Flynn: Who’s Playing the Politics?
New York Sun,
by
Editorial
Original Article
Posted By: Pluperfect,
6/14/2020 4:44:03 AM
The betting in Washington seems to be that the judges who ride the District of Columbia circuit of the federal appeals court are going to turn down General Michael Flynn’s petition for a writ of mandamus to end his case. The three circuit riders certainly hinted that they are not eager to tell the district judge, Emmet Sullivan, what to do, and that they have high regard for him.
We share that regard, as we made clear in the editorial with which we jumped into this fray. Yet this case is about a claim that the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the prosecution of General Flynn “reeks” of “improper political influence.”
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Flyball Dogs 6/14/2020 5:34:03 AM (No. 444061)
Unlike the Sun’s editors, I don’t have that question. Neither do I have the other questions (what, where, when, how, why).
The Swamp is deep and wide. And extends from Congress to agencies (FBI et al) to Courts.
We are a high bred banana republic.
25 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
OBX Pete 6/14/2020 5:46:23 AM (No. 444062)
No justice/No Peace! This judge has definitely gone beyond his authority in this case and should be removed from his position. Enough of these liberal judges who disregard the rules of law and rule in favor of their biases. Is it time for the conservatives to take to the streets and riot, loot and burn? That seems to be the "new normal".
21 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 6/14/2020 6:55:04 AM (No. 444095)
Given modern times, why do we even have a federal "judiciary?" We have to keep the Supreme Court, but why not just abolish the rest?
15 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
stablemoney 6/14/2020 8:09:37 AM (No. 444165)
Up front, I have a very low regard for Sullivan, who has abandoned judging for prosecuting.
22 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 6/14/2020 9:28:12 AM (No. 444226)
Sullivan's actions show he cannot be impartial and his selection of amicus reinforces his intention to prosecute Flynn and likely to impose a sentence when the DOJ has declared there is no evidence and no case and it has become obvious that there was criminality and injustice done to drag Flynn before the court to begin with.
The Circuit has recently ruled on such situations and Flynn's case is even more egregious, and screams for correction. The Circuit could allow Sullivan to continue this circus with further damage, cost, and embarrassment to Flynn, which he would almost certainly do in one form or another, or it could terminate this farce. Suppose Sullivan prepared a ruling that castigated and accused Flynn but says "My hands are tied so I must dismiss the case". Is that justice for Flynn? I would thing the court would be angry that justice had been manipulated so terribly and would be happy to wash their hands of it as quickly and thoroughly as possible. Instead, Sullivan is wallowing in it.
For the sake of respect for justice and the integrity of the Judicial branch, the Circuit should remove the case from the blatantly biased and opinionated Sullivan and direct a new judge to follow precedent to close the case.
13 people like this.
Black's Law Dictionary defines "amicus curiae" as "A party that is not involved in litigation but gives expert testimony when the court asks. They can support public interest not being addressed in the trial."
And that is what Judge Gleeson is doing, who is considered "intemperate" by the DOJ and Flynn legal teams BECAUSE behind all this legerdemain is the truth everyone so loudly says they want exposed to sunlight. Meanwhile DOJ retreats from its two year prosecution with several charges left unresolved, such as Flynn's Turkish involvement and his failure to report. Flynn spent two years lying under oath to the court about his guilt in the charged crime and his freely admitting it. Some apparently think that's okay because he was supposedly protecting his son. Really? Let's get the whole thing out on the table...from "investigation" to date. What is going on here that no one wants to tell?
Let's also set the record straight: Flynn is not claiming "innocence", only that the dismissal must stand and the judge be ordered to grant. Big difference. DOJ is not saying no crime was committed, only that they would be unable to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt with much evidence excluded by malfeasance. The judge is faced with the dismissal of charges to which the defendant has long twice admitted his guilt under oath for a crime that DOJ contends occurred and is under no obligation to prove to anyone. (You know that Sullivan offered Flynn the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea, and Flynn refused? You also know that Flynn could have been sentenced long ago, but the sentencing delayed by mutual agreement of DOJ and Flynn?)
Let's get to the truth of all this.
1 person likes this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
nerdowell 6/14/2020 12:53:26 PM (No. 444461)
There's a reason for the presumption of innocence in our courts: it's impossible to prove a negative, so it's impossible to prove you "never ever did it." Instead, we insist that the prosecution to prove you "done it" at some time and in some place.
The defense, in a trial, never has to prove the defendant's innocence, only that the prosecution is factually wrong or has dishonestly or underhandedly tried to influence the outcome of the case.
0 people like this.
#8 - The "presumption of innocence" ends when the defendant pleads "Guilty" of a crime, as in this case. The need for a prosecutor to "prove" guilt is unnecessary, too, and there is no trial. The court accepts the accused's word under oath. Why won't you believe Flynn in his case? He hasn't withdrawn his plea. He wants dismissal on a "technicality".
0 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
RuckusTom 6/14/2020 1:32:06 PM (No. 444503)
Keep in mind, if the Feds want to get you, they'll get you one way or another. Heck, they got Al Capone on tax evasion instead of murder, money laundering, prostitution, larceny, boot legging, etc.
1 person likes this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
bighambone 6/14/2020 1:53:48 PM (No. 444519)
#7, I may be wrong, but as I remember it was one of the Appeals Court Judges who referred to retired Judge Gleason as being an “intemperate” amicus?
Judge Sullivan by now would have to be a dope not to know that the Flynn case is probably the most politically based persecution that has ever showed up in his courtroom, even worse that the Senator Stevens fiasco, with more tangles in it than a huge den of rattlesnakes. Why would he want to take sides in such a mess when both the defendant’s defense and the DOJ gave him a legal escape hatch backed by both Circuit Court and Supreme Court precedent?
1 person likes this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
agrunt 6/14/2020 5:11:32 PM (No. 444635)
"The three circuit riders certainly hinted that they are not eager to tell the district judge, Emmet Sullivan, what to do..." In other words, they will refuse to follow the law.
0 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
leonardo 6/14/2020 10:19:57 PM (No. 444831)
The malfeasance of the FBI in the Flynn case is obvious to ALL. Affirmstive-Action-Emmet needs to keep Flynn's mouth silent for as long as possible as to the egregious behavior of Obama and the vendetta that Obama had towards Flynn for DARING to oppose him on the wrong-headed Iran nuke deal tha was a cornerstone of Obama's foreign policy. Woulds anyboidy be surprised if it was determined that Obama actually phoned Sulllivan to "give him some friendly advice" on Flynn? ... the SAME advice re Flynn that Comey gave Trump!
4 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
immelman 6/15/2020 5:52:30 PM (No. 445588)
Coerced confessions are not unusual, which comments poorly on our judicial system.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Pluperfect"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)