• 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!

Michael Flynn case to be reheard by full federal appeals court in D.C.

TU Curmudgeon said:
Has everyone forgotten WHICH "case" is going to be heard by the entire court?

The "case" that is going to be heard by the entire court is STRICTLY restricted to the issuance of an order by the three judge panel telling the trial judge what he MUST decide and setting a deadline for the trial judge to comply.

This "case" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Mr. Flynn actually did the deeds he was accused of (and which he admitted to) doing.
Click to expand...
I've been away from the thread for a bit (thankfully). I see the unusual suspects have been hard at trying to deflect the thread from its purpose.

You are so absolutely correct: the issue being heard on August 11 is a dry, procedural one, because the panel went so overboard with abusing procedures and trying to reshape the rulebook. I don't think it's even a close call, but we'll see. The merits of both Flynn's and DoJ's motions have yet to be heard by Judge Sullivan. I believe they will remand to him to do so. Ironically, DoJ wasn't even the appealing party.
 
NWRatCon said:
I've been away from the thread for a bit (thankfully). I see the unusual suspects have been hard at trying to deflect the thread from its purpose.

You are so absolutely correct: the issue being heard on August 11 is a dry, procedural one, because the panel went so overboard with abusing procedures and trying to reshape the rulebook. I don't think it's even a close call, but we'll see. The merits of both Flynn's and DoJ's motions have yet to be heard by Judge Sullivan. I believe they will remand to him to do so. Ironically, DoJ wasn't even the appealing party.
Click to expand...

It look to me like seven of the nine members of the full court were "slightly" perturbed with the way that two of the judges decided to "judicial independence" was an obsolete concept in the American justice system and that is what I believe the full panel is going to be considering.

After all, if one level of the court can tell a lower level of the court how it must decide a case, then a level of court higher than the circuit court of appeal can tell the circuit court of appeal how it can decide cases. That would mean that the Supreme Court would have the absolute power to decide any case anywhere anytime and there wouldn't be much that anyone could do about it because there is no higher level of court to which an appeal could be brought.

My suspicion is that the full court is going to decide that, the trial court judge DOES have the right to render any decision that the trial court judge considers appropriate, AND that the remedy for someone who doesn't like the decision would be to appeal that decision to the appropriate level of court AFTER the decision has been made.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Jesus Christ! Why is it that you are incapable of keeping up with even basic facts? Billy Barr had been the US Attorney General for 5 months when HIS DOJ refused to hand over the transcripts that Judge Sullivan had demanded. He replied that they weren't necessary because the defendant pled guilty to the charges. Then once it appears that the judge might actually impose sentence then all of sudden Barr's DOJ changed their mind without any of basic facts of the case having changed.
Click to expand...

I looked, couldn't find much information on the discovery order from Sullivan, or who denied it. But the initial discovery denial filed by defense would go through Van Grack as a first layer and he certainly denied it. So I don't know how far up the chain the decision went, and neither do you.

TLDR; we are arguing a moot point.
 
OpportunityCost said:
I looked, couldn't find much information on the discovery order from Sullivan, or who denied it. But the initial discovery denial filed by defense would go through Van Grack as a first layer and he certainly denied it. So I don't know how far up the chain the decision went, and neither do you.

TLDR; we are arguing a moot point.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have looked that hard. Since it's really not all that hard to figure out. Judge Sullivan's order was to the US Government to declassify and publicly provide the transcripts. Mr Van Grack is not, and doesn't speak for the government. So who does in such a case? Let's see. Judge Sullivan's court is part of the District of Columbia Court circuit. So it would stand to reason the US Attorney for the District of Columbia would be the one to answer on the behalf of the US government in that jurisdiction. Jessie Liu, who was appointed by President Trump, was the US Attorney for the District Columbia at the time. Attorney General Bill Barr was her supervisor/boss. And we all know what happened to the Honorable Ms. Liu shortly there afterwards. The same thing that probably would have happened to the former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York if he had fell for the same ruse she did.
 
Athanasius68 said:
If the court says the charges should not have been dropped, they are saying the Judiciary has a role in prosecutorial decisions.
If they agree and rule that the DOJ was fully within its power to drop charges, it will cause political problems for the chief judge of the court-- who had been on the Obama SCOTUS list and presumably would be on a Biden one as well.
Click to expand...

Couldn't disagree more. An 'en banc' hearing is part of the process, they will be looking at court actions only and the prosecution is a part of that court.
 
ludin said:
This shouldn't even be a thing. There is no need to review this at all.
In any even it is up to them to do it.

There is a lot of crap in this case and honestly the government is illegally punishing flynn.
They have basically bankrupted his family and frankly i am appalled that someone can be
taken down just because of being a political rival of someone else.

Not one should tolerate what the US government has done to him and he very much as a case against those people
that did this to him for civil damages.

Either way i see this getting appealed to the SCOTUS in an emergency hearing.
Sullivan is so far out of bounds it isn't funny.
Click to expand...

Just add 'In my opinion', because your advocacy isn't based on the law.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Couldn't have looked that hard. Since it's really not all that hard to figure out. Judge Sullivan's order was to the US Government to declassify and publicly provide the transcripts. Mr Van Grack is not, and doesn't speak for the government. So who does in such a case? Let's see. Judge Sullivan's court is part of the District of Columbia Court circuit. So it would stand to reason the US Attorney for the District of Columbia would be the one to answer on the behalf of the US government in that jurisdiction. Jessie Liu, who was appointed by President Trump, was the US Attorney for the District Columbia at the time. Attorney General Bill Barr was her supervisor/boss. And we all know what happened to the Honorable Ms. Liu shortly there afterwards. The same thing that probably would have happened to the former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York if he had fell for the same ruse she did.
Click to expand...

That's blanket stupidity. Van Grack has the primary responsibility of compliance. If you weren't so busy snarking you would see that.
 
OpportunityCost said:
That's blanket stupidity. Van Grack has the primary responsibility of compliance. If you weren't so busy snarking you would see that.
Click to expand...

What is really blanket stupidity in not knowing that Van Grack as a prosecutor lacked the authority to grant or deny compliance with judges order for the US government to turn over classified material. That authority can only come from people in higher positions.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1055-flynn-wiretap-transcripts/8ec2475c7ca18ddb7c42/optimized/full.pdf

"GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO ORDERS OF THE COURT
The United States of America, by and through the U.S. Attorney for the District of
Columbia, respectfully provides the following responses to the Court’s two Minute Orders issued
on May 16, 2019."
 
mrjurrs said:
Just add 'In my opinion', because your advocacy isn't based on the law.
Click to expand...

NO need it is based on the law I have posted the rulings in here before.
YOu should look them up and educate yourself on what we are discussing it will help you out
a great deal and you could actually add something to the conversation instead of adding nothing.
 
Particularly when the judge in the case is openly corrupt, as is the case with the dishonorable Emmett Sullivan.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Particularly when the judge in the case is openly corrupt, as is the case with the dishonorable Emmett Sullivan.
Click to expand...

When exactly did Sullivan become corrupt in his 36 years of service as a federal judge?
 
BlueTex said:
When exactly did Sullivan become corrupt in his 36 years of service as a federal judge?
Click to expand...

I have it directly from Winston Smith (the Acting [by Presidential Decree] Director of The Federal Legal And Civil Knowledge Bureau which publishes The Current Response And Position Bulletin that **T*H*E** **T*R*U*T*H** is that Judge Sullivan has always been corrupt and that, not only did he cheat on his Bar exams, but he cheated on his law school exams, and he cheated on his undergraduate exams, and he cheated on his LSAT, and he cheated on his SAT, and he cheated on his High School exams, and that all of that is fully documented in the latest edition of The Current Response And Position Bulletin. He also informs me that possession of any previous editions of The Current Response And Position Bulletin is a federal offence.
 
BlueTex said:
When exactly did Sullivan become corrupt in his 36 years of service as a federal judge?
Click to expand...

36 years ago.

Sullivan is a scumbag. He places partisan politics ahead of the law and justice.

He should be impeached and disbarred. We MUST regain a justice system in America. Scofflaw reprobates like Sullivan destroy the foundations of justice. You no doubt celebrate because this corrupt vermin savages an enemy of the party. BUT without a legitimate SYSTEM of justice, even good Communists are at risk of becoming victims. Just as Cancel Culture turns on Jimmy Kimmel or Ellen Degeneres , so those who trample equal justice for political gain can turn on those like you.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
36 years ago.

Sullivan is a scumbag. He places partisan politics ahead of the law and justice.

He should be impeached and disbarred. We MUST regain a justice system in America. Scofflaw reprobates like Sullivan destroy the foundations of justice. You no doubt celebrate because this corrupt vermin savages an enemy of the party. BUT without a legitimate SYSTEM of justice, even good Communists are at risk of becoming victims. Just as Cancel Culture turns on Jimmy Kimmel or Ellen Degeneres , so those who trample equal justice for political gain can turn on those like you.
Click to expand...

There was no need to duplicate my post.
 
Doesn't sound like the oral arguments went well for Flynn.... :lamo
 
BlueTex said:
Doesn't sound like the oral arguments went well for Flynn.... :lamo
Click to expand...

Links are always appreciated.

The closest that I can come to a current item is "DC Circuit Court grills lawyers in Flynn case over whether case should be dropped" (from FOX News).

One telling thing about that article is the disconnect between the lede and

Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's attorney adamantly argued before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday that District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan overstepped his authority by pushing for further arguments rather than grant prosecutors' motion to dismiss Flynn's case.

A three-judge panel previously sided with Flynn and issued a writ of mandamus ordering Sullivan to dismiss the case, but Sullivan appealed to have the court’s full roster review the case.
​

If you have been following with anything that even remotely resembles attention, you will know that the first sentence is irrelevant to the case actually before the court. The second sentence is false - the writ of mandamus sought was for an order that Judge Sullivan make A decision and not for an order that Judge Sullivan make A SPECIFIC decision.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Links are always appreciated.

The closest that I can come to a current item is "DC Circuit Court grills lawyers in Flynn case over whether case should be dropped" (from FOX News).

One telling thing about that article is the disconnect between the lede and

Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's attorney adamantly argued before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday that District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan overstepped his authority by pushing for further arguments rather than grant prosecutors' motion to dismiss Flynn's case.

A three-judge panel previously sided with Flynn and issued a writ of mandamus ordering Sullivan to dismiss the case, but Sullivan appealed to have the court’s full roster review the case.
​

If you have been following with anything that even remotely resembles attention, you will know that the first sentence is irrelevant to the case actually before the court. The second sentence is false - the writ of mandamus sought was for an order that Judge Sullivan make A decision and not for an order that Judge Sullivan make A SPECIFIC decision.
Click to expand...

Listened to almost all the oral arguments live...

You can listen to replay here...

The United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit - YouTube
 
BlueTex said:
Listened to almost all the oral arguments live...

You can listen to replay here...

The United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit - YouTube
Click to expand...

And the latest print article that I could find is

"Appeals court appears wary of dropping Flynn charges" (from The Hill) which starts out with

A federal appeals court on Tuesday appeared unsympathetic to arguments that it should order a district court judge to dismiss criminal charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

The full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reheard oral arguments about how the Flynn case should proceed at the lower court after the Department of Justice (DOJ) suddenly moved to withdraw its case against the former adviser to President Trump.

Most of the judges appeared concerned with an earlier decision from a divided three-judge circuit panel that would have forced the district court to approve the DOJ's motion without holding a hearing.
​

I found the

Jeffrey Wall, the acting solicitor general who argued the case on Tuesday, insisted that in scenarios in which the government decides to drop a prosecution, judges are prohibited from questioning the move, even in hypothetical situations in which a defendant bribed prosecutors or was receiving favorable treatment because of political connections.
(emphasis added)
​

to be absolutely hilarious and that led me to believe that Mr. Wall has one of the highest "GSF" (Giggle Suppression Factors) ever recorded.

I wonder if Mr. Wall would have agreed that no court could interfere with a government decision to drop charges when that "decision" was based on

"associates of the accused have kidnapped my whole family and will kill them if the charges are not dropped"

or based on

"associates of the accused have taken control of a primary school with 300 children in it and will blow up the whole building if the charges are not dropped"

or were based on

"associates of the accused have planted explosive devices throughout the country and will kill tens of thousands of people if the charges against the accused are not dropped"
​

but I don't wonder very hard because I suspect that he would have.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
And the latest print article that I could find is

"Appeals court appears wary of dropping Flynn charges" (from The Hill) which starts out with

A federal appeals court on Tuesday appeared unsympathetic to arguments that it should order a district court judge to dismiss criminal charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

The full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reheard oral arguments about how the Flynn case should proceed at the lower court after the Department of Justice (DOJ) suddenly moved to withdraw its case against the former adviser to President Trump.

Most of the judges appeared concerned with an earlier decision from a divided three-judge circuit panel that would have forced the district court to approve the DOJ's motion without holding a hearing.
​

I found the

Jeffrey Wall, the acting solicitor general who argued the case on Tuesday, insisted that in scenarios in which the government decides to drop a prosecution, judges are prohibited from questioning the move, even in hypothetical situations in which a defendant bribed prosecutors or was receiving favorable treatment because of political connections.
(emphasis added)
​

to be absolutely hilarious and that led me to believe that Mr. Wall has one of the highest "GSF" (Giggle Suppression Factors) ever recorded.

I wonder if Mr. Wall would have agreed that no court could interfere with a government decision to drop charges when that "decision" was based on

"associates of the accused have kidnapped my whole family and will kill them if the charges are not dropped"

or based on

"associates of the accused have taken control of a primary school with 300 children in it and will blow up the whole building if the charges are not dropped"

or were based on

"associates of the accused have planted explosive devices throughout the country and will kill tens of thousands of people if the charges against the accused are not dropped"
​

but I don't wonder very hard because I suspect that he would have.
Click to expand...

In the various scenarios mentioned, I would think a judge, like anyone else in the country, can question the response by the executive.
The issue would seem to be whether they have the authority to direct to the executive here in a course of action. After all, the hypotheticals are themselves criminal acts for which the Judiciary themselves would conceivably be in the position to safeguard the rights of any accused-- kind of hard to be impartial.
 
Athanasius68 said:
In the various scenarios mentioned, I would think a judge, like anyone else in the country, can question the response by the executive.
The issue would seem to be whether they have the authority to direct to the executive here in a course of action. After all, the hypotheticals are themselves criminal acts for which the Judiciary themselves would conceivably be in the position to safeguard the rights of any accused-- kind of hard to be impartial.
Click to expand...

That, unfortunately, does not appear to jibe with the operating assumptions of Mr. Trump's administration which include:

  1. no one can question the actions of the government;
    *
  2. the President can tell the government to do anything that he wants to tell it to do;
    *
    and
    *
  3. the government has to do whatever the President tells it to do.

There is a legal term for that type of government structure and it is NOT "democracy".
 
Aunt Antifa said:
Yup. Not so fast, fascists. Checks and balances still exist in some corners of this failed viral ****hole of a country.
Click to expand...

As I read the situation now, it is:

  1. the guilty plea stands;
    *
  2. the sentencing process will continue;
    *
  3. the prosecution will make whatever submission on sentencing (including that there be no fine and no imprisonment) it considers appropriate;
    *
  4. the defence will make whatever submission on sentencing (including that there be no fine and no imprisonment) it considers appropriate;
    *
  5. the trial judge will consider the submissions of both the prosecution and the defence and then (in light of the law, the facts, and precedent) determine what sentence (including that there be no fine and no imprisonment) is appropriate;
    *
    and
    *
  6. whatever decision the trial judge makes will be appealed.

All of which is quite proper and what should have been done rather than wasting tens of thousands of taxpayers' dollars on this circus sideshow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom