FBI admits it setup Michael Flynn. DOJ drops case against him.

Eww! This is awkward....

Yeah it is awkward.

He's basically asking this judge to be the state while the actual state and the defense have agreed to drop the case.

A lot of people are scratching their heads on this wondering just what the hell this judge is doing.

Under oath....

No one is scratching their head, and also your mother enjoyed eating ass

There must be context missing, because how could she make a request about General Flynn, when these requests are about finding out who a person is? It's not logically possible on its face, unless she already thought that General Flynn was a party to the calls, but in that case they didn't need unmasking at all.

They're upholding the law by appointing officers of the court to oppose a thoroughly corrupt government.

A lot of former DOJ officials aren’t scratching their heads at all. They know exactly what’s going on:

Good analysis of why pretty much everything Zombie says is garbage.

Beat me to it, I was literally about to post this!

Legal Eagle is a garbage lawyer. His bias is ridiculous. You guys might as well just post links to Nancy Pelosi. His video was garbage.

Meanwhile in reality......

Appeals Court Orders Judge Emmet Sullivan To Explain His Actions In Michael Flynn Case

The D.C. Circuit has issued an order (pdf.) which is as unusual as Sullivan’s own conduct. The appeals court order Sullivan to explain what he is doing:

Take note that a few weeks ago the Supreme Court of the United States in a 9-0 ruling beat the living tar out of the 9th Circuit Appeals Court for doing what Judge Sullivan is attempting to do with amicus briefs in criminal cases. Ginsberg herself lead the beating.

Judge Sullivan is cruising for a bruising.

Out Like Flynn: How the Media Embraced Prosecutorial Misconduct As An Article Of Faith

For decades, the legal community has decried common practices used by prosecutors to coerce pleas from defendants. Prosecutors often stack up charges and then drain defendants until they agree to pleading guilty. There was a time when such abuses were regularly called out in leading newspapers. These are not those times.

The Flynn case was a textbook example of these abuses but media commentators quickly adopted the “anyone who pleads guilty must be guilty” mantra. Suddenly, the “proof is in the plea” regardless of false representations, withheld evidence, and conflicting findings in the Flynn case.

The only acceptable take in the media is that the motion to dismiss the Flynn case is an outrageous politicalization of the justice system. This narrative is only possible by ignoring the long-standing questions over the handling and charge in the case. Indeed, it is telling how both controlling law and countervailing facts have been uniformly (and knowingly) ignored in order to portray the case as a virtual immaculate prosecution.

Much of the analysis of the Flynn case notably starts half way across the field with the guilty plea of Flynn rather than at the start. the New York Times recently published an editorial entitled “Don’t forget, Michael Flynn pleaded guilty. Twice.” Such coverage pretends that there have been no questions raised about the underlying charge. The investigators concluded (and told FBI officials) that they did not believe that Flynn intentionally lied when he denied speaking about sanctions with the Russian ambassador. There was no reason to do so. Flynn knew that the FBI had intercepted the call and told the investigators that they could check the transcript. Moreover, Trump had publicly called for reexamining the entire Russian relationship, including sanctions. Most importantly, it was perfectly legal for the incoming National Security Adviser to encourage the Russians not to retaliate pending such a review by the incoming Administration.

While acknowledging that he failed to recall the sanctions discussion, Flynn contested the charge on the basis of intent and eventually spent virtually all of his money, including having to sell his house. He only pleaded guilty when the Special Counsel’s office threatened to charge his son and offered in exchange a plea to a relatively minor charge (with little or no jail time expected). What is striking about these facts is that analysts citing the plea routinely omit all of them to make the case look cut and dry. The issue was never whether Flynn’s statement was false but his intent and the materiality of the statement. Even though I supported the appointment of a Special Counsel, I raised these concerns years before the motion to dismiss was filed.

Nevertheless, the New York Times editors have warned “It’s hard to overstate how dangerous this is. It is a small step from using the Justice Department to protect your friends to using it to go after your political enemies. In other words, watch out, Joe Biden.” Of course, it was the Obama Administration with Biden as Vice President that started an investigation into its opponents based on Russian collusion allegations later found to lack any credible foundation. A long list of Obama officials admitted that they never saw any direct evidence of such collusion. Moreover, we now know that FBI agents early on warned that the material in the Steele Dossier (funded by the Clinton campaign) was not just unreliable and likely Russian intelligence misinformation. The Obama Administration still launched a full and long investigation of the Trump campaign and its officials. That was no “small step” but a giant leap.

As a criminal defense attorney, I have been personally involved in cases where innocent defendants must choose between effective bankruptcy (and the risk of a longer incarceration) against a plea for one or two counts. To his credit, Harvard Professor Noah Feldman was one of the few to acknowledge the problem of false pleas: “True, we all understand that, faced with the awesome power of prosecution, defendants sometimes plead guilty even if they aren’t. Liberals should be the first to acknowledge that in the real world, a guilty plea doesn’t necessarily mean the defendant committed the crime.” After acknowledging that reality, however, Feldman immediately dismisses it in a spellbinding level of circular reasoning: “But when the crime was lying, and the government still acknowledges that the defendant in fact did lie, there is less reason to worry that the defendant has been railroaded.”

Once again, the issue was never the falsity but the intent of the statement. Proof of a false statement to federal investigators under Section 1001(a)(2) requires more than a simple false statement. Rather, the false statement must be “material” to the underlying investigation. The motion to dismiss actually contained a discussion that has long been made by defense counsel as the correct reading of the law: “The materiality threshold thus ensures that misstatements to investigators are criminalized only when linked to the particular ‘subject of [their] investigation’ …[and] prevents law enforcement from fishing for falsehoods” to charge someone. Newly released documents show officials openly fishing for any criminal charge against Flynn long after the counterintelligence operation from no criminality. None of that evidence was put before the Court when it reviewed the Flynn plea, which was uncontested.

Moreover, the statement of the Justice Department should be celebrated by those who believe in due process for criminal defendants. The Flynn filing represents a powerful statement against prosecutorial coercion and abuse. It will be cited for years, including by this criminal defense attorney, in future cases. It is a powerful affirmation in a case with classic elements of coercive prosecutorial misconduct. Yet, the media has denounced it and the very notion of challenging trial prosecutors in such a case.

We now know from the Justice Department that both agents “had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying.” It was not until much later that Mueller’s people decided to use the discrepancy for a charge. It is common for such false statements to be flagged to coerce defendants into plea agreements, the very point Feldman just made.

Notably, when Flynn was charged, Feldman explained that it made it more difficult for Trump to fire Mueller because “the content of the Flynn-Kislyak conversations deepens the narrative that special counsel Robert Mueller has been building.” There was certainly a narrative like that in the media, but there was no real evidence of Russian collusion. Indeed, at the time of the Flynn plea, Mueller already knew that. However, the key remains the “narrative” not the evidence.

These facts simply do not fit the narrative. Suddenly, the judge’s resistance to granting the motion becomes ignoble and, God forbid, Barr move could be viewed as noble. Likewise, while analysts and academics herald Sullivan’s tough scrutiny of the motion, none are asking why Sullivan did not appoint an outsider or anyone to look into credible allegations that the original prosecutors against Flynn committed serious constitutional violations in withholding evidence and misrepresenting facts to the Court. It is also not relevant that FBI officials involved in the Flynn case like former Deputy FBI Director were found to have lied repeatedly to investigators. It is easier to say that the “proof is in the plea.”

“In like Flynn” once meant that you lived a charmed life of access or success. Today, it appears the media has adopted a chilling “out like Flynn” view, meaning some people simply do not deserve fair judicial or media consideration. Indeed, it is now an article of faith to dismiss any question about the conduct of the prosecutors in the Flynn case, even if it means adopting the long discredited view that only the guilty plead guilty.

It's weird to see Zombie try to make legal arguments, what with the precedent and all.

Former Clinton U.S. Attorney Calls Upon Sullivan To “Make Trouble” For The Administration [Updated]

The Los Angeles Times has posted a column by UCLA Law Professor and former U.S. Attorney under Bill Clinton, Harry Litman. The column that captures just how disconnected legal analysis has become in the Trump era. Litman in the column admits, to his credit, that the precedent overwhelmingly opposes a denial of motion to dismiss. However, Litman then encourages U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to use the hearing to “make trouble” for the Justice Department — a goal disconnected from the inescapable legal precedent (and thus the judicial obligations) presented by the motion.

....

Litman’s column follows the pattern of not even discussing the allegations facing the prosecutors or the new information. There is no mention of the possible false statements or withheld evidence in the case. There is no mention of new evidence showing findings of no criminality but high-level interventions to keep the investigation alive. The case is presented again in an immaculate fashion where the impropriety of the Justice Department is presented as established and beyond question. While I have admitted to coming to these disputes with the bias of a long-standing criminal defense attorney, I at least acknowledge the opposing arguments on the merits.

....

Litman acknowledges that Sullivan has no real choice but to grant the motion to dismiss since a denial “would go against the grain of federal court rulings, in particular from Sullivan’s own D.C. Court of Appeals, which specify that dismissing criminal charges “lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion.” Yet, despite worrying about the “assault on the rule of law,” Litman encourages Sullivan to use a hearing on the motion to “make trouble” for the Administration.

Let’s unpack that statement because, while I consider it wrong, it is far more honest and direct than many commentators. Litman is saying that the outcome of the motion seems pretty cut and dry, as I have previously written in columns. The precedent is clear and Sullivan would likely be rapidly reversed in a denial. Most judges are careful not to exceed the question before it. If the law is clear on the motion, the question is the authority of the court to use a hearing to seek to cause trouble or embarrassment for the Administration. That would effectively amount to the staging of a hearing for a purpose other than the merits of the legal question before the Court.

What precedent?

Admitting to guilt means you’re guilty, duh.

The precedent that certain people aren't capable of making legal arguments by light of their political views?

Flynn was on the verge of being bankrupted by the US government. Flynn was told that the government would go after his son if he took the case to trial. That records, now being released to the public,show that Flynn's original lawyers and the government entered into a secret deal, a deal that Flynn wasn't involved in, to not prosecute Flynn's son even though the government told Flynn to his face that it would prosecute his son if Flynn didn't plead guilty. The reason the government wanted to keep that side deal a secret from Flynn? Because they wanted to use Flynn in other cases and use the threat of prosecuting his son to keep Flynn in line. If Flynn knew his lawyers and the government made a deal to not prosecute his son than Flynn would become uncooperative as there would no longer be a "stick" to hold over Flynn.

Flynn's original lawyers and the government lawyers are in deep shit. This side deal wasn't told to Flynn by his own lawyers who are obligated to tell him. This side deal wasn't written into the plea agreement. It wasn't disclosed to the court as required by federal law. And if carried out would enable prosecutors to evade due process requirements in future cases because defendants in those cases would not know that Flynn's lawyers and the government had a secret deal that even Flynn himself wasn't a party too.

I didn't say Legal Eagle couldn't make a legal argument. Just that his argument is ruined by his bias. He is clearly biased against Trump and everyone around Trump.

That's why I like someone like Jonathan Turley. The man has no love for Trump or the right but he doesn't let his bias get in the way of his legal arguments.

*Dicky sees YouTube video, gets butthurt, crumples it up and throws it away, goes to cry in the corner.*

See, I can do that too, Dicky.

FBI is launching investigation into agents surrounding the Flynn case.

And now the strangeness continues:

This case is just filled with shenanigans....

Original judge who took the guilty plea, Judge Contreas, was recused from the case. Note he didn't remove himself. He was removed by the judges above him. No reason has ever been given why he was forcefully removed.

New judge, Judge Sullivan, calls the defendant a traitor, then apologizes when news of that statement goes viral.

Government is caught withholding exculpatory evidence.

Government and Flynn's original lawyers caught making a deal about not prosecuting Flynn's son that they don't tell Flynn or the court about.

Government withdraws guilty plea on the basis of the two mentioned items above.

Judge gets mad and threatens to sentence Flynn not for the crime the government dropped and he pleaded too but for lying to the court by saying he was guilty. This would be the first time a defendant in America's history would be jailed for attempting to change a guilty plea to a non-guilty plea. Especially when Flynn did not have at the time of his guilty plea the evidence that the government withheld exculpatory evidence and made a secret deal with his original lawyers to not prosecute his son.

Judge opens a criminal case to amicus briefs. Something not done in criminal trials. He had rejected 24 times earlier attempts by 3rd parties to involve themselves in the case.

Judge assigns retired judge John Gleeson, someone who wrote an article critical of Flynn days before Sullivan asked him to step in argue why he, Judge Sullivan, should not drop the case.

Flynn's new lawyers immediately go to the Appeals Court. Flynn's appeal to the appeals court is a very difficult thing and it must absolutely show cause for why the appeals court should override the lower judges (Sullivan) decisions.

The Appeals Court in another rare move sends a order to Judge Sullivan to explain in writing within ten days what he is doing.

Judge Sullivan the Federal Judge sitting on the case and with decades of legal experience hires a defense attorney to represent him to the appeals court. The lawyer he hired will write his response to the appeals court. https://www.law.com/nationallawjour...an-hires-veteran-trial-lawyer-beth-wilkinson/

So now people are scratching their heads wondering why a sitting federal judge needs a lawyer to speak for him on a case that he's in charge of.

Ah, the sweet taste of TLS telling me on page 1 that I would be wrong again in November.

I actually was, but not about Trump losing. I had money on his mother having the class not to fuck a donkey.

I should of remembered she already had an ass for a son.

Conservative media is declaring the jury was never going to find him guilty because it was a “D.C. jury” i.e. non-white Democrats. And looney conservative media is coming out and just being racist about it. Oh well Durham, better luck next time.

As usual, we can assume that this accusation is a confession.

They would automatically convict a Democrat and absolve a Republican no matter what the evidence said, so they assume the reverse must be true.

Oh, look!

https://crooksandliars.com/2022/06/trump-admin-buried-report-proved-obama