SectionC3

Totally. The hoaxiest thing ever. No Obstruction!

You're right. Makes total sense. Trying to undo a guilty plea with respect to a nonviolent crime deserves attention equal to that given to competing world public health and economic crises.

Do you mean that my posts should be improved? I'm a little confused by what you said. Also, who judges the quality of the posts?

Coming from a guy who knows a thing or two about an inch. I'm losing track of all the hoaxes here. Is there any information about the virus hoax? That seems to be the more pressing matter.

How is one proven to be not an idiot?

What are the rules? Where do I find a copy? And who set the rules?

Keep America Great.

Name calling is not nice, sir.

The idiom is "truth be told," Eric. Also, it seems like you, too, have become an Internet legal expert. Congratulations!

Sounds like you're coming down with a case of Biden Derangement Syndrome.

Why would you support someone who holds thinly-veiled Klan rallies? Very disturbing, old timer.

And yet people on this website are not shy about acting like legal experts.

You kind of miss the point. He’s not inviting an investigation. He’s inviting participation from people who will stand in the shoes if the government and say that there is/is not legal reason for the government to take this peculiar approach. Getting a whole bunch of people, or a couple of the rght people, to say that this is an inexplicable legal maneuver will support the idea that the flip flop was made not for legal reasons, but for political reasons. edit: his experience (I’m taking you at your word on that one) and lack of need for guidance strongly suggests that he’s taking the approach I outline herein, ie, he smells a rat on the change on course and wants some other eyes, support, and, potentially, cover on the issue.

Maybe that's true. But did you read the order in question? That's the issue here. Based on your responses, it looks like the answer to that one is that you haven't read it.

We have a guilty plea, right? If so, the whole "no crime" thing is ludicrous. See other posts. Judge is doing this very, very fairly. Just because you political affinity for Flynn/Trump doesn't mean that the judge is engaging in a charade. Another legal eagle! Let's hear your interpretation of what's going on here, old timer.

I read it, too. Amicus can do whatever the court wants. And here the court wants to see if there is a legal reason for the government's change in position (which there could be, if Flynn was rope-a-doped in the plea machinations). Absent a legal reason, however, we'll be left with the stink of political influence. And the court likely will deny the application to withdraw the plea. See, that's where you're wrong here. This isn't just a prosecution anymore. To my knowledge (I haven't followed this closely), we have a conviction. And the judge has jurisdiction to determine whether to vacate the plea of guilty yielding the conviction. It's fair for the judge to seek information with respect to the prosecution's change in position. The judge's fidelity is to the rule of law, and if the judge feels that the change in position is politically motivated, it's within his discretion to deny the application to vacate the plea.

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

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.

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.

I'll stop after the first sentence. The matters are different, and the link to the Stevens case probably is tenuous at best.

"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.

Were the circumstances the same in the Stevens matter?

He could go out there and speak in tongues and 1/3 of the populace would still support the guy because he's not Hillary Clinton. It's pathetic.

Kind of like Kentucky, which benefits from welfare provided by, among other places, my tax dollars from New York State.

Yup. Everyone can be fooled some of the time, and some people can be fooled all of the time (looking at you, Trumpers). But the virus can' the fooled at all. I'm honestly surprised it's that high. Seems to be settling down to his MAGA base number.