773 (3d Cir. 2000). Notably, the Third Circuit held that the burden of proof does not shift to the prosecutor to prove that dismissal is in the public interest.Id. at 788.4
To the contrary, the evidence long suppressed indicated that General Flynn was singled out for special adverse treatment by the highest levels of the FBI, investigated and interviewed with no basis whatsoever, and “evidence” against him was falsified. ECF Nos. 162, 170, 188, 198.
USCA Case #20-5143 Document #1846621 Filed: 06/10/2020 Page 12 of 26

9
83. Further, on a two-page motion by Attorney General Eric Holder, Respondent himself dismissed criminal charges against former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens after the jury convicted him on multiple counts, for the same reasons the Department of Justice revealed here: suppression of exculpatory evidence. And the Third Circuit in
United States v. Smith, 55 F.3d 157 (4th Cir. 1995), reversed a district judge’s denial of the Government’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss, which was made after the defendant had pleaded guilty and cooperated with the Government. The
en banc Fifth Circuit did also.
United States v. Hamm, 659 F.2d 624 (5th Cir.1981) (en banc). Nor is dismissal unusual following guilty pleas in high-profile cases where, as here, prosecutors “persuaded” defendants to plead guilty for conduct that was not criminal. The guilty pleas were vacated for former Arthur Andersen partner David Duncan and Enron Broadband executive Christopher Calger

The leave of court is meant to protect the defendants from malicious prosecutors, not the government from not being able to prosecute people. So a prosecutor can’t drop a case if it looks like it’s not going his way and then keep re-charging it hoping for a better result and if he doesn’t get it just drop the case and then re-charge again.

now it’s your turn to provide even ONE case where a just refused to grant a rule 48 motion or a circuit court taking a case en banc to vacate their own panels decision granting a writ of mandamus. We’ll wait.

While I’m appreciative of the hard work you must’ve put in copying and pasting from Flynn’s writ of mandamus petition, I think you veered off of (or misunderstood) my question. You took issue with the article I posted calling what Barr did “seemingly unprecedented,” so I asked if you knew of examples where the U.S. Attorney General personally intervened and dropped charges on a defendant after they had plead guilty. That’s not what happened in Richards, or Smith, or Hamm (or even Holder). Your statement on what leave of the court is meant to do is lifted directly from the filing in the Hamm case, and it cited Rinaldi, which itself may be incorrect (I posted a source on this already). The SCOTUS found in Ham that the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss couldn’t be denied as long as it wasn’t "tainted with impropriety," and was not "motivated by considerations clearly contrary to manifest public interest”—which is precisely what’s at issue in Flynn’s case. I don’t think the Holder-Stevens example is a terrible one, though. In that instance you had an AG decide not to re-try a case; Stevens, of course, maintained his innocence throughout, and was convicted possibly due to improprieties with evidence, whereas Flynn has voluntarily plead guilty and admitted he did what he was accused of. You’ve named 0 case— although I guess we can say we have some similarities in one case, while Barr has already done this in 2 cases and intervened on a third, all having to do with the same overall investigation.
Ultimately as I said earlier, the burden for Flynn to withdraw that plea prior to sentencing is quite low, so I imagine Flynn will probably walk in the end.

It did make me smile that you gave yourself credit for “outlining some cases,” when all you literally just did a cut and paste from Flynn’s court filing.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

While I’m appreciative of the hard work you must’ve put in copying and pasting from Flynn’s writ of mandamus petition, I think you veered off of (or misunderstood) my question. You took issue with the article I posted calling what Barr did “seemingly unprecedented,” so I asked if you knew of examples where the U.S. Attorney General personally intervened and dropped charges on a defendant after they had plead guilty. That’s not what happened in Richards, or Smith, or Hamm. Your statement on what leave of the court is meant to do is lifted directly from the filing in the Hamm case, and it cited Rinaldi, which itself may be incorrect (I posted a source on this already). The SCOTUS found in Ham that the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss couldn’t be denied as long as it wasn’t "tainted with impropriety," and was not "motivated by considerations clearly contrary to manifest public interest”—which is precisely what’s at issue in Flynn’s case. I don’t think the Holder-Stevens example is a terrible one, though. In that instance you had an AG decide not to re-try a case; Stevens, of course, maintained his innocence throughout, and was convicted possibly due to improprieties with evidence, whereas Flynn has voluntarily plead guilty and admitted he did what he was accused of. You’ve named 0 case— although I guess we can say we have some similarities in one case, while Barr has already done this in 2 cases and intervened on a third, all having to do with the same overall investigation.
Ultimately as I said earlier, the burden for Flynn to withdraw that plea prior to sentencing is quite low, so I imagine Flynn will probably walk in the end.

It did make me smile that you gave yourself credit for “outlining some cases,” when all you literally just did a cut and paste from Flynn’s court filing.

You’re condescension while being wrong makes me smile as well. Reminds me of another poster in here.

I understood what you asked. And if you read through what I quoted you’d see Eric Holder (Barack Obama’s AG) did step in personally and order the dismissal of the Ted Stevens case. You’re clinging to Flynn’s plea as actual evidence of guilt is cute, but obvious. As noted multiple times, Flynn contends he did not lie and was coerced into agreeing to the plea. The FBI’s own notes taken during the interview say they did not believe he was lying and he knew they had copies of the Kislyak call in question (even though they chose not to show him the transcript to clarify any incorrect recollections)

now your turn to name a single case where a judge denied a rule 48 motion or a circuit took up en banc to vacate one of its own panels decisions.

We’ll wait.

 

[BFoe]

You’re condescension while being wrong makes me smile as well. Reminds me of another poster in here.

I understood what you asked. And if you read through what I quoted you’d see Eric Holder (Barack Obama’s AG) did step in personally ans wrote a 2-page and order the dismissal of the Ted Stevens case. You’re clinging to Flynn’s plea as actual evidence of guilt is cute, but obvious. As noted multiple times, Flynn contends he did not lie and was coerced into agreeing to the plea. The FBI’s own notes taken during the interview say they did not believe he was lying and he knew they had copies of the Kislyak call in question (even though they chose not to show him the transcript to clarify any incorrect recollections)

now your turn to name a single case where a judge denied a rule 48 motion or a circuit took up en banc to vacate one of its own panels decisions.

We’ll wait.

I’m aware of what was done in the Stevens case, and I addressed the similarities and differences already. I actually don’t think it’s likely that Flynn’s case is heard en banc, and I think Sullivan is wishing on a star if he believes it will happen, so I’m not even sure why you’re asking me about that. I’ve not asserted at any time that this would occur, although I’d like it to happen due to the dispute on rule 48.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

I’m aware of what was done in the Stevens case, and I addressed the similarities and differences already. I actually don’t think it’s likely that Flynn’s case is heard en banc, and I think Sullivan is wishing on a star if he believes it will happen, so I’m not even sure why you’re asking me about that. I’ve not asserted at any time that this would occur, although I’d like it to happen due to the dispute on rule 48.

Your “dissimilarity” is that Stevens claimed innocence throughout and Flynn only claimed it after the evidence showing he was innocent was actually given to him. That’s an extremely weak argument.

but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. I’ve grown tired of having to re-explain all of the misinformation and lies presented by some in these threads so my patience is shorter out of the gate with these threads. Don’t take it personal.

 

[BFoe]

Your “dissimilarity” is that Stevens claimed innocence throughout and Flynn only claimed it after the evidence showing he was innocent was actually given to him. That’s an extremely weak argument.

but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. I’ve grown tired of having to re-explain all of the misinformation and lies presented by some in these threads so my patience is shorter out of the gate with these threads. Don’t take it personal.

I don’t take it personally, and I have the same feeling, lol. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe we had a misunderstanding. All I was trying to tell you just now is that you pivoted a bit.
1. You took issue with my source calling what a Barr did “seemingly unprecedented.” I asked a question—which was an honest question btw, because I can’t think of an instance—where an AG personally intervened to drop a case after a defendant already plead guilty.
2. You listed cases, but none that matched that criteria.
3. I acknowledged similarities re: Holder, but pointed out it didn’t answer the question I was curious about.
4. You somehow mistook this as my legal argument in the Flynn case, which is never what I said.

All I am saying re: rule 48 is that if there is question of whether this dismissal is “tainted with impropriety,” that Sullivan isn’t forced/obligated to dismiss it. But I do think Flynn has the right to withdraw his plea, and if the govt isn’t keen to try the case (or drops charges) I’m not sure what else can be done. So the result will probably be the same in the end.

Anyway, we won’t beat the dead horse. Thanks for the chat/debate.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

I don’t take it personally, and I have the same feeling, lol. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe we had a misunderstanding. All I was trying to tell you just now is that you pivoted a bit.
1. You took issue with my source calling what a Barr did “seemingly unprecedented.” I asked a question—which was an honest question btw, because I can’t think of an instance—where an AG personally intervened to drop a case after a defendant already plead guilty.
2. You listed cases, but none that matched that criteria.
3. I acknowledged similarities re: Holder, but pointed out it didn’t answer the question I was curious about.
4. You somehow mistook this as my legal argument in the Flynn case, which is never what I said.

All I am saying re: rule 48 is that if there is question of whether this dismissal is “tainted with impropriety,” that Sullivan isn’t forced/obligated to dismiss it. But I do think Flynn has the right to withdraw his plea, and if the govt isn’t keen to try the case (or drops charges) I’m not sure what else can be done. So the result will probably be the same in the end.

Anyway, we won’t beat the dead horse. Thanks for the chat/debate.

no worries. I did conflate your argument over Barr with Flynn, so I’ll take that one.

As for the “tainted with impropriety” the presumption of regularity falls to the DOJ acting within their scope. They don’t need to prove to a judge that they aren’t acting for some nefarious reason in order to dismiss a case. The judge would have to have evidence to show impropriety beyond just disagreeing with the decision. And technically it was USA Jeff Jensen who recommended dropping the case, Barr just followed his recommendation.

 

[funcrusher2007]

Still trying to fight the 2016 election I see.

Some folks just can't let it go.

The man only pled guilty because the government was threatening his children. I can't think of many parents who wouldn't do the same thing.

Lolol, that’s awesome..
Deranged,ignorant and scary that there’s people like you that actually believe this....but awesome.

 

[BFoe]

no worries. I did conflate your argument over Barr with Flynn, so I’ll take that one.

As for the “tainted with impropriety” the presumption of regularity falls to the DOJ acting within their scope. They don’t need to prove to a judge that they aren’t acting for some nefarious reason in order to dismiss a case. The judge would have to have evidence to show impropriety beyond just disagreeing with the decision. And technically it was USA Jeff Jensen who recommended dropping the case, Barr just followed his recommendation.

It’s all good, and actually your point that they don’t need to prove they aren’t being nefarious in order to drop a case, is a fair point.
Either way, there’s some contentious legal issues here which will be interesting to watch unfold. I’m sure we’ll see each other in more threads as this continues to play out.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

It’s all good, and actually your point that they don’t need to prove they aren’t being nefarious in order to drop a case, is a fair point.
Either way, there’s some contentious legal issues here which will be interesting to watch unfold. I’m sure we’ll see each other in more threads as this continues to play out.

 

[andnowweknow]

 

[Bloody Pulp]