Posted on 05/09/2020 9:28:09 AM PDT by Hojczyk
President Obama is being quoted on Flynn, saying "There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free." It is a curious statement. First and foremost, Flynn was not charged with perjury
Second, we now know Obama discussed charging Flynn under the Logan Act which has never been used successfully to convict anyone and is flagrantly unconstitutional. Third, this reaffirms reports that Obama was personally invested in this effort. Finally, there is precedent
There is a specific rule allowing for this motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). There are specific Supreme Court cases like Rinaldi v. United States addressing the standard for such dismissals....
The Justice Department has dismissed cases in the past including the Stevens case.That was requested by President Obama's own Attorney General Eric Holder for the same reason: misconduct by prosecutors. It was done before the same judge, Judge Sullivan. How is that for precedent?
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
Hey Barry, you might ask Slick Willy about that.
Oh, that’s right, he was disbarred, so I guess that’s not scot free.
LOL.
Trump is still Bronc0’s President.
Clear statement from an actual Constitutional Law Professor, not weasel words from a one-time adjunct instructor who mostly (all?) focused his curriculum on Civil Rights. I wonder if zerO ever even read the entire Constitution.
Maybe Odumdo should have consulted with his formally attorney wife before making such a stupid comment.
Obama LIES about the PERJURY!!!Patholigical.
But.
5.56mm
Slick was explicitly disbarred from practicing at the USSC too.
President Obama is being quoted on Flynn, saying "There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free." It is a curious statement. First and foremost, Flynn was not charged with perjury.
Second, we now know Obama discussed charging Flynn under the Logan Act which has never been used successfully to convict anyone and is flagrantly unconstitutional. Third, this reaffirms reports that Obama was personally invested in this effort. Finally, there is precedent
While being sworn in as an attorney in the State of Illinois, Mr Obama had to provide his personal information under oath. He was asked, if he had any other names, he responded none. In reality, he used the name Barry Soetoro in an entry in the journal of the California assembly in reference to grants given to foreign exchange students. Mr. Soetoro/Obama clearly defrauded the State Bar of Illinois and perjured himself while concealing his identity.
The perpetrators now find themselves in extreme jeopardy:
1) A crime with no predicate.
2) falsification of FBI forms 302
3) FBI investigator notes which indicate political motivation
4) Meetings at the highest level in which Rice revealed in her memo what strategy was to be followed, Obama, Comey, Rice, Clapper and Brennan were present at a series of such meetings.
5) Obama now taking to the media posturing himself to limit his exposure to liability, ( He will pay big time)
Add this up and it is but one result: Malicious Prosecution#
Because it involved organizational crime and racketeering, the extraordinary remedies available from a RICO offense are obvious.
And the various perpetrators of this crime , include a law firm which acted in conflict of interest ( Flynn’s original legal team that advised him to plead guilty), FBI Agent Strzok, Comey, McCabe,Yates, Rice, Brennan, Clapper and Obama himself. All of the perpetrators exceeded their governmental authorities of office so that the legal jeopardy is personal, the government nor the taxpayers are liable for these millions of dollars in damages. All of the perpetrators are personally liable in the millions of dollars. (Not to mention the federal crimes of sedition, treason and espionage, and the likely disbarment of several attorneys involved in Flynn’s original defense team.)
I expect that letters pleading settlement have already been received by Flynn’s legal counsel. For the benefit of America, I hope General Flynn proceeds to a public civil trial in a malicious prosecution suit for damages.Let them all lose their homes and livelihoods in return, for that is indeed what Justice demands.
**********************************************
#
“Malicious prosecution is an intentional tort designed to provide redress for losses flowing from an unjustified prosecution....
“Under the first element of the test for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove that the prosecution at issue was initiated by the defendant. This element identifies the proper target of the suit, as it is only those who were actively instrumental in setting the law in motion that may be held accountable for any damage that results....”
“The second element of the tort demands evidence that the prosecution terminated in the plaintiff’s favour. This requirement precludes a collateral attack on a conviction properly rendered by a criminal court, and thus avoids conflict between civil and criminal justice. The favourable termination requirement may be satisfied no matter the route by which the proceedings conclude in the plaintiff’s favour, whether it be an acquittal, a discharge at a preliminary hearing, a withdrawal, or a stay. However, where the termination does not result from an adjudication on the merits, for example, in the case of a settlement or plea bargain, a live issue may arise whether the termination of the proceedings was in favour of the plaintiff....
“The third element which must be proven by a plaintiff — absence of reasonable and probable cause to commence or continue the prosecution — further delineates the scope of potential plaintiffs. As a matter of policy, if reasonable and probable cause existed at the time the prosecutor commenced or continued the criminal proceeding in question, the proceeding must be taken to have been properly instituted, regardless of the fact that it ultimately terminated in favour of the accused....
“Finally, the initiation of criminal proceedings in the absence of reasonable and probable grounds does not itself suffice to ground a plaintiff’s case for malicious prosecution, regardless of whether the defendant is a private or public actor. Malicious prosecution, as the label implies, is an intentional tort that requires proof that the defendant’s conduct in setting the criminal process in motion was fueled by malice. The malice requirement is the key to striking the balance that the tort was designed to maintain: between society’s interest in the effective administration of criminal justice and the need to compensate individuals who have been wrongly prosecuted for a primary purpose other than that of carrying the law into effect.”
***********************************************
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/M/MaliciousProsecution.aspx
He’s right this was leaked on purpose but wrong about the reason.
In the call, Obama denies two facts that are easy to check:
1. Flynn was charged for a no-material alleged lie. That’s not perjury.
2. People have been let off for prosecutorial misconduct, even under Eric Holder’s DOJ.
Why?
Answer:
Watch and learn. There will be no fallout from these lies. No reporter will ever question Obama about them, in fact they will be repeated as the truth. If Democrats win in November (and note: the supposed point of the call is to get people to focus on winning in November) it will be as if he never told these lies.
THAT’S CALLED A MESSAGE
It’s a message to the troops in the trenches within the DOJ and FBI who are tempted to go states evidence. Just hang in there and deny the obvious for 6 more months and we have your back.
See reply 11.
Turley’s legal analysis was flawless. One of the best opinion pieces I have read in a long time. His students are very lucky to have a Professor like him.
I see Spikey Isikoff is still being helpful.
What a guy.
I wonder where Dershowitz is? He’s been quiet lately.
Bkmk
I didn’t realize “community organizers” we also Constitutional legal experts!
Dersh is promoting a book. He was on Fox News within the last day or two.
No doubt he’s staying close to home, given his age
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.