• 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!

Sullivan appoints retired judge to take the derelict DOJ's place.

Michael Cole said:
Withdrawing a guilty plea is well understood. The defendant pleads not guilty and the case goes to trial. That this isn't what's happening seems to be unprecedented to me. I don't think judge Sullivan has any interest in setting a precedent with this case. One in which he himself was lied to by a defendant - either at the plea hearing, or now.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, if your motion to withdraw guilty plea is granted, you go to trial. But I don't recall reading about whether or not Sullivan has ruled on Flynn's motion to withdraw guilty plea from back in Jan.
 
GDViking said:
He has been charged, remember he pleaded guilty, the judge refused to except Barr dropping it.

Gotta remember the judge has listened to the call...
Click to expand...

The charges were dropped. He isn't charged anymore. Someone who isn't charged with a crime can't receive a sentence.
 
Mr Person said:
That so?

:lol:

There is, quite literally, a private group of Trump supporters entitled "The Cult" right here on DP.
Click to expand...

Dayton3 said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

What a stupid, stupid, stupid and dishonest move. Why would you think I was making it up?

:lamo

groups.jpg




Just go to your profile, go to "community", select "Groups."
 
Mr Person said:
Michael Flynn’s sentencing judge Wednesday asked a former federal judge to explore whether Trump’s former national security adviser should face a contempt hearing for perjury after he pleaded guilty to a crime for which he now claims to be innocent. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan also asked retired New York federal Judge John Gleeson to make a nonbinding recommendation whether to order Flynn, who pleaded guilty to a crime and now claims innocence, to explain why he should not be found in criminal contempt for lying under oath in his guilty plea. Sullivan’s request to Gleeson comes one day after Sullivan had put on hold the Justice Department’s bid to drop charges against Flynn, saying he expects independent groups and legal experts to argue against the move.


“The Court exercises its inherent authority to appoint The Honorable John Gleeson (Ret.) as amicus curiae to present arguments in opposition to the government’s Motion to Dismiss,” Sullivan wrote in a two-page order.“It is further ORDERED that amicus curiae shall address whether the Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury.”

[cont.]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...0deb0a-9567-11ea-82b4-c8db161ff6e5_story.html




Good.

Barr's act was utterly corrupt and unprecedented.
Click to expand...

No it’s not. Obama Attorney General did the same for his master.

Based on the evidence Barr did the right thing. The traitors testify under oath there was no crime, but kept the case open. Flynn was charged with lying to FBI and they put him through hell.
This is where you say he plead guilty. He plead guilty so his son won’t have to go through the same BS.
The FBI targeted Flynn son in what we now know is related to the Russian Trump collusion fabrication.
 
Mr Person said:
He'll probably start tweeting about impeaching the judge.
Click to expand...

Or just turn up their screaming about OBAMAGATE! INDICTMENTS ARE COMING!!!!11!!!
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
You mean the very thing that Barr was trying to avoid with his unprecedented interference?

Irony
Click to expand...
Well, if Gleeson reports as much to Sullivan, and Sullivan acts upon it. The possibility is indeed there.

But then, what about the possibility of a perjury charge for Flynn's statements in the plea deal to Sullivan? Is Gleeson empowered to bring those? Can Sullivan empower him? Or empower another prosecutor? I really don't know, except to say this got complicated really fast!
 
Michael Cole said:
That's not what he's doing. The DOJ's actions have put the judge in a position where he can't legally rule on the DOJ's request without first examining the implication of another crime in doing so. Flynn has put himself in a catch-22 situation and judge Sullivan wisely sought independent advice on how to legally proceed.

The power to indict and charge is retained by the DOJ. Judge Sullivan is doing his job.
Click to expand...

People change pleas all the time.

Change of plea hearing scheduled for man accused of striking and killing Mentor police officer | Crime | news-herald.com

The presumption of innocence still applies, especially since the DOJ dropped the charges.

The power to indict and charge is retained by the DOJ. Judge Sullivan is doing his job.
Click to expand...

Judges aren't a part of the DOJ. The DOJ is part of the Executive Branch. Judges belong to the Judicial Branch.
 
Mr Person said:
Michael Flynn’s sentencing judge Wednesday asked a former federal judge to explore whether Trump’s former national security adviser should face a contempt hearing for perjury after he pleaded guilty to a crime for which he now claims to be innocent. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan also asked retired New York federal Judge John Gleeson to make a nonbinding recommendation whether to order Flynn, who pleaded guilty to a crime and now claims innocence, to explain why he should not be found in criminal contempt for lying under oath in his guilty plea. Sullivan’s request to Gleeson comes one day after Sullivan had put on hold the Justice Department’s bid to drop charges against Flynn, saying he expects independent groups and legal experts to argue against the move.


“The Court exercises its inherent authority to appoint The Honorable John Gleeson (Ret.) as amicus curiae to present arguments in opposition to the government’s Motion to Dismiss,” Sullivan wrote in a two-page order.“It is further ORDERED that amicus curiae shall address whether the Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury.”

[cont.]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...0deb0a-9567-11ea-82b4-c8db161ff6e5_story.html




Good.

Barr's act was utterly corrupt and unprecedented.
Click to expand...


Hey , Mav, do some of that lawyer ****!

How does the bolded work?


How does a ‘non binding recommendation’ order something?
 
apdst said:
The charges were dropped. He isn't charged anymore. Someone who isn't charged with a crime can't receive a sentence.
Click to expand...


Wrong, he pleaded guilty he was awaiting sentencing.

You or the prosecution does not get to get a do over at that point...
 
Termn8or said:
What do you think Durham is doing with his large team and his "exponentially expanding" criminal investigation, playing poker?

Eating pizza?

Watch re-runs?

Don't strain yourself answering.:lol:
Click to expand...

Well up to this point the evidence points to not doing much of anything other than triggering Q freaks into more conspiracies.
 
Mr Person said:
Well, yes, if your motion to withdraw guilty plea is granted, you go to trial. But I don't recall reading about whether or not Sullivan has ruled on Flynn's motion to withdraw guilty plea from back in Jan.
Click to expand...

I haven't either. I trust Sullivan and Gleeson to make the right decision. What I see happening is Flynn claiming coercion in his guilty plea. I don't know how that's going to sit with Sullivan.
 
Termn8or said:
Yeah, too fact-ey for someone like you.

Look, it's over. The biggest abuse of power in US history is being exposed bit by bit, and silly lies about Barr and Flynn won't change a thing.

Indictments are coming.
Click to expand...

Another election cycle ploy.
Just like the last lock her up ploy.
Some folks fall for nothingburgers over and over.
 
Dayton3 said:
Trump supporters are not a "cult". Anyone who thinks that borders on complete idiocy.
Click to expand...

Says a guy sporting nazi memorabilia to represent himself.
 
GDViking said:
Wrong, he pleaded guilty he was awaiting sentencing.

You or the prosecution does not get to get a do over at that point...
Click to expand...

Then, the charges were dropped. You can't imprison someone who isn't charged with a crime.
 
Chomsky said:
Is that with this is coming down to, then? Perjury during the plea process?

In addition, did you see my post above? Where I quote the WaPo article with Gleeson claiming the DOJ may not have credibility in their reasons to drop prosecution, so he will be assessing the credibility?

Damn, this got complicated fast for Flynn.
Click to expand...

At the moment, contempt for perjury.

Contempt can be imposed by a judge, with or without hearing depending on the circumstances. Perjury itself would need a prosecutor. And, since this is so unprecedented, I actually don't know whether a judge can appoint a prosecutor. What he did in this case is different - asked for amicus filings. But the judge he tapped to do that isn't fully taking over the prosecution.
 
Termn8or said:
zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Barr didn't make the decision. Jensen did.

And it fully complied with the law. It stopped a horrific abuse of power.

Another thread filled with liberal / Beltway garbage.:roll:
Click to expand...

I have to laugh, you guys bitched about the impeachment saying the dems should have gone through the courts. Now that this is in court and the judge seems to be doing the responsible thing, you bitch it shouldn't be in the courts. I guess when barr says it should be dismissed some folks think that's the law. The law is the courts, why do I need to remind the party of law and order about this little unimportant fact.
 
Mr Person said:
Michael Flynn’s sentencing judge Wednesday asked a former federal judge to explore whether Trump’s former national security adviser should face a contempt hearing for perjury after he pleaded guilty to a crime for which he now claims to be innocent. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan also asked retired New York federal Judge John Gleeson to make a nonbinding recommendation whether to order Flynn, who pleaded guilty to a crime and now claims innocence, to explain why he should not be found in criminal contempt for lying under oath in his guilty plea. Sullivan’s request to Gleeson comes one day after Sullivan had put on hold the Justice Department’s bid to drop charges against Flynn, saying he expects independent groups and legal experts to argue against the move.


“The Court exercises its inherent authority to appoint The Honorable John Gleeson (Ret.) as amicus curiae to present arguments in opposition to the government’s Motion to Dismiss,” Sullivan wrote in a two-page order.“It is further ORDERED that amicus curiae shall address whether the Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury.”

[cont.]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...0deb0a-9567-11ea-82b4-c8db161ff6e5_story.html




Good.

Barr's act was utterly corrupt and unprecedented.
Click to expand...

That article points out an interesting detail that I never considered. If Flynn really is innocent and doesn't think he's guilty then he lied under oath to the judge, 3 times, when he admitted guilty and said he knew what he did was wrong at the time he did it. So if he didn't lie to the FBI, then he lied to the court.
 
apdst said:
People change pleas all the time.

Change of plea hearing scheduled for man accused of striking and killing Mentor police officer | Crime | news-herald.com

The presumption of innocence still applies, especially since the DOJ dropped the charges.



Judges aren't a part of the DOJ. The DOJ is part of the Executive Branch. Judges belong to the Judicial Branch.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you continue to peddle this nonsense. The judge wants to know why Flynn is such a goddamned liar, and why he should believe a word this liar says.

Do you want to discuss reality or make stupid comparisons as though they hold any relevance at all?
 
roughdraft274 said:
That article points out an interesting detail that I never considered. If Flynn really is innocent and doesn't think he's guilty then he lied under oath to the judge, 3 times, when he admitted guilty and said he knew what he did was wrong at the time he did it. So if he didn't lie to the FBI, then he lied to the court.
Click to expand...

Sullivan went along with this **** show. Now, he's trying to cover his ass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom