• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge hires high-powered D.C. attorney to defend his actions in Flynn case Judge Emmet G. S

sanman said:
Did you not read what ludin posted above?

US vs Fokker
With specific regard to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires “leave of court” to dismiss criminal charges against a defendant, J. Srinivasan said, “[D]ecisions to dismiss pending criminal charges … lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion.” And the leave of court language “gives no power to a district court to deny a prosecutor’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority. For instance, a court cannot deny leave of court because of a view that the defendant should stand trial notwithstanding the prosecution’s desire to dismiss the charges[.]”


This is settled law! How the hell is Judge Sullivan going against settled law??

Crazy judge is crazy.
He's only disgracing himself.
Click to expand...

Judge Sullivan has the legal option to secure a lawyer to argue the case to the appellate court, which is what he has done. In fact the appellate court could act at its own initiative to appoint a lawyer to argue the district court case rather than make Sullivan a party to the appeal. Yet the appellate panel left the decision to Sullivan who chose to exercise it. We recall the old adage he who represents himself to a court has a fool for a client and Sullivan is the exact opposite of a fool. Thinking of fools Flynn comes immediately to mind.

It is significant the appellate court did not stay Judge Sullivan's two orders. The reason is that Flynn's lawyer Powell did not request a stay for the panel to consider. Indeed a stay is issued when a court believes the (Flynn lawyers) filing has a foreseeable probability to succeed in further proceedings. When a court denies a stay then the outcome remains open in further proceedings, which is the reality here. So we get a clear notion of why Powell did not risk requesting a stay that likely would have been denied. Indeed if Powell thought she could have got a stay she'd have been all over it.

Further, the reputation and standing of the circuit court of appeals in on the line in the extraordinary Flynn filing and in the court's exceptional Writ of Mandamus. The appellate panel is in fact proceeding gingerly given it could have issued a Writ of Prohibition to Judge Sullivan but it did not do so. An appellate court can at any time initiate a Writ of Prohibition to a district court.

A Writ of Prohibition mandates the district court to cease any action over the case when the appellate court might itself and independently determine a defendant's legal right(s) are being "defeated" or if the appellate court has itself and independently determined the district court is acting outside the "normal rules and procedures." A criminal defendant can also petition the appellate court to issue a Writ of Prohibition yet Flynn's lawyer the RW Flamethrower Powell did not take this approach -- and for good reason yet again so it would seem. Neither did the appeals panel do so at its own initiative under law.

Scotus itself tends to rule unanimously on narrow technical legal issues and where, as Justice RBG has just noted in the unanimous ruling cited here regularly, lawyers need to do lawyering and judges need to do justice. Meanwhile Barr and the political hacks continue to hack away at justice, the rule of law, the Constitution, using the flying crackpot Flynn as their vehicle.
 
ludin said:
from what i have read this is unprecedented for him to do. he can easily respond to the court without a lawyer.

the issue is that he would probably face ethic charges based on his response.
Click to expand...

RW lawyers at the highly financed RW legal manageries are indeed preparing ethics challenges against Judge Sullivan. This is to be expected given RW lawyers file motions wherever they can find a court and a liberal with a traffic ticket and a judge they don't like.

The bogus ethics filing when it occurs will provide yet another RW investigation that will be fodder for RW headlines in the mass of highly financed RW media and it will give you boyz over there several new threads at which you can cut and paste literally or mentally from the mass of highly financed RW media.

You guys will bleed that "investigation" dry too as the courts amble along doing their thing, ie, actual justice.
 
sanman said:
He's going beyond his purview as a judge. A judge has to be a disinterested party to preside over a case, otherwise he should recuse himself.

He's become personally involved in this case, which a judge should not be.

Can anyone point to a similar precedent, where a judge hires an attorney to represent them?

Who's paying for this lawyer whom Judge Sullivan has hired to represent his views? It matters.
Click to expand...

The lawyer is representing the district court.

Sullivan is not on trial in any respect.

Flynn is the criminal defendant. Flynn's RW Flamethrower lawyer Powell is fully engaged in her standard legal profession of pulling rabbits out of a hat.
 
sanman said:
Prosecutor has fully dropped charges - that is their right to do. There hasn't been any sentencing, so the matter is indeed pending.

Suppose Flynn had already been sentenced. Then obviously the matter is no longer pending, and if there was any desire to challenge that sentence already passed (like say if new exculpatory evidence came out), then you have to file a completely new court process to look into the case. Here, the sentence has not been handed out, so the matter is still pending, and it's fully in DOJ's power to withdraw charges.

You're arguing incorrectly.
Click to expand...

Nothing happens without the "leave of the court," which means the judge has the final and determining say.

DoJ filed a motion to dismiss.

The executive has zero authority to file an ORDER to a court of law. The exe can file motions only which is what the Motion to Dismiss is. My god who was your retired Marine nco civics teacher.
 
Tangmo said:
Nothing happens without the "leave of the court," which means the judge has the final and determining say.

DoJ filed a motion to dismiss.

The executive has zero authority to file an ORDER to a court of law. The exe can file motions only which is what the Motion to Dismiss is. My god who was your retired Marine nco civics teacher.
Click to expand...

Did you not read what ludin posted above?

US vs Fokker
With specific regard to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires “leave of court” to dismiss criminal charges against a defendant, J. Srinivasan said, “[D]ecisions to dismiss pending criminal charges … lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion.” And the leave of court language “gives no power to a district court to deny a prosecutor’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority. For instance, a court cannot deny leave of court because of a view that the defendant should stand trial notwithstanding the prosecution’s desire to dismiss the charges[.]”
 
Tangmo said:
Nothing happens without the "leave of the court," which means the judge has the final and determining say.

DoJ filed a motion to dismiss.

The executive has zero authority to file an ORDER to a court of law. The exe can file motions only which is what the Motion to Dismiss is. My god who was your retired Marine nco civics teacher.
Click to expand...

Tangmo B. Wannabe attacking real veterans.

And not having the balls to name names.
 
sanman said:
Flynn was railroaded by dishonest cops who cooked up charges against him. They got him into a perjury trap, an illegal act - that's why the phrase exists - it wasn't just made up on the spot for Flynn.

These guys want to hang Flynn no matter what - they've got their political egos on the line, and need to maintain their McCarthyite inquisition - because if it falls apart, then they'll end up like McCarthy did in the end.
That's something they want to avoid at all costs.
Click to expand...

i missed your evidence showing a trap was set

how did the FBI compel flynn not to register as an agent of a foreign government?

how did our government obligate flynn to agree to kidnap an individual sought by the foreign government of which he had not registered as an agent?

what drugs or other manipulations were used by the FBI to compel flynn to repeatedly lie to them, even after the FBI gave him multiple opportunities to change his false testimony?

apparently you have the inside scoop, making bold statements without any factual basis. so, now is the time to share with us the evidence you have documenting your allegations against the FBI
 
apdst said:
No, no they don't. The DOJ isn't part of the Judicial Branch. It's called "seperation of powers".
Click to expand...

Meaning the DOJ may only suggest things to the Judicial, the judge has ultimate power over his court. He has separate but EQUAL power with the Executive.
 
justabubba said:
i missed your evidence showing a trap was set

how did the FBI compel flynn not to register as an agent of a foreign government?
Click to expand...

Your statement here is again confirming my suspicion that the strategy was to trap Flynn in a situation to force him to plead guilty on a Russia-related allegation to avoid being prosecuted on a non-Russia-related matter.
So this was worse than just a perjury trap - because a perjury trap is typically meant to artificially compel you to expose something worse. Here, the real trap was that they already knew about Flynn's unregistered work for Turkey (everybody in Washington does stuff like that) - so they thought they'd use that to then coerce Flynn to plead guilty on Russia in order to avoid prosecution on the non-Russia-related Turkey issue.

The obvious benefit from that trap is that it would further the political narrative of the whole Russia Collusion game, and thus steal the freedom of action of the legitimately elected incoming administration.


how did our government obligate flynn to agree to kidnap an individual sought by the foreign government of which he had not registered as an agent?
Click to expand...

How did you decide on whether to stop beating your wife?
Your question infers guilt on something that's totally unproven.

what drugs or other manipulations were used by the FBI to compel flynn to repeatedly lie to them, even after the FBI gave him multiple opportunities to change his false testimony?
Click to expand...

You hinted at it above, when you brought up non-Russia-related Turkey matters. As I said above, they already knew about the non-Russia-related lobbying for NATO ally Turkey, and so they figured that could use that to arm-twist Flynn into confessing to any Russia-related charge they could artificially cook up on him. The goal of forcing him to confess on some cooked up Russia-related charge would be to further the Russia Collusion hoax narrative.

As the Romans say - cui bono - who profits?

This isn't the way the justice system is supposed to work, and the voting public will see it for the obvious sham justice it is.



apparently you have the inside scoop, making bold statements without any factual basis. so, now is the time to share with us the evidence you have documenting your allegations against the FBI
Click to expand...

The problem is that we don't actually know what Flynn said - we just have hearsay from a Strzok who hates the Trump Whitehouse, along with input from his Trump-hating mistress Lisa Page.
Notes from actual interview aren't there, original 302 isn't there, and the 302 that was used in the filing was composed weeks later after the interview. That's not a credible standard of justice.

If you support this standard of justice, then you should agree to consistently embrace it, including for yourself and those in your political camp. (But you won't do that)
Because creating 2 standards of justice - one for those you politically dislike and another for everybody else - is the epitome of injustice, and exactly the kind of system that make so many 3rd world socialist regimes the sh!thole countries they are. Unfortunately those rotten socialist practices are infecting socialist co-ideologues living in the 1st world.

It's not just people like Strzok, Page, Comey and Schiff, but people like you who are a threat to the Republic, because you'll support any dirty tricks, no matter how extreme, as long they help you win politically.
 
iguanaman said:
Meaning the DOJ may only suggest things to the Judicial, the judge has ultimate power over his court. He has separate but EQUAL power with the Executive.
Click to expand...

By the same token, the judge can't force the DOJ to press charges.
 
iguanaman said:
There are no charges to dismiss only a convicted felon who they want Sullivan to pardon. He's not having it. What if he went to trial and was found guilty? You would still think Sullivan should pardon him because the DOJ asked him to? This is the same thing.
??
Click to expand...

facts state otherwise.
your opinion has been destroyed by facts yet you still don't get it?

liberalism at its finest.
 
Tangmo said:
RW lawyers at the highly financed RW legal manageries are indeed preparing ethics challenges against Judge Sullivan. This is to be expected given RW lawyers file motions wherever they can find a court and a liberal with a traffic ticket and a judge they don't like.

The bogus ethics filing when it occurs will provide yet another RW investigation that will be fodder for RW headlines in the mass of highly financed RW media and it will give you boyz over there several new threads at which you can cut and paste literally or mentally from the mass of highly financed RW media.

You guys will bleed that "investigation" dry too as the courts amble along doing their thing, ie, actual justice.
Click to expand...

did you say something?
a lot of words and no substance.

this judge has committed just a few ethical violations not that you care. we know you don't which is why leftism is the most dangerous thing in this country and why flynn is where he is.
 
Plasmaball said:
Yes yes they do.
Click to expand...

not based on the dc court opinion. they have to submit the dismissal and the judge has no choice but to accept it whether he likes it or not.

this has already been proven and posted in this thread and others.
 
sanman said:
Your statement here is again confirming my suspicion that the strategy was to trap Flynn in a situation to force him to plead guilty on a Russia-related allegation to avoid being prosecuted on a non-Russia-related matter.
So this was worse than just a perjury trap - because a perjury trap is typically meant to artificially compel you to expose something worse. Here, the real trap was that they already knew about Flynn's unregistered work for Turkey (everybody in Washington does stuff like that) - so they thought they'd use that to then coerce Flynn to plead guilty on Russia in order to avoid prosecution on the non-Russia-related Turkey issue.

The obvious benefit from that trap is that it would further the political narrative of the whole Russia Collusion game, and thus steal the freedom of action of the legitimately elected incoming administration.




How did you decide on whether to stop beating your wife?
Your question infers guilt on something that's totally unproven.



You hinted at it above, when you brought up non-Russia-related Turkey matters. As I said above, they already knew about the non-Russia-related lobbying for NATO ally Turkey, and so they figured that could use that to arm-twist Flynn into confessing to any Russia-related charge they could artificially cook up on him. The goal of forcing him to confess on some cooked up Russia-related charge would be to further the Russia Collusion hoax narrative.

As the Romans say - cui bono - who profits?

This isn't the way the justice system is supposed to work, and the voting public will see it for the obvious sham justice it is.





The problem is that we don't actually know what Flynn said - we just have hearsay from a Strzok who hates the Trump Whitehouse, along with input from his Trump-hating mistress Lisa Page.
Notes from actual interview aren't there, original 302 isn't there, and the 302 that was used in the filing was composed weeks later after the interview. That's not a credible standard of justice.

If you support this standard of justice, then you should agree to consistently embrace it, including for yourself and those in your political camp. (But you won't do that)
Because creating 2 standards of justice - one for those you politically dislike and another for everybody else - is the epitome of injustice, and exactly the kind of system that make so many 3rd world socialist regimes the sh!thole countries they are. Unfortunately those rotten socialist practices are infecting socialist co-ideologues living in the 1st world.

It's not just people like Strzok, Page, Comey and Schiff, but people like you who are a threat to the Republic, because you'll support any dirty tricks, no matter how extreme, as long they help you win politically.
Click to expand...

your presumption is the government engaged in dirty tricks against flynn, when the facts reveal he was a crook
 
justabubba said:
your presumption is the government engaged in dirty tricks against flynn, when the facts reveal he was a crook
Click to expand...

With your statement here, you're again hinting at what the gameplan has really been about all along.

From what I see, political partisans embedded in the justice system already knew about Flynn's unregistered lobbying work for Turkey, which was non-Russia-related. These political partisans knew that they could use the Turkey stuff to arm-twist Flynn into confessing to whatever Russia-related charge they could cook up, which would advance them toward their true goal - furthering the fake Russia Collusion narrative, to open up a deeper investigation against the legitimately elected President to oust him. That's the perfect way to carry out a coup d'etat under legal cover against someone whose policy views you intensely dislike, in spite of them having been legitimately elected.

Thus they decided to find some way to question Flynn, and find some way to get him to lie on something related to Russia. Even if he didn't lie, he could still be arm-twisted into later pleading guilty that he did, because the Turkey-lobbying knife could be held at his throat. If this type of garbage standard of "justice" is allowed to stand, then I want the same type of thing to be done to every Democrat, so that we can all live under this common standard of "justice" together. What would be most unfair is if an official in a Democrat administration were treated this way, only for our moral lecturers on the Left to selectively cry foul. What's Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander - fair enough? Will you agree to it?
 
Judge Sullivan needs to reply to only one of Powell's three petition requests, which is for the three judge panel to issue a Writ of Mandamus "ordering the district court to (1) grant the Government's Motion to Dismiss with prejudice." With prejudice means of course no further charges or retrial. This is the only thing Sullivan and now his super high powered attorney Wilkinson needs to do.


The appellate panel ignored the other two items in Powell's petition request against Sullivan: (2) vacate [Sullivan's] order appointing amicus curiae and (3) assign the case to another judge for any additional proceedings. Sullivan need not address these two -- although he can and Wilkinson is expected to address 'em anyway.


It is unusual indeed for an appeals court to accept a petition for a Writ of Mandamus, however, the word among Washington lawyers is that, had the circuit court denied the Writ summarily, Powell would have had to go to the Supremes and that Scotus would not have accepted the case. Scotus would want the defendant's case only after it is fully concluded, ie, sentencing with a full and completed record-- and not a moment before then. Had Powell gone to Scotus and been denied access, the case would revert to Sullivan to conclude as he is proceeding.


It's also being discussed that Sullivan hired Wilkinson to argue before the full court of circuit judges. Almost every lawyer evaluating the three judge appellate panel sees 2-1 against Sullivan. One judge, Rao, is a Trumpette who just ranted against Benghazi in another case that had nothing to do with Benghazi. Judge Wilkins is a former district court judge by Obama and is expected to side with the district judge Sullivan. The GHW judge Karen Henderson is viewed as likely to cave to Rao. This is an assessment so anything can happen among the three judges, yet Sullivan seems to believe he needs a super lawyer in Wilkinson to argue before all the appellate judges after probably losing to the panel. Of the 17 Circuit judges 9 are Republican appointed though the GHW judges vary in their opinions (no surprise there of course).

Yet the view is strong of the panel that, "All they have done is ask Sullivan to explain his position. That does not imply they do not accept it. It would permit him to set his reasons out on the record, which he obviously now plans to do big time," which refers of course to Sullivan hiring Wilkinson.
 
sanman said:
Did you not read what ludin posted above?

US vs Fokker
With specific regard to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires “leave of court” to dismiss criminal charges against a defendant, J. Srinivasan said, “[D]ecisions to dismiss pending criminal charges … lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion.” And the leave of court language “gives no power to a district court to deny a prosecutor’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority. For instance, a court cannot deny leave of court because of a view that the defendant should stand trial notwithstanding the prosecution’s desire to dismiss the charges[.]”
Click to expand...

The judge has the right, the duty, the obligation to pursue any suspicions he may have.

Especially when the suspicions are of exe political interference in the judiciary and the course of justice.

This is the basis of what brought all of us here together in one happy community that is divided by right vs wrong and in which every interested person can spout off freely.

So don't be a stranger.

Strange as your views may be. ;)
 
sanman said:
With your statement here, you're again hinting at what the gameplan has really been about all along.

From what I see, political partisans embedded in the justice system already knew about Flynn's unregistered lobbying work for Turkey, which was non-Russia-related. These political partisans knew that they could use the Turkey stuff to arm-twist Flynn into confessing to whatever Russia-related charge they could cook up, which would advance them toward their true goal - furthering the fake Russia Collusion narrative, to open up a deeper investigation against the legitimately elected President to oust him. That's the perfect way to carry out a coup d'etat under legal cover against someone whose policy views you intensely dislike, in spite of them having been legitimately elected.

Thus they decided to find some way to question Flynn, and find some way to get him to lie on something related to Russia. Even if he didn't lie, he could still be arm-twisted into later pleading guilty that he did, because the Turkey-lobbying knife could be held at his throat. If this type of garbage standard of "justice" is allowed to stand, then I want the same type of thing to be done to every Democrat, so that we can all live under this common standard of "justice" together. What would be most unfair is if an official in a Democrat administration were treated this way, only for our moral lecturers on the Left to selectively cry foul. What's Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander - fair enough? Will you agree to it?
Click to expand...

you seek to rationalize flynn's illegal and unAmerican actions while chastising the federal government for bringing him to justice for his wrongdoing
Judge Sullivan apparently is not cooperating in that effort
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom