Posted on 08/31/2020 11:01:53 AM PDT by digger48
It is very good as an electronic document, Auntie Mame...it has links in there to various documents, even recordings of discussions between parties in question.
Putting it into a timeline like that really helped me get my arms around it. A lot to unpack there...
Anyway, I hope you find it useful. If you see any errors or omissions, please ping me and let me know!
I just realized what you were saying. I have never accuse Americans of supporting obama or him being popular with them. One Sunday at Church I jokingly asked a man,"How is your President obama doing?" I thought I was going to have to fight him. He said he did not joke about that. He is not my president.
Sorry that it took me so long to catch that. I believe you have me confused with someone else. I have said there is a difference between an obama voter and an American. I know obama was not popular with Americans.
I am pretty sure you have me confused with someone else. I have never thought that obama was popular with the majority of Americans.
‘An explain please just how Flynn “lied to the court”?’
There are some sensible comments in the ruling in regards the case being premature - but mixed in with them are some doozies. Ugh.
You said up the thread:
“All I know is that in 2008 the voters went to the polls and by majority vote put obama in the White House and until 2012 every time I looked at a television I was told how much the American people loved their President. Chris Matthews orgasms or had a tingling down his leg as he put it. I stopped watching television. If I had to be around it I tuned it out. In 2012 once again the voters went to the polls.Presto! Once again he is returned, again by majority vote to the White House to do everything in his power to destroy the Constitutional Republic. “
Again, thank you for making we aware of that.
To my fellow Americans: Yesterday I grievously, though unintentional, insulted you and me. By making a poor choice of words, I said that you supported obama. For that, i apologize on bended knee.
I’m done with this witness.
Makes me happy.
Good post and high up the thread
Well done
Case won’t be dropped. Sullivan is going to give Flynn about 3 years for lying to the court
Agree. The real question is “ the lying” to his court, or based on the past which he withdrew.
So in essence Sullivan would have to rule I won’t allow you to withdraw that plea even though the DOJ had agreed that in essence you should never have been prosecuted in the first place.
I don’t think Sullivan is boxed in. And he’s probably not doing what most here think he is.
I think Sullivan is being a stickler for correct legal procedure, whereas Powell and the DOJ were trying to do something outside of that.
Once Flynn pled guilty the prosecution ceased to exist and so they can’t “withdraw” the case. What Powell should have done is move to withdraw Flynn’s guilty plea but she hasn’t done that yet. Sullivan gets to decide the merits of a withdrawal request. Flynn should qualify on the grounds of factual innocence. I think Sullivan will grant the withdrawal but he’s expecting Powell to do it correctly.
AFAIK Powell never requested a withdrawal of Flynn’s guilty plea. She apparently was relying on the prosecution to drop the case.
But the case can’t be dropped by the prosecution because once Flynn pled guilty the prosecution had no more say in anything. They effectively ceased to exist. Sullivan knows this and it’s why the en banc appeals panel backed him up.
Sullivan’s refusal to let the prosecution drop the case, when they can’t, may just mean that he expects everyone involved to do things correctly. Powell needs to request that Sullivan allow Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based upon factual innocence. If she would do that then we would have a better idea of whether he’s biased against Flynn or just a stickler for the rules of the court.
Thanks for that background re Flynn withdrawal
Yeah, well take my “analysis” with a grain of salt. I try to follow the reasoning of the court but they don’t ever make it easy.
Here is the en banc panel’s opinion:
The en banc panel is denying Powell’s mandamus motion because she still has remedies available to her at the district court level. She doesn’t yet know if Sullivan is going to accept the government’s offer to have the case dropped. And if Sullivan doesn’t, she still has other options available. It’s all about procedure, and has nothing to do with the merits of Flynn’s desire to withdraw his guilty plea or with the government’s request to drop the case.
“This proceeding is not about the merits of the prosecution
of General Flynn or the Government’s decision to abandon that
prosecution. Rather, this proceeding involves questions about
the structure of the Judiciary and its relationship to the
Executive Branch.
” There are two central problems in this case:
defining the scope of the authority of the Judiciary to inquire
into the exercise of a core function of the Executive and
deciding how the relationship between the district court and our
court shapes a challenge to that inquiry.
” There are two central problems in this case:
defining the scope of the authority of the Judiciary to inquire
into the exercise of a core function of the Executive and
deciding how the relationship between the district court and our
court shapes a challenge to that inquiry. Those questions are far
removed from the partisan skirmishes of the day. The
resolution of those questions in this case involves nothing more
and nothing less than the application of neutral principles about
which reasonable jurists on this court disagree.
“And that principled
disagreement revisits a long-running debate about the relative
powers of the Executive and Judicial Branches. Today we
reach the unexceptional yet important conclusion that a court
of appeals should stay its hand and allow the district court to
finish its work rather than hear a challenge to a decision not yet
made. That is a policy the federal courts have followed since
the beginning of the Republic, see Judiciary Act of 1789 and we are aware of
no case in which a court of appeals has ordered a district judge
to decide a pending motion in a particular way
“Moreover, as its counsel repeatedly stated at oral
argument, the district court may well grant the Government’s
motion to dismiss the case against General Flynn. In fact, it
would be highly unusual if it did not, given the Executive’s
constitutional prerogative to direct and control prosecutions
and the district court’s limited discretion under Rule 48(a),
especially when the defendant supports the Government’s
motion. But if the court denies the motion, General Flynn has
multiple avenues of relief that he can pursue. And because he
does, mandamus is not appropriate in this case at this time.
Thanks for the very through detailing of what’s going on. In the end Flynn needs to be cleared, reimbursed and unleash whatever he can factually prove Re the past administration
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.