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 nation’s 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 Trump’s close associate Roger Stone, who has been convicted of conduct that threatened our country’s 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 Flynn’s case, Emmet Sullivan, was preparing to hold a hearing on the government’s request. But in an unprecedented move, the Appeals Court stepped in before Sullivan had even considered the government’s motion and ordered him to grant it.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
I think the intelligence of journalists can be considered average.
If I remember correctly, in Jan or Feb Flynn filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea which Sullivan has not yet ruled on. Why? Most likely in order to drag the case out closer to the election so the headlines would say “Flynn sentenced to 3 years”.
The order by Sullivan for Flynn to stop filing motions that included newly released exculpatory evidence piecemeal, but instead to wait until the DOJ completed releasing newly discovered evidence was another way to avoid being forced to grant the motion to withdraw the guilty plea.
This has always been an exercise to slow down Flynn’s sentencing until close to the election. Even his court date for 16 July was for that reason. Once the Amicus files his report/brief he will then ask for counter briefs by Flynn. Then the Amicus will ask for interviews/depositions from select DOJ members of the former prosecution team. A fight over that will ensue with more delays for briefs to be filed.
This will go on for months and then, right before November, Sullivan will sentence Flynn to a long prison term. 24/7 news coverage and slandering of PDJT as having tried to interfere with “justice being served”.
My opinion.
Trash article
I am still worried about the unpredictable Roberts. Which is fundamental, Flynn’s freedom or Roberts’s view of the SCOTUS’s “reputation?”
If you've never heard of PD or are unsure where it stands, check out this:
It doesn’t matter how much evidence the judge has because he does not judge the evidence, the jury does. He doesn’t get to present the evidence, the prosecutor does.
I find you overwrought and sensitive. Did I really need to preface my post with a “not directed to you label”.
Your pedantic self would miss it.
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.