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

[Koko78]

44 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

...and poor people don't have the wherewithal to hire a great attorney to defend them" ...

 

The worst attorneys I've seen representing criminal defendants have all been privately retained.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

31 minutes 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.  

I understand concepts, and while I appreciate the use of italic font, it's unnecessary here. 

 

Absent the DOJ, the judge is irrelevant.  When the DOJ decided the case was bogus, they had the option to pursue or dismiss.  I already acknowledged the judge has the right to act as he sees fit, and is doing so.  "Eminently fair" simply reflects words of art, with no application here.  The judge has revealed himself to be politically motivated throughout the course of the trial, and you hit the nail on the head by suggesting"...the judge doesn't trust Barr here".  Simple answer --who gives a sh*t?  The judge sees to the end of his desk, the end of his caseload and nothing more.  His role is not to be the judge of the Attorney General--he lacks capacity, knowledge, understanding and experience in the role.  In short, he's practicing judicial activism, and should rightly be treated as such.  

 

DOJ brought charges.

Flynn opted to plead.

Flynn realized a plea was the wrong way for him to proceed. 

DOJ decided to withdraw the charges.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

 

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. 

When is it coming?  ?

[keepthefaith]

48 minutes ago, Albwan said:

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

 

Ha, anyone from Buffalo and Amherst area remember Judge Bestry?  Complete dick.  I think we elected him over and over and over even after he became a complete dick. 

[snafu]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

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’m just reading Sullivan’s order. 

Seems to me like the function is not what you describe it to be. 

 

[SectionC3]

13 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

I’m just reading Sullivan’s order. 

Seems to me like the function is not what you describe it to be. 

 

 

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.  

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

I understand concepts, and while I appreciate the use of italic font, it's unnecessary here. 

 

Absent the DOJ, the judge is irrelevant.  When the DOJ decided the case was bogus, they had the option to pursue or dismiss.  I already acknowledged the judge has the right to act as he sees fit, and is doing so.  "Eminently fair" simply reflects words of art, with no application here.  The judge has revealed himself to be politically motivated throughout the course of the trial, and you hit the nail on the head by suggesting"...the judge doesn't trust Barr here".  Simple answer --who gives a sh*t?  The judge sees to the end of his desk, the end of his caseload and nothing more.  His role is not to be the judge of the Attorney General--he lacks capacity, knowledge, understanding and experience in the role.  In short, he's practicing judicial activism, and should rightly be treated as such.  

 

DOJ brought charges.

Flynn opted to plead.

Flynn realized a plea was the wrong way for him to proceed. 

DOJ decided to withdraw the charges.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When is it coming?  ?

 

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. 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

19 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

I’m just reading Sullivan’s order. 

Seems to me like the function is not what you describe it to be. 

 

 

...beginning to think Section 3 was a "Section 8".........uh oh.........

[SectionC3]

1 hour 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? 

 

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. 

Just now, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...beginning to think Section 3 was a "Section 8".........uh oh.........

 

Another legal eagle!  Let's hear your interpretation of what's going on here, old timer. 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

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'm well below your pay grade so I'd be a non-contributor....carry on...........

[SectionC3]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

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

 

 

 

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. 

[snafu]

4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

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.  

 

When the prosecution dropped the case, my first reaction was that I would have liked Sullivan to had the chance to rule on the Defense’s motion to dismiss, to take away any stink of influence. I believe there’s a good chance that Sullivan would have permitted Flynn to withdraw the plea.

 

In any event, the Order Sullivan issued says (paraphrased, but you get the point):

(A) the court anticipates that amici will seek to file briefs. It does NOT say that Sullivan is looking to appoint anyone in particular.

(B) the judge has discretion to determine who, when and in what manner to permit someone to intervene as an amicus. So just asking to participate isn’t a given.

(C) there are certain restrictions:

     (1) allowable when a party isn’t properly represented. So is Sullivan saying he’s going to consider an amicus to step into the shoes of a prosecutor? That seems like a massive expansion.

     (2) when an amicus has an interest in some other case which would be affected by this case.  Nothing pops to mind.

     (3) when the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond what the attorneys can provide. This is a simple criminal matter at heart with run of the mill criminal procedure issues. Sullivan can probably figure all this out for himself.

 

His entire order is about people seeking leave of court to file amicus briefs.  If Sullivan wanted an individual to investigate the reason for the DOJ’s actions (which is what you speculate), then this Order doesn’t get the job done. In fact, I’m not sure there’s ANY recourse to the Judge except his own ability to inquire about the motives of the prosecution.  To me, Sullivan is punting on second down. He’s got a lot of criminal court experience from the bench.  He can do his job without help (whatever he decides, I don’t really care). His order is B.S.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Powell to 44: 

https://sidneypowell.com/media/open-memorandum-to-barack-obama/

[SectionC3]

2 hours ago, snafu said:

 

When the prosecution dropped the case, my first reaction was that I would have liked Sullivan to had the chance to rule on the Defense’s motion to dismiss, to take away any stink of influence. I believe there’s a good chance that Sullivan would have permitted Flynn to withdraw the plea.

 

In any event, the Order Sullivan issued says (paraphrased, but you get the point):

(A) the court anticipates that amici will seek to file briefs. It does NOT say that Sullivan is looking to appoint anyone in particular.

(B) the judge has discretion to determine who, when and in what manner to permit someone to intervene as an amicus. So just asking to participate isn’t a given.

(C) there are certain restrictions:

     (1) allowable when a party isn’t properly represented. So is Sullivan saying he’s going to consider an amicus to step into the shoes of a prosecutor? That seems like a massive expansion.

     (2) when an amicus has an interest in some other case which would be affected by this case.  Nothing pops to mind.

     (3) when the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond what the attorneys can provide. This is a simple criminal matter at heart with run of the mill criminal procedure issues. Sullivan can probably figure all this out for himself.

 

His entire order is about people seeking leave of court to file amicus briefs.  If Sullivan wanted an individual to investigate the reason for the DOJ’s actions (which is what you speculate), then this Order doesn’t get the job done. In fact, I’m not sure there’s ANY recourse to the Judge except his own ability to inquire about the motives of the prosecution.  To me, Sullivan is punting on second down. He’s got a lot of criminal court experience from the bench.  He can do his job without help (whatever he decides, I don’t really care). His order is B.S.

 

 

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.

Edited May 15, 2020 by SectionC3

[snafu]

52 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Powell to 44: 

https://sidneypowell.com/media/open-memorandum-to-barack-obama/

 

Wow.

[realtruelove]

9 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Wow.

Unleash the Hounds.

[The Guy In Pants]

3 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...beginning to think Section 3 was a "Section 8".........uh oh.........

 I’m fairly certain they consider themselves a legal scholar. Or, at the very least; play one on the internet. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I myself; am not who I claim to be. I am “The Guy In Pants”. However; I’m not wearing any. 

[PelotonBillsFan]

On 5/13/2020 at 6:00 PM, billsfan1959 said:

 

Amazing when the big news out of Republican land is that their 2nd (or 3rd) biggest leader finally told the truth about something — on Fox, no less. 

“Mitch McConnell is backed into a corner and forced to admit he lied about the Obama administration not leaving a pandemic plan, on Fox.”

 

 

[B-Man]

 

INDEED:

 

 

 

Plus:

 

 

 

And:

 

 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

9 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

The worst attorneys I've seen representing criminal defendants have all been privately retained.

My guess is that a public defender attorney or someone in private practice but primarily a defense attorney, would be better than the myriad of real estate attorneys who think they can adequately defend someone in a criminal case or perform well as a divorce attorney, etc. It's like saying a podiatrist can adequately treat cardiovascular issues. In other words, stay in their lane. 

[Hedge]

 

 

 

[billsfan1959]

7 hours ago, PelotonBillsFan said:

Amazing when the big news out of Republican land is that their 2nd (or 3rd) biggest leader finally told the truth about something — on Fox, no less. 

“Mitch McConnell is backed into a corner and forced to admit he lied about the Obama administration not leaving a pandemic plan, on Fox.”

 

 

 

I didn't see anything that I would interpret as him being "backed into a corner." He wasn't asked over and over again until he finally crumbled under the bright interrogation lights.  He was presented with some evidence, asked a question, and admitted he was wrong.

 

I wish more politicians would do the same.

 

BTW, I have no idea why you are posting this specifically in response to one of my posts. You removed the content of my post and insinuated, through your response, that I had written something about Mitch McConnell or a pandemic plan by the Obama administration. I didn't. Which pretty much makes you more disingenuous than Mitch McConnell.