Von Spakovsky & Malcolm: Flynn judge disagrees with own rulings by letting outsiders fight dropping charges [Good read]

Fox News ^ | May 13, 2020 | Hans A. von Spakovsky, John Malcolm

[jazusamo]

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan’s order soliciting comments from outsiders opposed to the Justice Department’s motion to throw out charges of lying to FBI agents against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is highly unusual and contradicts earlier rulings by the judge.

Sullivan’s order, issued Tuesday, solicits “friend of the court” (“amicus curiae” in legal parlance) briefs from third parties on the request by the Justice Department to halt the prosecution of Flynn. It is particularly odd because Sullivan previously resisted all third-party efforts to intervene in the case. The judge did this a total of 24 times, according to Flynn’s lawyer, Sidney Powell.

Moreover, the new order directly conflicts with Sullivan’s Dec. 20, 2017 order, in which he said: “The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal cases.”

~snip~

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which issues rulings that are binding on Judge Sullivan, has taken an expansive view of the Rinaldi case. In U.S. v. Fokker Services (2016), it held that, while Rule 48(a) appears to give a trial court discretion as to whether to grant the motion, that discretion is limited.

Importantly, the appeals court said the rule is designed to protect defendants against harassment from the government routinely dismissing and then refiling charges. It does not confer on courts “any substantial role” in determining whether charges should be dismissed.

And here’s a crucial point the appeals court made: It explicitly rejected the view that a trial judge should be permitted to deny a dismissal motion based on his or her personal belief that a defendant should stand trial or that any remaining charges would fail to address the gravity of the defendant’s conduct.

[1FreeAmerican]

This “Damned if you do and Damned if you don't” shit has gotta go!

The Founding Fathers would themselves personally tar and feather your ass!

Hi! We're from the Government and we'd like to ask you some questions.
Please be advised that if you answer these questions you will be charged with lying to Federal Authorities or perjury.
If you don't want to answer our questions you will be charged with Obstruction of Justice.
Your Choice.

[pierrem15]

You have to have been charged with the crimes to accept a lesser plea. To threaten a family member with arrest to get a plea is simply extortion.

[zeestephen]

To my ear, Judge Sullivan is focused on the guilty plea, and not on the DOJ’s request for dismissal.

I brought this same issue up on Free Republic a couple weeks ago.

I got soundly mocked for my efforts, but my argument was sound.

Flynn's guilty plea was a sworn statement.

In addition, a judge accepting a guilty plea goes through a long prepared list of supporting questions...

Do you understand that you can have your case heard by a jury? Are you satisfied with your legal representation? Can you afford an attorney? Has the prosecution given you every document you asked for? Do you feel the court has been fair in its rulings? On and on...

Flynn probably told a half dozen brazen lies under oath.

Why is that a problem?

Because if Flynn can just say - “Never mind” - and walk away from his sworn plea, that will undermine the validity of every previous and future guilty plea ever made.

Since 96% of federal inmates plead guilty, I think we can expect thousands of petitions for discovery or for the submission of new evidence if Flynn pulls this off.

My prediction - Flynn will still be litigating this on election day, six months from now.

[MortMan]

Collusion between Flynn's original defense team and the prosecutors to hide exculpatory evidence should negate the fact that Flynn is seeking to change his plea. Flynn only lied if he KNOWINGLY answered questions with falsehoods. The only one time I see that he can definitively have known he stated a falsehood was in the plea itself. Consider:

Do you understand that you can have your case heard by a jury? Yes, although my legal team (whom I do not know are working for the prosecution) advise me that the government has an iron clad case to prove I lied whether I really agree or not.

Are you satisfied with your legal representation? I do not know my legal team is working for the prosecution, so I would have to say "yes", not being myself an attorney.

Can you afford an attorney? I have attorneys, although I can't afford to pay them any more, so I have to answer yes.

Has the prosecution given you every document you asked for? My attorneys tell me yes, but I do not know they are working for the prosecution, so I have to say yes.

Do you feel the court has been fair in its rulings? What happens if I answer no and insult you and your court, your honor?

Prosecutor malfeasance, compounded by the defense team colluding with the prosecutors, plausibly change any "lie" in that string of questions into an honest answer - except perhaps the original pleading. However, that pleading itself is subject to undue influence because of the collusion between prosecutor and defense attorneys.

Not knowing, at the time, that his own lawyers had sandbagged him in favor of their own agreement with the corrupt prosecutors means he could easily have answered honestly, without having deliberately made a false statement.