DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Reality Check]

24 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

I'm just going to start using this on him, it'll be a lot more fun than ignore....:-)

 

 

You know, the willful ignorance after a while provides just a little too much noise. It is funny though.

[Warren Zevon]

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Well, again, no.  

 

Engaging in dialogue is fine, we can go back and forth on these issues all day long.  The DOJ chose to withdraw the case, so by extension, a guilty plea by General Flynn would have resulted in an travesty of justice.  I suppose it's possible you believe that every case is adjudicated with fairness, that no party is ever coerced into making a plea under threat of governmental tyranny, that every prosecutor is above board and no innocent party is ever found guilty of a crime.  I don't think you believe that, but it aligns with your political values in this case. 

 

Since the judge in the case has chosen to act as outlined, the only appropriate resolution is for Flynn's attorney to see it through.  If the DOJ feels Sullivan is out of line, and they have the ability to remove him from the case lawfully, or isolate him generally, that would seem to be the best resolution for all parties involved.  Clearly, the political animus rests with Judge Sullivan here.  He's presided over the case, alleged 'treason' when no such claim was made, has chosen to disregard the thoughts of the DOJ, and sought out a politically motivated prosecutor to keep what is obviously a dog of a case forward.  This squeezes Genera Flynn yet again, financially and emotionally, in spite of the obvious problems with the government case when there was one. 

 

"Above board" is a funny turn of phrase.  See, here, the trial judge obviously thinks the DOJ presently is acting out of political motivation, rather than in prosecutorial discretion, in taking this highly unusual step.  The DOJ isn't getting the judge off the case anytime soon; it's a discretionary issue, the judge is highly unlikely to do it himself, and there's nothing that I've seen to support an intermediate appellate conclusion to the contrary.  

 

So, in the interim, the judge did something eminently fair.  The judge basically assigned counsel to the government to ensure that the government's abdication of the case is motivated by legal considerations, not by political calculations.  

 

Finally, this isn't about the fairness of the adjudicatory process.  Flynn had a chance to fight the case.  He lost some pre-trial motions from what I can tell (Brady issues, specifically), and then chose not to, in spite of what you characterize as the weakness of the matter. This kind of thing happens all the time.  There was nothing wrong with the adjudication of the matter.  Whether there was an overzealous prosecution is a different question.  And, because the judge obviously doesn't trust Barr here (with good reason, from what I've observed), he assigned an amicus to explore the issue.  It's an obviously reasoned and balanced approach, and we'll see what happens from here.  

[Warren Zevon]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

"Above board" is a funny turn of phrase.  See, here, the trial judge obviously thinks the DOJ presently is acting out of political motivation, rather than in prosecutorial discretion, in taking this highly unusual step.  The DOJ isn't getting the judge off the case anytime soon; it's a discretionary issue, the judge is highly unlikely to do it himself, and there's nothing that I've seen to support an intermediate appellate conclusion to the contrary.  

 

So, in the interim, the judge did something eminently fair.  The judge basically assigned counsel to the government to ensure that the government's abdication of the case is motivated by legal considerations, not by political calculations.  

 

Finally, this isn't about the fairness of the adjudicatory process.  Flynn had a chance to fight the case.  He lost some pre-trial motions from what I can tell (Brady issues, specifically), and then chose not to, in spite of what you characterize as the weakness of the matter. This kind of thing happens all the time.  There was nothing wrong with the adjudication of the matter.  Whether there was an overzealous prosecution is a different question.  And, because the judge obviously doesn't trust Barr here (with good reason, from what I've observed), he assigned an amicus to explore the issue.  It's an obviously reasoned and balanced approach, and we'll see what happens from here.  

 

but he was #FLYNNDICATED

 

Seriously - excellent post. I ran out of that patience long ago.

[SectionC3]

Just now, Warren Zevon said:

 

but he was #FLYNNDICATED

 

Seriously - excellent post. I ran out of that patience long ago.

 

I've noticed that there are a lot of legal "experts" here.  The guy I responded to is fairly thoughtful, so I thought he deserved a thoughtful response. 

[Deranged Rhino]

7 minutes ago, Warren Zevon said:

 

but he was #FLYNNDICATED

 

Seriously - excellent post. I ran out of that patience long ago.

Keep scaling that hill again. It will go differently this time for you  

 

This is a guy who hasn’t been right about a single development on this case in 3 years, quoting another guy who doesn’t know dick about it. 
 

You can’t make this stuff up. 

[Warren Zevon]

[Deranged Rhino]

Nonsensical memes are all he has left. He never had the facts, but he’s doing his best to aid and comfort the actual perpetrators of evil like the good little useless idiot that he is. 
 

Keep going, THIS time you’re going to be right Gary  

[Warren Zevon]

[Deranged Rhino]

What’s funny about that meme is the projection latent in it which you’re too stupid to even notice. 
 

One of us is a sheep, mindlessly bleating out long debunked talking points... it’s not me   

[snafu]

17 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

And, because the judge obviously doesn't trust Barr here (with good reason, from what I've observed), he assigned an amicus to explore the issue.  It's an obviously reasoned and balanced approach, and we'll see what happens from here.  

 

That’s not the job of an amicus.

Their function isn’t an exploration nor is it an investigation. Sullivan set out the job requirements here, and even a wide reading doesn’t include what you’re describing — if this retired Judge is the one Sullivan appointed.

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, snafu said:

 

That’s not the job of an amicus.

Their function isn’t an exploration nor is it an investigation. Sullivan set out the job requirements here, and even a wide reading doesn’t include what you’re describing — if this retired Judge is the one Sullivan appointed.

 

 

 

 

Because he's only a third chair, and not a very good attorney. 

[SectionC3]

5 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

That’s not the job of an amicus.

Their function isn’t an exploration nor is it an investigation. Sullivan set out the job requirements here, and even a wide reading doesn’t include what you’re describing — if this retired Judge is the one Sullivan appointed.

 

 

 

The job of the amicus is whatever the court decides the job of the amicus to be.  If you feel differently, maybe you could ghost papers challenging the order importuning amicus comment. 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

[SectionC3]

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Because he's only a third chair, and not a very good attorney. 

 

Hoax.  And, apparently neither of you two have read the tweet that snafu embedded in his initial post on the topic.  Oops. 

[Deranged Rhino]

7 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Hoax.  And, apparently neither of you two have read the tweet that snafu embedded in his initial post on the topic.  Oops. 

 

I've forgotten more about this case than you'll ever know. Sorry, you just keep proving how ignorant you are of basic facts. 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

So, how does Sullivan deny amicus briefs when they were purported to be for Flynn (I had read 25 to-date, no idea if that is the correct number), but come up with this crazy scheme now?

And RBG just wrote up in a 9-0 ruling that "took judges to task for similar antics."  (Forbes)

For the attorneys... how could this play out? There is no crime, there is no evidence of a crime, so... besides delaying the inevitable (a higher court slap-down, Sullivan finally signing the dismissal, or Trump pardoning Flynn), what could Sullivan be thinking? I know Obama suggested perjury in his "leaked phone call" and so Sullivan brought that up  (prosecutors hardest hit if a guilty plea really means "I am guilty" instead of "The prosecutor needs to mark down another win, the court does not really have the capacity to try every case, and poor people don't have the wherewithal to hire a great attorney to defend them"), but how would this reflect/impact on Sullivan if he goes through with this charade? 

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Albwan]

7 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

So, how does Sullivan deny amicus briefs when they were purported to be for Flynn (I had read 25 to-date, no idea if that is the correct number), but come up with this crazy scheme now?

And RBG just wrote up in a 9-0 ruling that "took judges to task for similar antics."  (Forbes)

For the attorneys... how could this play out? There is no crime, there is no evidence of a crime, so... besides delaying the inevitable (a higher court slap-down, Sullivan finally signing the dismissal, or Trump pardoning Flynn), what could Sullivan be thinking? I know Obama suggested perjury in his "leaked phone call" and so Sullivan brought that up  (prosecutors hardest hit if a guilty plea really means "I am guilty" instead of "The prosecutor needs to mark down another win, the court does not really have the capacity to try every case, and poor people don't have the wherewithal to hire a great attorney to defend them"), but how would this reflect/impact on Sullivan if he goes through with this charade? 

 

I'd just like to know how biased @33holes become judges in the first place.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Albwan