Skip to comments.The prosecution of Michael Flynn is not over yet
Posted on 06/26/2020 1:29:32 PM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
COVID-19 peak dates for every state Wake Forest coach to isolate from wife for entire season The Boston Globe logoThe prosecution of Michael Flynn is not over yet On Wednesday, two accounts of the Department of Justice one grounded in fact, the other in fiction were on display in the nations capital. The first occurred before the House Judiciary Committee, where Andrew Zelinksy, a career prosecutor currently working at the Justice Department, took the extraordinary step of testifying about political interference in criminal cases from the highest levels of the Department, namely by Attorney General William Barr. Zelinsky described career officials being overridden and departmental sentencing practices violated, all to give a break to President Trumps close associate Roger Stone, who has been convicted of conduct that threatened our countrys national security.
Trump ally Roger Stone was given special treatment by DOJ, prosecutor says At virtually the same moment, a divided three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, issued an opinion in the prosecution of former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn. Barr intervened in that case to give a break to yet another close Trump associate, by filing a highly unusual motion to dismiss the case even though Flynn had already twice pleaded guilty. Under the governing federal rules, such a dismissal requires leave of court, and the judge overseeing Flynns case, Emmet Sullivan, was preparing to hold a hearing on the governments request. But in an unprecedented move, the Appeals Court stepped in before Sullivan had even considered the governments motion and ordered him to grant it.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Looks like a hit job to me. Just my opinion.
So I'd say Stone and Manafort and Flynn did get special treatment compared to Obama's people. They were charged and aggressively prosecuted.
Fascinating how a political belief system can induce total ignorance in people of otherwise average intelligence.
...Trump ally Roger Stone was given special treatment by DOJ, prosecutor says...
Oh, was he ever! And it wasnt in a good way.
It’s over. Anything else is war.
I would think they would be falling over themselves to go along with the dismissal to keep the criminal Behavior of Obama, Biden, Comey, Yates and others off the record. OK have a trial with all the real facts and all the White house meeting people called to testify where they are almost guaranteed to attempt to perjure themselves but the documents are all out now.
They sent a bigger force out to get Stone than they did for Bin Laden.
“Its over. Anything else is war.”
I believe so, either way if Trump is reelected or not reelected.
The left has all the institutions, and they won’t be removed from there by the ballot box.
Zelinsky’s complaint is hearsay.
DC is become a great evil. A heavy burden of illegal activities; completely outside of USConstitution.
DC has lost its lawful right to govern We-The-People. This is a lawful principle. DC has seized We-The-People’s right to lawful national government. Conspiring in openly to subjugate us to laws foreign to our nation.
Almost every cause/effect relationship in it is exactly backwards.
Forget it, Jake - it's the Boston SnotGlob...
How can a judge try a case with no accuser? The DOJ withdrew it’s accusation. Judge Emmett Sullivan has decided he is going to continue to push forward with the case, even though he has no case and no accuser. He sure sounds like a dyed in the wool democrat, doesn’t he?
Crap. Carp. The Boston Globe might be suitable for wrapping one, at the very least. I guess you have to be left handed, blind, and mentally ill to get on their editorial board, but I digress.
What a crap load. Honestly this is so far from the mark it should embarrass their overlords.
It is and the other side is in denial.
This article is so egregiously dishonest that it is hard to criticize except to say that every other word is BS except if, and and but.
“Worse, the courts opinion rests on at least two clear legal errors. First, the court ordered Flynns case dismissed because there is no formal evidence of impropriety in the official record before the district court. True enough. But the lack of formal evidence, as opposed to information readily available in the public record, is attributable only to the fact that Judge Sullivan has not yet had a chance to hold a hearing when evidence could be introduced. It doesnt take a legal scholar to see the catch-22 here: the Court of Appeals faults Sullivan for not having in hand the very evidence it prematurely blocks him from acquiring.”
Okay, the writer, a lawyer, first proposes that the opinions rests on two legal errors and then states that the first error is true. Well, he did write “true enough” but then shot himself in the other foot by implying it was not toally true because Sullivan, not a party to the case, had not had time/place to do prosecutorial work, which is not his job and really what he is forbidden to do.
What can one do with such convoluted BS except suggest that the lawyer writing try for a job as scriptwriter for the next Abbott and Costello. Who’s on first?
Claire, it’s time to shoot the bastards.
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.