Will General Michael Flynn be exonerated?

[Darren]

The alphabet news agencies are reporting that Fox news got the top FBI lawyer fired. I hope Wray finishes the report on the FBI failure that was associated with the Parkland shooting before he retires too. I wonder how Baker is doing these days. Any truth in the rumor he took the deal? "After a 38-year career with the Justice Department, the FBI's top lawyer Dana Boente was asked to resign on Friday. Two sources familiar with the decision to dismiss Boente said it came from high levels of the Justice Department rather than directly from FBI Director Christopher Wray. His departure comes on the heels of recent criticism by Fox News for his role in the investigation of former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn."
https://www.nbcnew.com/politics/justice ... s-n1219721

Darren, what do you think will happen now?

Other than Trump winning in November, Ray I have no clue.

[MajGenl.Meade]

[Darren]

DOJ's response to Judge Sullivan's response to the Court of Appeals.

I. The District Court Should Have Granted The Government’s Motion To Dismiss

12 A.The Constitution commits the power to prosecute to the Executive rather than the Judiciary

12 B. Rule 48, read against the backdrop of the Constitution, required the district court to grant the government’s motion to dismiss because the motion was unopposed

14 C. At a minimum, Rule 48 required the district court to grant the motion to dismiss under the circumstances of this case

20 D.The timing of the government’s motion cannot justify denying the motion

24 II. The District Court Erred When, Instead Of Granting The Motion To Dismiss, It Entered An Order Appointing An Amicus Curiae And Contemplating Its Own Prosecution

26 A.False statements in a plea colloquy or motion to withdraw are not contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401

27 B. Even if petitioner committed criminal contempt, the authority to prosecute him would lie with the U.S. Attorney, not the district court

30 III.A Writ Of Mandamus Is Appropriate And Necessary Relief In Light Of The District Court’s Unprecedented Order

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... -Brief.pdf

[Joe Guy]

Oh my!

[dales]

Nobody Told Me
John Lennon

Everybody's talking and no one says a word
Everybody's making love and no one really cares
There's Nazis in the bathroom just below the stairs
Always something happening and nothing going on
There's always something happening cooking and nothing in the pot
They're starving back in China so finish what you got
They're starving back in China so finish what you got
Nobody told me there'd be days like these
Nobody told me there'd be days like these
Nobody told me there'd be days like these
Strange days indeed
strange days indeed
Everybody's runnin' and no one makes a move
Everyone's a winner
and no one seems to lose
There's a little yellow idol to the north of Katmandu
Everybody's flying and no one leaves the ground
Everybody's crying and no one makes a sound…

[Big RR]

Honestly, I'd expect a much better Brief from the US Attorney's office; they've done the best they can with the facts, but most of the arguments presented are poorly framed and the arguments are merely conclusory. There is a shred of a valid argument there, but it is so poorly presented that it is not apparent.

[Darren]

Honestly, I'd expect a much better Brief from the US Attorney's office; they've done the best they can with the facts, but most of the arguments presented are poorly framed and the arguments are merely conclusory. There is a shred of a valid argument there, but it is so poorly presented that it is not apparent.

Separation of powers is easy to understand. The judiciary does not have prosecutorial powers.

Judge Sullivan hit a reef going full speed ahead. Sucks to be him.

[Big RR]

We'll see. It's still a pretty lousy brief.

[Darren]

But wait! THERE'S MORE!

Are you wondering about the Senate hearings?

[BoSoxGal]

Honestly, I'd expect a much better Brief from the US Attorney's office; they've done the best they can with the facts, but most of the arguments presented are poorly framed and the arguments are merely conclusory. There is a shred of a valid argument there, but it is so poorly presented that it is not apparent.

When your hiring decisions are based on ideology, you don’t always get high quality intellect in your candidates. Sort of like the many unqualified ideologues being appointed to the bench under Trump and the Senate turtle.

[RayThom]

But wait! THERE'S MORE!Are you wondering about the Senate hearings?

No, don't leave me hanging again. Tell me about them.

[Big RR]

True BSG, but I have generally found the assistant US attorneys, who generally are appointed on a competitive basis from the ranks of the best and brightest new attorneys, to be superior attorneys (I have a number of friends who went through the US attorneys office and are among the best criminal trial and appellate attorneys I know). Since they are the ones writing the Briefs, I had expected much more here. But maybe when the top is tainted, the lower ranks lose their desire to do a good job. When I was in private practice, I know a Brief like this would never be filed my firm (hell, I wouldn't even give it to the partner for review).

[BoSoxGal]

I concur with your assessment of the ranks of AUSAs, having a number of classmates and friends among them over the years.

I suppose it is likely the only form of protest for attorneys who wish to continue in their dedication to public service at the DOJ and have to ride out the current corrupt administration.

[Big RR]

I'd hate to think that, but who knows.

[Darren]

Look what I found on Fox!

No honor among thieves? He said, she said?

Round and round it goes. Where it stops ...

Looks like a really big shew.



"Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe accused former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein of giving “false” testimony Wednesday about James Comey’s memos documenting his interactions with President Trump.

During his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Rosenstein suggested that McCabe should have shared details about former FBI Director Comey’s memos on his conversations with the president earlier, claiming that he didn’t tell him about their existence until right before they were leaked.

Asked whether McCabe lied to him, Rosenstein testified: "Lying is when you ask someone a direct question and get a false answer. Candor is when you’re forthcoming with information someone needs to know. I believe McCabe should have recognized that when I became acting AG [overseeing the Russia probe], I needed to know about Comey’s memos and he didn’t tell me until a couple of hours before they showed up in the New York Times."

Comey admitted to Congress during testimony in June 2017 that, after he was fired, he purposefully leaked several memos through an intermediary to ensure that a special counsel would be appointed.

Comey leaked his memos to a friend, Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman, who later served as Comey's legal counsel. Richman ultimately leaked the contents of the memo to The New York Times.

McCabe, on Wednesday, fired back, essentially accusing Rosenstein of lying."

[Darren]

Hmmm. That didn't take long,

"WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court in Washington announced Tuesday that it will hold oral arguments next week to review Judge Emmet Sullivan's refusal to immediately dismiss the case against Michael Flynn, a former national security adviser to President Donald Trump.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will consider on June 12 whether the judge has the power to examine and put on hold the Justice Department's plan to drop its long-running prosecution of Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to federal agents about his pre-inauguration contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States."

[Big RR]

Gee, if it were that open and shut they would rule on the papers, they wouldn't need oral arguments.

[BoSoxGal]

Gratified to see this story this morning:

A former judge selected to advise on a path forward in the criminal case against Michael Flynn is accusing the Justice Department of exercising a “gross abuse of prosecutorial power” to protect an ally of President Donald Trump, distorting known facts and legal principles to shield Flynn from a jail sentence.

The former federal judge, John Gleeson, skewered Attorney General Bill Barr’s handling of the case, describing it as an “irregular” effort that courts would “scoff” at were the subject anyone other than an ally of Trump. The 82-page excoriation featured a painstaking reconstruction of the Flynn case and accused DOJ of contradicting its own arguments and precedents to justify dropping the case against Flynn.

“Even recognizing that the Government is entitled to deference in assessing the strength of its case, these claims are not credible,” Gleeson wrote. “Indeed, they are preposterous.”

Gleeson is recommending that the judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, instead proceed to sentence the former Trump national security adviser on the false-statement charge he admitted to two-and-a-half years ago — and later rescinded.

The Flynn saga is one of the highest-profile remaining legal matters facing Trump allies. It could drive up pressure on the president to pardon Flynn or commute his sentence in the heat of his reelection campaign.

"The facts surrounding the filing of the Government's motion constitute clear evidence of gross prosecutorial abuse. They reveal an unconvincing effort to disguise as legitimate a decision to dismiss that is based solely on the fact that Flynn is a political ally of President Trump," Gleeson wrote in a filing Wednesday with Sullivan, who formally tapped Gleeson to weigh in as a friend of the court.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/1 ... ent-311018



Shortcut to the full brief: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... .223.2.pdf

[MajGenl.Meade]

This morning, a tearful Flynn haltingly read the following dignified and heartfelt apology:

It is with a great amount of shame that I stand before you and tell you that I have betrayed your trust. I want all you to know that today I plead guilty to two counts of making false statements to federal agents.

Making these false statements to federal agents was an incredibly stupid thing for me to do, and I am responsible fully for my actions. I have no one to blame but myself for what I have done.

To you . . . my closest friends, my attorneys . . . my family . . . I want you to know that I have been dishonest. And you have the right to be angry with me. I have let them down. I have let my country down.
And I have let myself down.

No. Sorry. Wait. That was Marion Jones. What was I thinking?

[Big RR]

To anyone who is interested, I commend the Brief BSG linked, it's quite well written and persuasive and worth of a read (unlike the US attorneys brief previously linked in this thread).