Posted on 05/14/2020 4:35:01 AM PDT by EyesOfTX
The Deep State sends a clear signal through Judge Emmet Sullivan. – If William Barr and John Durham think that bringing any participant in the Obama-era Coup Cabal that operated within the DOJ/FBI/Intelligence Community during 2015-2019 and still has remnants embedded in those agencies today to justice will be easy, they’d better think again.
That is the signal Clinton-appointed federal judge Emmet Sullivan is sending their way this week with his ongoing corrupt actions in the Soviet-style show trial of General Michael Flynn. After the DOJ moved to withdraw all charges against Flynn due to the rampant, heinous prosecutorial misconduct that has taken place throughout this three-year travesty of justice last Thursday, Sullivan has responded exactly the way he should have been expected to respond: With more judicial abuse of the defendant.
First, on Tuesday, Sullivan entered a minute order that allows the filing of Amicus briefs in the case, despite having repeatedly refused to accept hundreds of such briefs in support of Gen. Flynn during the course of the proceedings against him. Then, on Wednesday evening, the corrupt judge announced he was appointing a Trump-hating retired federal judge, fellow Clinton appointee John Gleeson to present arguments in opposition to the DOJ’s motion to dismiss the case. The appointment of Gleeson came just two days after Gleeson had penned a Washington Post op/ed piece slamming General Flynn.
So we can be sure he will be impartial in his service to the court, right? These Clinton/Obama judges are like a pack of cockroaches.
In that op/ed, Gleeson wrote, in part:
“The Justice Department’s move to dismiss the prosecution of former national security adviser Michael Flynn does not need to be the end of the case — and it shouldn’t be,” Gleeson and two co-authors wrote in a recent opinion piece. “The Justice Department has made conflicting statements to the federal judge overseeing the case, Emmet G. Sullivan. He has the authority, the tools and the obligation to assess the credibility of the department’s stated reasons for abruptly reversing course.”
To review, the DOJ reached its decision to dismiss after a U.S. Attorney in Missouri, Jeff Jensen, had conducted an exhaustive, 3-month review of the conduct by the FBI and DOJ/Mueller prosecutors in the case, and found a clear and indisputable pattern of rank and potentially criminal misconduct in what clearly was an effort to entrap and frame a 33-year veteran of the United States military.
Mr. Jensen, for those who may have missed it, is now a part of the Durham investigation, whose scope and staff continues to expand as more and more wrongdoing by Obama officials is unearthed.
With his moves of the past few days, Sullivan is sending a clear signal to Barr, Durham and Jensen that they are going to have to go through pure hell with the prosecution of any of those corrupt Obama officials if the trial ends up his court, the court of fellow corrupt Judge Amy Berman Jackson, and the court of any other federal judge who was appointed by Bill Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama His Own Self.
An impartial judge who hadn’t been hugely compromised would have tossed this case more than two years ago, when it first became painfully obvious that Flynn was being railroaded. Yet here Sullivan still is, taking the most extreme measures possible to extend the abuse of a true American hero. The obvious signal that sends could not be more clear.
The two-step solution to this is now equally obvious: Pardon General Flynn and convene the military tribunals. The federal courts, like every other aspect of the federal government, have been hopelessly corrupted by the only existential threat our country has faced since the end of WWII: The Democrat Party.
That is all.
United States v. Fokker Servs. BV, No. 15-3016
Can the Executive Branch request an immediate transfers of this case to SCOTUS thereby saving Flynn the added expense of ligation.
Why can’t Emmett Sullivan be removed from his post for his obvious display of prejudice? Fear of removal is what prevents most judges from being opinionated arseholes ...
There’s no need for that. Just start waterboarding those that assaulted Flynn. The FIBBers, DOJ prosecutors and his own former lawyers. Then the stench of this case will get so bad the Dems will want it gone ASAP.
Does pleading not guilty and subsequently being convicted in a proper trial cause the defendant to be guilty of perjury for the not-guilty plea?
You appear to be assigning supreme importance to a process crime of lying (in pleading guilty to a process crime of lying to the FBI) no matter that the source of the original charge (the DOJ) has determined that there was no predicate - no valid underlying reason for the interview in which the FBI decided well after the fact that they could kind of sorta see how Flynn’s answers weren’t entirely truthful, despite having reached the opposite conclusion immediately after the interview.
Flynn was lied to by the FBI. The COURT was lied to by the FBI. The DOJ conspired with Flynn’s original legal team to leave him bereft of competent representation. The DOJ and Flynn’s lawyers BOTH withheld exculpatory evidence from him. Flynn’s original legal team convinced him to plead guilty, under the strain of monetary ruin (which was already true at that point) and having his son prosecuted for something wholly unrelated to Flynn’s charges.
So, even if you consider the guilty plea to a lie, it is tantamount to taking a hammer to someone’s big toe and then prosecuting them for emitting a string of swear words at the painful attack.
Sullivan is showing corruption by trying to appoint a new prosecutor, his friend the retired judge. How does the supposedly impartial judge get to play both judge and prosecutor? And, given the fact that DOJ requested dismissal of the case due to prosecutorial malfeasance, including the lack of underlying crime against which the “lie” to the FBI became materially relevant (as required by the statute), how does pleading guilty to what (in hindsight) is determined to be a non-crime itself a crime.
You deride Powell because she has led the charge to try and clear Flynn’s name after his guilty plea, which was given under dubious (at best) legal advice from his original lawyers, who themselves were working under a secret side deal with DOJ (without Flynn’s knowledge). Apparently, the fruit of the poisoned tree is sweet justice to you.
I wholeheartedly disagree.
Whether pleading “not guilty” is perjury has been settled since the beginning of time. A “not guilty” plea is not a statement of fact, it is the announcement of a legal position. There is zero relevance between pleading not guilty and pleading guilty.
And people do not understand the legal meaning of the phrase “fruit of the poisonous tree.” People use it in the illogical sense of post hoc ergo propter hoc, but it does NOT mean a person is legally justified in committing a crime merely because the commission of the crime was preceded by the criminal activity of another party. If you want to argue duress, argue duress, but you have to define what constitutes duress, legally.
I am not assuming the supreme importance of a process crime. As I have said, I assume Flynn was framed and set up by sleazy operators. Being set up by sleazy operators does NOT justify lying to a judge to his face under oath in open court.
If you are claiming that Flynn was justified in lying when he took the plea to (allegedly) save his son, then Flynn’s decision was to man up, lie under oath, save his son, accept his probation, and move on. It happens every single day in every court in every place on America. In this respect Flynn was in no different position than average Americans, even Americans who were unfairly prosecuted.
Flynn did not have to lie. He could have maintained his innocence and gone to trial. And his son could have maintained HIS innocence and gone to trial, if that was what happened. Or are you saying Flynn Sr. lied because his son was guilty, and thus Flynn Sr. lied to cover up his son’s commission of a crime?
Powell has been a disaster for Flynn and for MAGA. IMO she is a grifter selling books, just like the many grifters who took advantage of the Tea Party, always to the cheers of tea party members, who were too sincere and genuine to even suspect that fellow “patriots” were manipulating them for gain.
Powell has now forced Trump into a pardon, which is the worst of all possible outcomes for MAGA. Barr tried to stop Powell’s gross incompetence before she made things even worse, but Sullivan is not having it. And in part (IMO) he is not having it because of Powell’s relentless campaign implicitly painting Sullivan as corrupt and stupid.
And BTW, what IS the legal argument that Flynn did not lie to Sullivan’s face and thus commit perjury?
Flynn was tortured by the inquisition , confessed under torture to being a witch, and now cannot change his testimony because he lied about being a witch?
If Flynn was coerced into lying “to Sullivan’s face”, it sounds more like the judge sounds like the judge is butt-hurt more than anything else. The DOJ dropping the charges should be the end of it as far as Flynn goes, and those who coerced him should be on trial. It may finally be lamp post time.
Yeah, this isn't something to get upset about.
If the DOJ, after the fact, admits malfeasance and states that the basis for the hearings do not constitute a crime, does that not render the process of the hearings moot for the defendant?
Judge Sullivan is considering contempt of court for the defendant’s plea, despite the prosecutors having admitted to lying to the court for the whole reason for the court process to start with.
If “not guilty” is a statement of position, then “guilty” must also be. To place the defendant under oath and interrogate him as a perjury trap (as Sullivan did in this case) is unconscionable.
To my understanding, prosecutorial misconduct is one of the few instances where all subsequent actions in court are thrown out in favor of the defendant. The malfeasance on part of the prosecution is considered to have poisoned any value in the pursuit of the trial. If this understanding is incorrect, please explain why rather than simply dismissing the point. The DOJ itself, in its motion to withdraw with prejudice, has agreed that the whole court proceedings are moot, given the bad actions of the investigators, prosecutors, and original defense team.
The definition of perjury (from dictionary.com) is “the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry.” The DOJ has a motion which admits that the trial was not a legal inquiry. How can the statements be material to a non-legal inquiry?
I am not a lawyer. But the DOJ’s motion to dismiss states that there is no underlying crime to which Flynn’s supposed lies to the FBI can be material, so would not that same condition apply to the court proceedings?
No the step now is go to the circuit court, obtain a writ of mandamus and then dismiss the charges and reassign the case to another judge. That is the standard remedy for this Situation.
People on our side do not get an important fact. Lying in court under oath is NOT a process crime. It is perjury, and perjury is treated harshly by all judges everywhere under every circumstance (unless you are a Deep State slime).
Judges in ALL courts, everywhere, all the time get “butt hurt” when someone lies in their face. Flynn is not special in that respect.
These are two separate issues. It is not a matter of “they committed crimes, so I am justified in committing a crime”
Durham is and always has been the person to bring justice to the Deep State sleaze and slime. Because of what Barr did with Flynn, I now happily expect RICO indictments to come down, including BO as an unindicted co-conspirator. Barr was clearing the incompetent Powell out of the way before she did any more damage.
Powell showed horrible judgment in trying to take over Durham’s job. But (IMO only) she was motivated by sharing in the glory and the loot. She has never made a coherent legal argument. Nor has anyone of her supporters who call her brilliant EVER demonstrated why her legal strategy made sense FOR HER CLIENT.
She blundered her way into doing something she had the initial sense not to do: move to withdraw the plea. Now we are seeing the predictable and necessary consequence of her blunder: Flynn has confessed to committing perjury in court under oath.
“Being set up by sleazy operators does NOT justify lying to a judge to his face under oath in open court.”
It does if the sleazy operators are holding a gun to your child’s head in the next room.
L
I respect your opinion and say this in sincerity, with no unfriendliness or disrespect intended.
Every thing you said in this post is wrong, legally.
I completely understand how frustrated and angry people are. I am one of them.
People get the “grinds exceedingly slow” part of the saying, but they do not get the part about grinding “exceedingly fine.”
I am baffled why people freely give legal opinions when they really have no knowledge of the law in substance or procedure. Doesn’t it occur to people that they have no idea what they are talking about, but just throwing around legal terms, not knowing that large bodies of exceedingly fine law attaches to each grand principle?
BTW one of the disgraces in this country is how often courts acknowledge prosecutorial misconduct but fail to punish it. It happens literally every day, every where, all across this country, and it happens because prosecutors have been told BY THE COURTS, in effect, you will suffer no consequences for it.
It is the same as law enforcement lying. Courts simply will never call out law enforcement for lying, so LEOs lie.
I used the word “never” above, and what I really mean is rarely. But so rarely as to almost be never.
Listen to yourself. You are disproving your own point.
Sullivan was also the judge in the Keepseagle v. USDA lawsuit a companion case to the notoriously corrupt “Black Farmers” lawsuit. Sullivan certified a class of Indian farmers and eventually provided more than half a billion dollars to the complainants under a settlement.
But two carbon-copy cases, for Hispanic and female farmers, were denied certification by another judge, and that action was upheld on appeal.
Clearly, Sullivan is no stranger to using his courtroom for political/racial favoritism.
I am confused as to why your are baffled. If you want to explore my particular area of expertise, I would have to know how much you understand about airborne software before I could begin to provide meaningful explanations.
I'm afraid I see your style or argument in a non-legal setting as counter productive. You dismiss arguments without explaining why they are incorrect, perhaps assuming that everyone should have the same level of expertise in this arena as you. In doing so, you reinforce the idea that the legal system was designed to support primacy of the legal system and its participants.
No, you are deliberately missing mine.
L
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.