What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (10 Viewers)

Bogeys said:
Surprised this wasn't already here.   First paragraph:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A former federal judge appointed to review the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss criminal charges against President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn said there was evidence of a “gross abuse” of prosecutorial power and that the request should be denied.
Click to expand...
He also finds Flynn committed perjury. Damn.

 
im sure the judge that reviewed the case will be one if not all of these : appointed by Obama , deep stater or never trumper so the ruling is tainted and will need a congressional hearing to look into him and his ruling 

 
Meh.  This is all just a show.  The Courts will ultimately relent and grant the dismissal, be it in this proceeding, by Sullivan, or on appeal.  It's too politically charged for the Courts to step in.  Another win for the politicization of the Justice Department.  Next stop, political weaponizing!

 
Henderson joined Rao ordering Sullivan to dismiss the Flynn case.

- Wilkins dissented.

WILKINS, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part: It is a great irony that, in finding the District Court to have exceeded its jurisdiction, this Court so grievously oversteps its own. This appears to be the first time that we have issued a writ of mandamus to compel a district court to rule in a particular manner on a motion without first giving the lower court a reasonable opportunity to issue its own ruling; the first time any court has held that a district court must grant “leave of court” pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) without even holding a hearing on the merits of the motion; and the first time we have issued the writ even though the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy, on the theory that another party would not have had an adequate alternate remedy if it had filed a petition as well. Any one of these is sufficient reason to exercise our discretion to deny the petition; together, they compel its rejection. I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority’s grant of the writ.
Click to expand...
- Expect the DC Circuit to possibly take it up en banc.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
>>Just finished the Flynn decision. It is an excrescence, as the dissent points out. It guts one of the most important safeguards of our democracy: an independent judiciary. Sullivan should seek en banc review. He will win if he does--the opinion is that weak.<<

Norm Eisen

- It is Eisen but sounds right.

- The whole fed to is to keep Sullivan from co ducting a hearing that will result in the DOJ’s embarrassment, which Rao straight out says is unacceptable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see a lot of news sources, both left-leaning and right-leaning, mischaracterize the appellate court's order.

It was not a determination that Flynn is innocent, or that he shouldn't have been prosecuted, or that the DOJ has good reasons for dismissing the charges against him. It explicitly does not consider -- and prohibits the trial judge from considering --- any of those issues.

Here's a summary for non-lawyers.

1. Mike Flynn pleaded guilty to some criminal charges and was awaiting sentencing.

2. The DOJ then reversed course and sought to dismiss the charges against him.

3. Specifically, the DOJ says that it can no longer prove Flylnn's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because he never should have been questioned by the FBI, so any lies he told during that questioning cannot have been material. (Materiality is required under the applicable criminal statute.)

4. By law, the DOJ may dismiss the charges "with leave of court." What does that mean? It means that the DOJ can request a dismissal, but the court, not the DOJ, does the actual dismissing.

5. The question is to what extent the court must simply rubber-stamp the DOJ's request, or to what extent the court should evaluate whether the DOJ's request is for a corrupt purpose and should therefore be denied.

6. There's case law saying that a court shouldn't grant a request to dismiss if the request is for a corrupt purpose -- for example, a court shouldn't allow the DOJ to keep dismissing and refiling, dismissing and refiling, just to harass a defendant. Rather, a court should dismiss a case only if dismissal is in the public interest.

7. So the trial court decided to hear argument about whether dismissal was for a corrupt purpose or whether it would be in the public interest. It appointed an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") to argue on behalf of the public interest so that opposing perspectives could be considered.

8. The DOJ went to the appellate court and said (paraphrasing), "Please stop the trial court in its tracks. The trial judge isn't supposed to look into whether we're being corrupt or not. It's supposed to just rubber-stamp our request without regard to any possible corruption."

9. The appellate court mostly agreed with the DOJ. In a 2-1 decision, the appellate court said that the trial judge shouldn't always grant a prosecutor's request for dismissal: it can still deny such a request if it's for the purpose of harassing the defendant. But it should always grant a prosecutor's request for dismissal as long as the defendant agrees with the request. There are only two parties here: the government (that is, the prosecutor) and the defendant. If they both agree on something, it's not up to the court to strike out its own contrary position. The "public interest" is not represented by the court or an amicus curiae. It is represented by the DOJ, which is not to be second-guessed except by the defendant. The defendant is the party most naturally positioned to hold a prosecutor's corruption in check. If the prosecutor and defendant are being corrupt together, well, maybe Congress can do something about it, but not the courts. The courts aren't authorized to look into it. The phrase "with leave of court" doesn't give a court the discretion to go against both the prosecutor and the defendant when those parties agree with each other.

10. This is not my area of law. I'm not a writ of mandamus guy. My understanding is that the appellate court's ruling here was a surprise. It kind of goes against the spirit of previous precedent and awkwardly steps on the normal powers of a trial judge to ensure fair proceedings in his courtroom. But it's not completely crazy -- even if there's approximately zero chance that Judge Rao would have decided it the same way if the request had come from, say, Biden's DOJ rather than Trump's. I mean, it's clear that Rao is a partisan hack doing partisan-hack things here. But even for a non-hack, the reasoning seems vaguely defensible, if not exactly airtight. (After all, she did get Henderson to go along.)

11. In any case, the main point here is that the decision has nothing to do with whether Flynn was mistreated, or whether the FBI overreached, or whether the DOJ is acting corruptly. It has nothing to do with substance, only procedure. The decision is effectively saying: "Even if Bill Barr wants Flynn released for super horribly corrupt political reasons, we're not going to look into it, and we're not going to let the trial court look into it. As a matter of procedure, the DOJ's request for dismissal may not be second-guessed by the judiciary, period."

12. I do think it would be interesting to see what the full court would say if it takes this up en banc.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Will be glad when this is over.  There was no reason for this charade to last as long as it did, no reason for the FBI to blindside him over a bogus conspiracy theory. Just dismiss the case already.  

 
ren hoek said:
Will be glad when this is over.  There was no reason for this charade to last as long as it did, no reason for the FBI to blindside him over a bogus conspiracy theory. Just dismiss the case already.  
Click to expand...
So long as they change the policies and refuse to prosecute future people for the same "crime". But we all know this won't change the way the FBI operates - it will just change the way Flynn gets to live his life as a free man

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
9. The appellate court mostly agreed with the DOJ. In a 2-1 decision, the appellate court said that the trial judge shouldn't always grant a prosecutor's request for dismissal: it can still deny such a request if it's for the purpose of harassing the defendant. But it should always grant a prosecutor's request for dismissal as long as the defendant agrees with the request. There are only two parties here: the government (that is, the prosecutor) and the defendant. If they both agree on something, it's not up to the court to strike out its own contrary position. The "public interest" is not represented by the court or an amicus curiae. It is represented by the DOJ, which is not to be second-guessed except by the defendant. The defendant is the party most naturally positioned to hold a prosecutor's corruption in check. If the prosecutor and defendant are being corrupt together, well, maybe Congress can do something about it, but not the courts. The courts aren't authorized to look into it. The phrase "with leave of court" doesn't give a court the discretion to go against both the prosecutor and the defendant when those parties agree with each other.
Click to expand...
I have very little knowledge about legal topics, but just from a logic standpoint this seems absurd. What happens if there is a situation in which the defendant is found guilty, the defendant then bribes the DOJ to drop the case, they try to do so, and then incontrovertible proof of this bribery then becomes known to the court? It would be hard to argue that the defendant is better positioned to hold the prosecutor's corruption in check than the court in this case. 

 
turnerj0 said:
I have very little knowledge about legal topics, but just from a logic standpoint this seems absurd. What happens if there is a situation in which the defendant is found guilty, the defendant then bribes the DOJ to drop the case, they try to do so, and then incontrovertible proof of this bribery then becomes known to the court? It would be hard to argue that the defendant is better positioned to hold the prosecutor's corruption in check than the court in this case. 
Click to expand...
Good eye. My summary oversimplified. Judge Rao actually named two situations where the court shouldn't grant a prosecutor's request for dismissal: (1) when the prosecutor is dismissing in order to harass the defendant, and (2) bribery.

Judge Rao goes on to state that there is no clear evidence of either one in the record here.

This does raise the question, I suppose, of what happens if the judge has incontrovertible evidence of bribery that doesn't appear in the record. (I suppose he'd bring that up when responding to the writ.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1276328503638712332

Trump on Roger Stone, with whom he has had a decades-long relationship and who has been one of his key advisers at various points: "I've known him for a long time. But I've known him like everybody in Washington knew him."

"He was not involved in the campaign. Maybe a little bit at the very, very beginning," Trump says of Roger Stone, who was an official part of his campaign for the first two months in the 2015 primary and remained a regular unofficial adviser during the 2016 general.

:no:    :rolleyes:  

I haven't seen this interview with Sean Hannity that this quote is taken from, but, seriously, how could he say this with a straight face?

 
squistion said:
https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1276328503638712332

Trump on Roger Stone, with whom he has had a decades-long relationship and who has been one of his key advisers at various points: "I've known him for a long time. But I've known him like everybody in Washington knew him."

"He was not involved in the campaign. Maybe a little bit at the very, very beginning," Trump says of Roger Stone, who was an official part of his campaign for the first two months in the 2015 primary and remained a regular unofficial adviser during the 2016 general.

:no:    :rolleyes:  

I haven't seen this interview with Sean Hannity that this quote is taken from, but, seriously, how could he say this with a straight face?
Click to expand...
When you lie all the time it gets pretty easy to lie with a straight face....although for a habitual liar, he's not very good at it.

 
Herb said:
Cant imagine being a veteran and hearing this news. @Max Power, have you seen this?
Click to expand...
I saw a buddy post something on facebook, but didn't have time to read it yet. I also dont have a NYT subscription, so I read the post's article on it.

Sounds like Trump was notified of the claim in late march. I departed Afghanistan in late march and this claim wasnt on our radar (at my level) at the time.

Entering a peace agreement with the Taliban shortly before that was reported probably complicates the situation. 

I need to research some more on the claim. The post's article said payments were made, but were unable to be tied to any specific death. Is there an article out there confirming a link?

We deal with green on blue violence more than we should, but to my knowledge those events were never linked back to Russia. 

Is the main concern that we haven't responded to Russia yet over this?

 
Max Power said:
I saw a buddy post something on facebook, but didn't have time to read it yet. I also dont have a NYT subscription, so I read the post's article on it.

Sounds like Trump was notified of the claim in late march. I departed Afghanistan in late march and this claim wasnt on our radar (at my level) at the time.

Entering a peace agreement with the Taliban shortly before that was reported probably complicates the situation. 

I need to research some more on the claim. The post's article said payments were made, but were unable to be tied to any specific death. Is there an article out there confirming a link?

We deal with green on blue violence more than we should, but to my knowledge those events were never linked back to Russia. 

Is the main concern that we haven't responded to Russia yet over this?
Click to expand...
It's not that we haven't responded, it's our response has been to unilaterally invite Putin back into the G-7 and deliver ventilators to Russia.

 
Max Power said:
I saw a buddy post something on facebook, but didn't have time to read it yet. I also dont have a NYT subscription, so I read the post's article on it.

Sounds like Trump was notified of the claim in late march. I departed Afghanistan in late march and this claim wasnt on our radar (at my level) at the time.

Entering a peace agreement with the Taliban shortly before that was reported probably complicates the situation. 

I need to research some more on the claim. The post's article said payments were made, but were unable to be tied to any specific death. Is there an article out there confirming a link?

We deal with green on blue violence more than we should, but to my knowledge those events were never linked back to Russia. 

Is the main concern that we haven't responded to Russia yet over this?
Click to expand...
What is green on blue violence? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Snorkelson said:
What is green on blue violence? 
Click to expand...
It's when a member of the Afghan National Army or Security Force kill an American on purpose.

"Green" is typically referred to a partner force.

"Blue" is a friendly U.S. force. 

These events happen several times a year. There are always investigations into the incident and the Green member does not generally survive the attack. 

I've yet to hear a Russian link to any event, but understand that doesn't mean there hasn't been. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It’s says it’s not clear which killings were under suspicion, but obviously it’s implicit from that some deaths are under suspicion.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see more work shown before I jump two feet into this. 

They can confirm bounties were paid right? To whom? In the intelligence community if you can show that fact alone, we can tell if that payment was linked to any network that had ANY connection to a US death. 

I'm not dismissing the idea, but like Ren pointed out, show me a bit more before I get worked up over allegations.

 
I'm not believing a ####### gosh darn word they say ever again until I see substantive proof.  That's how we get hoaxes like WMDs in Iraq, 'incubator babies,' and "collusion".  Audio recording, names, places, video, pictures, something.  Can't you people see?  They lie their asses off all the time.  They lie about torture programs, mass surveillance, war crimes.  They are fundamentally rotten institutions.  They have ####ed us so hard and people still gobble up their provocative claims like they were born yesterday.  

 
In any case we shouldn't be in Afghanistan in the first place.  We don't get to occupy a country for 19 years & blow it to smithereens and then act like the victim.  The US killed Russian-backed forces in Syria, another country where we don't belong, it's what happens when empires send young kids to die in bogus wars so transnational corporations can acquire more money and power.  Sucks that these young kids have been spoonfed propaganda for a war that's older than they are, get them out of the middle east already.  

 
Max Power said:
That was not a very convincing piece. A single unnamed official is "aware" of plot to "offer" cash payments to kill US forces.

They are "uncertain why or when" this happened and it's their "assessment" it resulted in coalition casualties, but "unsure" if it was deaths or injuries. 

That clip reminded me of peak Russiagate. 
Click to expand...
Maybe consider the White House isn’t denying it.

 
ren hoek said:
I'm not believing a ####### gosh darn word they say ever again until I see substantive proof.  That's how we get hoaxes like WMDs in Iraq, 'incubator babies,' and "collusion".  Audio recording, names, places, video, pictures, something.  Can't you people see?  They lie their asses off all the time.  They lie about torture programs, mass surveillance, war crimes.  They are fundamentally rotten institutions.  They have ####ed us so hard and people still gobble up their provocative claims like they were born yesterday.  
Click to expand...
I’m sure you just forgot to list things like Obamagate or Pizzagate too (what is ‘incubator babies’ any way?).

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
dozer
Ret. Lt. Gen Mike Flynn
2 3
Replies
104
Views
3K
Genxersrule
G
G
Mueller Investigation - Common Misconceptions (1-10)
Replies
0
Views
196
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 10 (members: 0, guests: 10)
Top