DC Circuit Agrees to Sullivan Request for En Banc Hearing…

Wait a minute! I’m all confused!

My understanding is that Powell was hired after Flynn had already submitted the guilty plea on the advice of prior counsel. His prior lawyers were compromised by prior cooperation with the prosecutors. Finally, his plea was submitted under duress of what seems to me blackmail.

As to Powell’s essentially political argument being inappropriate, how could it be avoided in a clearly political prosecution?

If she is trying to avoid having Flynn’s previous lawyers testify, that’s a smart move. Who would expect compromised, apparently malicious witnesses to provide helpful testimony?

The problems addressed in this trial will have wide-ranging repercussions: To what extent can blackmail be used in a prosecution. Are threats of bankruptcy and persecutions of family members allowed? How can a suspect be questioned without informing him that that is their intention? Is prosecution on behalf of a political campaign, or to sabotage an incoming administration okay? How about pressuring a defendant to give false testimony against their boss in exchange for leniency over trumped-up charges in a conspiracy to undermine a duly elected administration, again, based on fraudulent allegations?

I’m just a dismayed layman. Since you’re an attorney, please enlighten us.

The entire purpose of all this is to avoid any smack down and reversal before election day of the bogus, Russia hoax charges made against Trump and associates. The Dims do not want that dam to burst before 11/3/2020.

That’s a lot of what reads like legal analysis, but totally ignores the cited case law, and the fact that the government attorneys, including the Solicitor General have argued along the same line as Powell. Are you suggesting that your line of argument is correct and that the Solicitor General is wrong?

Flynn didn’t hire Powell until he decided to fight the guilty plea and then started to fight for exculpatory material.....I don’t think gratia is right on this

Trevor McFadden is DC District Court - not DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

1) “His prior lawyers were compromised by prior cooperation with the prosecutors.”

All across America every day defense attorneys cooperate with prosecutors. The system depends upon defense attorneys cooperating with prosecutors. There is NOTHING wrong with defense attorneys cooperating with prosecutors. And by the EXACT same token, prosecutors are cooperating with defense attorneys. There is NOTHING wrong with that.

2) “His plea was submitted under duress of what seems to me blackmail.”

EVERY plea in America, every day, in all jurisdictions, is submitted under what you call blackmail. The legal system calls it negotiation compelled by actual reality. Most Americans cheer the actual reality most of the time. They don’t cheer when they do not like the reality.

3) “As to Powell’s essentially political argument being inappropriate, how could it be avoided in a clearly political prosecution?”

They could be avoided by making legal arguments in a legal context. Her refusal to make legal arguments implies two things: she has no legal arguments, and she is unethical.

4) “If she is trying to avoid having Flynn’s previous lawyers testify, that’s a smart move. Who would expect compromised, apparently malicious witnesses to provide helpful testimony?”

She is trying to avoid their testimony because she knows with 100% certainty that they will have documented every aspect of their plea negotiations, including Flynn’s complete agreement and cooperation, which will make Powell look foolish, reckless and deceptive. People who assume otherwise (and they ARE assuming) do not understand how everything is documented to accord with the law.

5) Your final series of questions reflect how distant the layman’s understanding is from reality. People are NEVER outraged by the system until it affects them personally, and when they find out. Otherwise, they LOVE the system, and cheer on obliteration of our rights as free men. And will not hear anything to the contrary.

Re 23:

Yes, Barr is wrong 100%, and Powell is wrong 100%, regarding the LEGAL argument.

Barr spared Powell total humiliation and loss of her license. Now Trump must do so.

What people are getting wrong is that political arguments are NOT legal arguments. Powell has bamboozled people by making political arguments. Whether she is just grossly incompetent (probably) or a grifter (possibly) will be for another tribunal to decide.

So you are really saying that you have a better legal argument than the Solicitor General did in his brief. And the members of the appeals panel who issued the initial Mandamus order were wrong too. OK...

“So you are really saying that you have a better legal argument than the Solicitor General did in his brief. And the members of the appeals panel who issued the initial Mandamus order were wrong too. OK...”

Yes, the Solicitor General is wrong, and so are the two judges.

But most significantly is how wrong Powell has been.

Very interesting post.

Dont forget red october and remember the 5th of November. It will be a year to remember. Godspeed.

she knows with 100% certainty that they will have documented every aspect of their plea negotiations, including Flynn’s complete agreement and cooperation...

And we know how thorough and accurate the fbi is with it's records. I just can't figure why they kept so much in reserve.

Also, when does client-attorney confidentiality end? Can your lawyer rat you out when you stop paying? As for the rest, we put up with a little of this and that but there is a limit. The boundary may be nebulous but the poles are well defined. We know that a line was crossed by sense of smell, and we know that when the fruit of a tree is consistently rotten there is something wrong with the tree. Why has our legal system become so labyrinthine and insular that laymen can't begin to comprehend it?

1) “And we know how thorough and accurate the fbi is with it’s records. I just can’t figure why they kept so much in reserve.”

Because they already had a guilty plea and considered the case over except for the sentencing. The law governing Brady is quite large and complicated, and every day prosecutors disagree with defense attorneys about what is “exculpatory” or what needs to be disclosed. I guarantee you, after a guilty plea EVERY prosecutor considers Brady to be a closed issue, and they have the law backing them up on that.

2) “Also, when does client-attorney confidentiality end? Can your lawyer rat you out when you stop paying? “

Part of Powell’s gross incompetence was putting Covington in a position where they were legally allowed to disclose attorney/client communications. She accused them of heinous wrongdoing and they are now allowed to answer her accusation. And IMO they will make Powell look foolish and reckless, if not outright deceptive. That is what she fears, and what has been driving her “strategy.”

3) “As for the rest, we put up with a little of this and that but there is a limit. The boundary may be nebulous but the poles are well defined. We know that a line was crossed by sense of smell, and we know that when the fruit of a tree is consistently rotten there is something wrong with the tree.”

Part of Powell’s gross incompetence is her relentless publicity campaign where she makes horrible public accusations against parties. Even if she were 100% correct in her accusations (she is not) she should not have been discussing the Flynn case as she did on TV every other night. And it is Powell and Powell alone who is responsible for smearing Sullivan. What attorney does that when the judge could be sentencing her client? Answer: only a blithering idiot.

The public has not the faintest idea what goes on in a case, any case. They just think they know because the TV or newspaper told them. But the TV or newspaper has zero interest in the true details of a case, and they are NEVER, and I mean NEVER, reported in a completely accurate or comprehensive way. So the public often does not know what they so confidently think they know.

4) “Why has our legal system become so labyrinthine and insular that laymen can’t begin to comprehend it?”

Because we follow the common law (roughly speaking) which means that millions of distinct legal issues have been contemplated, debated and decided for hundreds of years. And the amazing aspect of the law is how new legal issues arise even in very old areas of the law. People’s lives, liberties and fortunes hang on legal issues which are minute, but have to be decided one way or the other, often when the heart says one thing and the head says another.

It takes years of study AND experience to fully understand even “simple” concepts, like reasonable doubt. The “problem” for laymen is that they think of law as a battle of good and bad, just and unjust, when things are usually far more complicated and inconclusive, even unknowable.

I’m guessing there is an EL SAT in your past ...

pretty good argumenting.....