DOJ drops all charges against Michael Flynn!

[Bill the Cat]

It's a common symptom of the cult member to lose their sense of smell, so to speak, when it comes to their master.

It's a common symptom of TDS sufferers to only be able to smell their intestines due to the proximity of their heads to their colon.

[Bill the Cat]

Barr is not doing the right thing. He's doing what Trump wants him to do.

Yeah he is. On both cases. It's the right thing to do to reverse the corruption from Obama/Biden.

[JimL]

Wow wow wow!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44503[/ATTACH]
https://twitter.com/MikeBalsamo1/sta...63269897060353

The DOJ says in their filing there was no legitimate legal reason to interview Lt. Gen Michael Flynn; and there is no evidence that Lt. Gen Flynn lied to the FBI during their interview on January 24, 2017.

Attorney Sidney Powell was victorious on behalf of her client. Congratulations.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...michael-flynn/

Of course liberals are whooping and hollering about how Bill Barr is doing this to protect Trump, but I think it's more about Barr wanting to protect the FBI (and other individuals up the former presidential administration food chain). I mean, look at everything Flynn's attorney Sidney "Bulldog" Powell was uncovering, inflicting major wounds to the organization. The only way to stop the bleeding was to get Powell off the case by dropping the charges against Flynn.

You're right, those of us in the know understand that Barr is as corrupt as Trump himself so his conclusions and acts of obstruction are not convincing to us. There was very good legal reason for interviewing Flynn, and Flynn agreed to the interview anyway, so that doesn't even matter. He also lied to the FBI which is why he pled guilty to lying to the FBI. The corrupt Atty Gen. Barr is doing his damndest to keep Trumps accomplices mouths shut by giving them a get out of jail free card so that Trump doesn't have to look bad by pardoning them. They've had some success, but the walls are closing in on them and they know it.

[Mountain Man]

You're right, those of us in the know understand that Barr is as corrupt as Trump himself so his conclusions and acts of obstruction are not convincing to us. There was very good legal reason for interviewing Flynn, and Flynn agreed to the interview anyway, so that doesn't even matter. He also lied to the FBI which is why he pled guilty to lying to the FBI. The corrupt Atty Gen. Barr is doing his damndest to keep Trumps accomplices mouths shut by giving them a get out of jail free card so that Trump doesn't have to look bad by pardoning them. They've had some success, but the walls are closing in on them and they know it.

Oh, come on, Jimmy, don't respond to the first post in a months old 60+ page thread and pretend that anything you have to say hasn't already been addressed in subsequent replies. I suggest you start with that first post and read every one of my other posts from first to the last. You'll find your answers.

walls_closing_in_trump_censored.jpg

[JimL]

Oh, come on, Jimmy, don't respond to the first post in a months old 60+ page thread and pretend that anything you have to say hasn't already been addressed in subsequent replies. I suggest you start with that first post and read every one of my other posts from first to the last. You'll find your answers.

I responded to it because you cited it. I've read and know all of the same right wing propaganda you've fallen for on every issue. I suggest you stick your own head out of the right wing bubble once in a while instead of seeking confirmation of your biased beliefs. Flynn was communicating with the Russians prior to Trump taking office and was undermining U.S. policy concerning sanctions. Then he lied about it to the FBI, and then he lied to the VP about it. He got caught, and he pled guilty. I hope the Judge takes the traitors retraction into consideration and increases his sentence.

[Mountain Man]

So, the appeals court kicked it back to Sullivan and ordered him to make a "quick dispatch" of the case (as attorney Sidney Powell pointed out, how can you have a hearing when there are literally no charges against the defendant?). And what does Dirty Sullivan do?

Sullivan is now telling the DOJ and Flynn defense to file a joint status report outlining their “recommendation for further proceedings” by September 21, 2020. From there a briefing schedule which will require both parties to respond to Sullivan’s personal amicus (Gleeson), and additionally respond jointly to any other amicus not ordered by the court. Lastly, Sullivan is requesting three dates for oral arguments.

In essence, despite his ability to quickly convene the parties to settle all matters before the court; which includes the unopposed motion by the DOJ and defense to drop the case; Sullivan intends to drag this case out as long as possible and use the amicus as a tool forcing responses from both parties (DOJ and Flynn). So much for the “quick dispatch” outlined within the DC Circuit opinion, this case is going on for several more months.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...past-election/

[Thoughtful Monk]

So, the appeals court kicked it back to Sullivan and ordered him to make a "quick dispatch" of the case (as attorney Sidney Powell pointed out, how can you have a hearing when there are literally no charges against the defendant?). And what does Dirty Sullivan do?

Sullivan is now telling the DOJ and Flynn defense to file a joint status report outlining their “recommendation for further proceedings” by September 21, 2020. From there a briefing schedule which will require both parties to respond to Sullivan’s personal amicus (Gleeson), and additionally respond jointly to any other amicus not ordered by the court. Lastly, Sullivan is requesting three dates for oral arguments.

In essence, despite his ability to quickly convene the parties to settle all matters before the court; which includes the unopposed motion by the DOJ and defense to drop the case; Sullivan intends to drag this case out as long as possible and use the amicus as a tool forcing responses from both parties (DOJ and Flynn). So much for the “quick dispatch” outlined within the DC Circuit opinion, this case is going on for several more months.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...past-election/

I believe Sullivan is trying to drag this out until Biden gets inaugurated and which time the DOJ would promptly reinstate the charges. Of course, that would be moot as Trump would pardon Flynn on his way out the door. Of course the Biden DOJ would probably find new charges not covered by a pardon.

I'll repeat what I said earlier: law students are going to be studying this case for years.

[Stoic]

So, the appeals court kicked it back to Sullivan and ordered him to make a "quick dispatch" of the case

The phrase used was "appropriate dispatch".

(as attorney Sidney Powell pointed out, how can you have a hearing when there are literally no charges against the defendant?).

But there are still charges against the defendant.

And what does Dirty Sullivan do?

The appeals court doesn't think Sullivan is dirty. If they did, they would have reassigned the case to a different judge.

[Mountain Man]

But there are still charges against the defendant.

No there aren't. The DOJ dropped all charges and asked for the case to be dismissed.

[Stoic]

No there aren't. The DOJ dropped all charges and asked for the case to be dismissed.

The DOJ wants to drop the charges. And the charges may yet be dropped, once Flynn's lawyer is done delaying things by filing inappropriate petitions.

[JimL]

No there aren't. The DOJ dropped all charges and asked for the case to be dismissed.

And the DOJ, or should I say the corrupt Atty Gen Barr, lost his bid to interfere in the case on behalf of his client, the corrupt President Trump, in an 8-2 decision, and for good reason.

[Mountain Man]

The DOJ wants to drop the charges. And the charges may yet be dropped, once Flynn's lawyer is done delaying things by filing inappropriate petitions.

The only reason Sidney Powell has had to take it to an appellate court is because Sullivan the Corrupt refused to immediately grant an uncontested motion to dismiss the case. Instead, he attempted to bring in a third-party to act as a prosecutor on the his own behalf. Dirty, dirty, dirty.

[Stoic]

The only reason Sidney Powell has had to take it to an appellate court is because Sullivan the Corrupt refused to immediately grant an uncontested motion to dismiss the case.

That's what Sidney Powell thinks, but the full appeals court ruled otherwise.

Instead, he attempted to bring in a third-party to act as a prosecutor on the his own behalf. Dirty, dirty, dirty.

Again, the full appeals court ruled that there is nothing dirty about that.

[Mountain Man]

That's what Sidney Powell thinks, but the full appeals court ruled otherwise.

Again, the full appeals court ruled that there is nothing dirty about that.

A political decision, not a legal one. Legally, there is no reason whatsoever to deny an unopposed motion to dismiss.

[firstfloor]

The story of Barr’s corruption:

Just after the prosecutor assigned to the case resigned on Thursday, the Department of Justice announced that it dropped the charges against Michael Flynn, the former national security advisor who’d already pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia.

President Trump forecast this before it happened. Last week, he insisted that Flynn had been exonerated. Apparently referring to his pardon power, Trump suggested that if the court did not do something he would use “a different kind of power.”

And now it’s happened. While the president has the broad power to pardon, he should not control individual prosecutorial decisions, especially those concerning a political ally. It is extremely unusual for the government to dismiss charges after a guilty plea. This is a sign that the historic independence of the Justice Department has been compromised.

Even if Trump did not have a direct hand in the decision to dismiss the case, his comments alone, announcing his desired outcome, seriously compromised the traditional and fundamental wall between law enforcement decisions and partisan politics.

Trump has repeatedly tried to cast the FBI and DOJ as villains—deep state Dems in disguise, who are seeking in an irrational fury to undermine him and his administration. He has called cooperators “rats” and FBI agents “human scum.” He put the word justice in the Department of Justice in scare quotes! That’s not to mention the insults he reserved for the Mueller investigation, “a rigged witch hunt” conducted by “angry democrats.” None of these insults were in context of general federal criminal law enforcement. They were all directed at those within DOJ who have tried to hold him and his allies responsible for their acts.

But, it seems, this was not just rhetoric. The DOJ has begun to effect his will by chipping away at the legitimacy of the Mueller investigation as well as the prosecutions of Trump’s allies that emerged from it. Just months ago, four career prosecutors resigned after DOJ overrode their sentencing recommendation in the Roger Stone prosecution. DOJ veterans from Republican and Democratic administrations were stunned by this unprecedented reversal and suspected that improper political considerations had infiltrated the purportedly neutral agency.

It is now up to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who accepted Flynn’s guilty plea, to decide whether to dismiss the case. He could ask for submissions and hold public hearings, which might make the government’s internal decision more transparent. The court could also offer its opinion on whether DOJ engaged in any impropriety in the case.

Of course, the Department of Justice should drop a prosecution, even after a guilty plea, if it were the product of corruption, or if, as Trump claims, the defendant had been exonerated. But neither of these is the case. The facts are clear. The FBI did its job properly and Michael Flynn committed a crime.

Last week, new documents revealed that an FBI agent entertained the possibility of getting Flynn to lie so the government could prosecute him or get him fired. This prompted Flynn to move to withdraw his guilty plea based on the supposed FBI misconduct, and Trump to proclaim that his friend and ally had been cleared. Flynn argued that law enforcement improperly lured him into a perjury trap. Prosecutors are familiar with this sort of objection. Defendants often insist that they’ve been treated poorly, unfairly entrapped, or subjected to misconduct. But rarely do they get the president, or anyone else in power for that matter, to echo their complaint.

The problem with Trump’s assertion is that what happened to Flynn was not corrupt. It was not even unusual. It happens to countless Americans, those suspected of organized crime, drug dealing, white-collar crime, or other offenses. There is nothing wrong with a president seeking to reform DOJ practices, or recommending new policies for the FBI, but by singling out an accepted law enforcement practice only when it is targeted at his ally, Trump is patently advocating one set of rules for his friends and another for everyone else. The risk of this sort of corruption is precisely why career prosecutors, not politicians or political appointees, make decisions in individual prosecutions. This is particularly important in a case like this where the risk of corrupt influence was so great that then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein saw fit to appoint a special prosecutor.

Flynn’s legal argument lacks merit and Judge Sullivan would certainly have dismissed his plea. The documents taken together show that the government was not engaged in misconduct. Instead they reveal that the FBI had ample evidence prior to that interview that Flynn had violated the law. In a standard practice, the agents debated amongst themselves whether to tell Flynn how much they knew prior to the interview or just wait to see what he had to say.

In these types of interviews, government agents have no legal obligation to show their hand. The FBI is permitted to ask questions even if it suspects the target will lie, as long as it has reason to believe that the person was involved in or witness to some underlying criminal conduct. In other words, the FBI is not allowed to ask someone if he cheated on his wife just to catch him and prosecute him for that lie. But agents are permitted to ask questions if they have a legitimate law enforcement purpose in doing so. And if the person they are interviewing lies, well that’s on him.

Flynn’s claim that he was entrapped – and Trump’s implicit endorsement of that claim – is equally flawed. Law enforcement is allowed to and frequently does lead someone do something that he was inclined to do anyway. In other words, an agent cannot offer a random individual a million dollars to mug an old woman and jail him for doing so but he can provide the opportunity or means to accomplish a crime that the individual was predisposed to commit. The agents did not do anything to induce Flynn to lie. And given that Flynn had already lied to the press about his contacts with Russia, it was certainly reasonable for them to suspect he might lie to them as well.

The FBI in this case had a legitimate purpose. It was seeking to uncover Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. In doing so, it found that then National Security Advisor Michael Flynn had extensive contacts with Russian individuals and diplomats during the campaign, a potential violation of the Logan Act, a law that bars private individuals from conducting foreign policy. While it’s true that Justice’s inspector general uncovered serious problems in the conduct of this investigation, the report also affirmed its basic legitimacy. And even if the investigation were corrupt, a witness is still not allowed to lie. Flynn swore in open court to his criminal conduct. While a defendant can on rare occasions of extreme injustice withdraw a guilty plea, generally, there are no backsies.

So, this case was business as usual for the FBI. That brings us to the Justice Department’s decision. If the FBI did nothing wrong, why did it reverse its previous decision to prosecute Flynn? The answer is clear. Because that is what the president wanted. In case there were any doubt about this, the fact that the career prosecutor withdrew after DOJ’s decision to drop the charges telegraphs that DOJ was affected by the president’s wishes.

The president’s pardon power is broad and he can use it for no reason or even a suspect one. If Trump had pardoned Flynn, he would have faced political repercussions. But when the DOJ acts, it appears as if it is acting neutrally. Here that is not the case. Thus a partisan decision is masked as a professional one. A personal favor to a friend masquerades as justice, making it harder to hold the president accountable for this act.

We should see this for what it is – a further attempt to deflect blame from himself and his allies to hard working career officials in the US government. The most troubling part of it is that Trump seems to have managed to drag the justice department down with him. Rather than adhering to long standing policy and practice, the DOJ has done the president’s bidding while simultaneously giving him the cover of a respected and supposedly neutral agency.