Justice Dept. Drops Case Against Michael Flynn

[ZiprHead]

Justice Dept. Drops Case Against Michael Flynn

The extraordinary move came after the former national security adviser had fought the case in court for months, a reversal after pleading guilty twice and cooperating with investigators.

The extraordinary move comes amid a sustained attack by Mr. Flynn’s lawyers on prosecutors and the F.B.I., accusing them of egregious conduct. In recent days, Mr. Flynn’s lawyers said the Justice Department had uncovered new documents that pointed to misconduct, particularly in investigators’ interview of Mr. Flynn in January 2017 as part of its inquiry into whether Trump advisers conspired with Russia’s election interference.

Law enforcement officials cited that interview in moving to drop the charges, saying in a court filing that the some of newfound documents showed that the questioning “was untethered to, and unjustified by, the F.B.I.’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn.” Though they conceded that Mr. Flynn lied, prosecutors said that the case did not meet the legal standard that Mr. Flynn’s lies be “materially” relevant to the matter under investigation.

And in a highly unusual step, Attorney General William P. Barr assigned an outside prosecutor to review the Justice Department’s case. As part of that review, prosecutors turned over documents starting last month that Mr. Flynn’s lawyers said proved the former general had been framed by the F.B.I.

 

[blastula]

Orange banana republic.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Patooka]

This doesn't sound suss at all...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7ufWqGPDE4[/youtube]

Admittedly this was almost a lifetime ago, but I could have sworn Flynn got arrested after Obama left office.

 

[ideologyhunter]

As always, what Trumpo says about others is exactly what I'm thinking whenever his plump orange face is on-screen. "What a disgrace...nothing like this has ever happened in our history...human scum...I hope there's a very big price to pay..."
The commentary at the end of the piece is sadly accurate. In three years, Trump has completely corrupted the DOJ. And the pardon process. Even the weather service is a political wing of the WH. Goddamn this evil, stupid man.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

As I wrote in another thread, get ready for a shitstorm of lies all aimed at systematically destroying Mueller and the FBI—and by extension the entire Democrat “witch hunt” hoaxsters—and the release of a Mueller report of their own (a Barr report) full of fake “evidence,” half-truths, false equivalences, lies of omission and just outright lies that will somehow bring Hillary Clinton back into the spotlight, so that the 2020 election becomes all about Trump vs. Clinton and they can all chant “lock her up” all over again.

Flynn is jut the opening salvo. There will soon be a tsunami of bullshit from Barr and the now fully corrupt DOJ that is going to try to discredit EVERYTHING that has to do with the “Russian hoax” and flip ALL of the cards. Every single one of Trump’s “enemies” is about to be targeted in a massive distraction campaign that will take us all the way to the general. Biden, Schiff, Hillary Clinton, Pelosi, Mueller, Comey. EVERYONE will soon be accused and threats of subpoenas and so on.

It will all be bullshit of course, but that’s what’s been in the works this whole time and why no one has seen Giuliani and why Trump just authorized release of the transcripts and documents of the Russian probe. He wants everything out in the open again so that Barr can take it all down. Or, rather, give the appearance of doing so, which is all that really matters.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He plead guilty but only because the FBI was threatening him?

So are the right-wingers saying that people can be coerced into a false guilty plea? Asking for several dozen threads about guilty pleas of minorities where the guilty plea is taken by right-wingers as absolute guilt.

 

[Elixir]

When asked how he thinks history will remember his decision to override the US Justice system, Barr issued a shit-eating grin and said "History is written by the winners".
He fully intends to destroy this Country.
That piece of shit should be drawn and quartered.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Judge Sullivan can deny the Justice Department's request for dismissal under Rule 48(a) as dismissal is with "leave of the court". While Rule 48(a) is normally used by the court to prevent prosecutorial harassment of repeatedly filing and dismissing charges against a defendant, the Flynn case is unique in that there was a defendant and the government agreeing that Flynn was guilty to both agreeing the charges cannot stand. Further, none of the prosecutors who worked on the case were willing to sign off on the government's dismissal request. Alternatively, the judge can change the government's dimissal request from "with prejudice" to "without" so Flynn can be charged at a later date when the United States forms a government.



Just say no.

 

[Tigers!]

He plead guilty but only because the FBI was threatening him?

So are the right-wingers saying that people can be coerced into a false guilty plea? Asking for several dozen threads about guilty pleas of minorities where the guilty plea is taken by right-wingers as absolute guilt.

Why would the FBI haven't threatened him?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The federal court system is a corrupt system. Over 90% of cases do not go to trial, because of how difficult it is for any person to prevail. Those who do win still suffer financially. Lawyers routinely advise not to fight the Fed and plead out to a lesser sentence. Actual guilt is the least important consideration.

That's why I say any case that has a government prosecutor should also have a government defense attorney with equal funding and resources. And just as the prosecutor gains raises and promotions for winning a guilty verdict, the defender should gain raises an promotions for not guilty verdicts.

 

[Tigers!]

View attachment 27573

Though one might be guilty of one thing and be found inncoent of another.

 

[ZiprHead]

2,000 former DOJ, FBI officials call on Barr to resign over Michael Flynn case
Barr is using the Justice Department to further Trump's personal and political interests, the letter said.

 

[Elixir]

Not so fast for a Michael Flynn exoneration.

The Trump Crime Family has not yet replaced every honest judge on the federal bench.

Tuesday's development keeps the case alive in a way that could create even more fireworks and potentially allow people with "unique information or perspective" or other reasons to speak up, such as Mueller's former office and former Justice Department leadership, if they wanted.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Not so fast for a Michael Flynn exoneration.

The Trump Crime Family has not yet replaced every honest judge on the federal bench.

Tuesday's development keeps the case alive in a way that could create even more fireworks and potentially allow people with "unique information or perspective" or other reasons to speak up, such as Mueller's former office and former Justice Department leadership, if they wanted.

Now we're talking! That judge deserves a Medal of Freedom. From President Biden.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And what's the importance? All it's saying is the court needs to address the motion.

 

[ZiprHead]

Appeals court says Flynn case must be dismissed.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Here's an excellent analysis: The Deeply Concerning, Misguided D.C. Circuit Mandamus Ruling in the Flynn Case. Snippet:

This morning—in a stunning decision that broke from usual standards of judicial process and self-restraint—D.C. Circuit Judges Neomi Rao and Karen LeCraft Henderson granted Michael Flynn’s preemptive mandamus petition to shut down Judge Emmet Sullivan’s consideration of the government’s motion to dismiss the criminal charge against Flynn. The court ordered Judge Sullivan “to grant the government’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss” the charge before the judge even considers the merits of that motion, apparently in order to prevent him from convening a hearing on it. Judge Robert Wilkins dissented.

The oral argument gave little hint that this was coming. Indeed, Judge Henderson repeatedly noted both that Judge Sullivan hadn’t even had the chance to rule yet, and that Flynn could remedy any injury by appealing if and when Sullivan denied the government’s motion and entered a judgment of conviction—both of which made mandamus a singularly inappropriate remedy here.

As I’ll explain below, the panel’s decision is plainly wrong and the en banc court of appeals will almost certainly reversed it if the case reaches that stage. But it now stands as the law of the D.C. Circuit, and everyone who cares about the state of the federal courts should take notice.

Before explaining why I believe it’s clear that the panel erred in several important respects, I should stress once again that I don’t really care much—and I think you shouldn’t either—whether Michael Flynn is ultimately convicted for willfully making false material statements in his January 24, 2017 interview with two FBI agents, or whether Flynn ever spends any time in prison (something that’s very unlikely in light of the President’s pardon power). In part this is because (as I’ve previously recounted) many acts of misfeasance by other actors in this affair—from the President to Attorney General Barr to former FBI Director Comey—have been more damaging to governmental functions and norms than Flynn’s false statements were; and in part it’s because Flynn’s lies to the FBI weren’t remotely his own most egregious actions, before or after January 24, 2017—indeed, they weren’t even the most damaging criminal offenses he committed.

Whatever one thinks of Flynn’s misconduct and whether it merits criminal punishment, however—and whatever you think of the damage Attorney General Barr has done to the reputation for the evenhanded administration of justice in the Executive Branch, including in the Flynn case itself (see also my second Flynn post)—in today’s decision Judges Rao and Henderson have touched a new nerve by damaging the integrity of the judicial process. And that raises an entirely different order of concern.

Much, much more at the link, of course, but he concludes:

In their opinion today, Judges Rao and Henderson appear to endorse (p.6) Barr’s assertions that “newly discovered evidence cast Flynn’s guilt into doubt” and that “the FBI interview at which Flynn allegedly made false statements was ‘untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn.’” It’s disturbing enough that the Barr Justice Department is wielding its power to rewrite history and sweep an Administration’s official’s misdeeds under the rug. It’s even more distressing when a court rushes in to prevent even a modest judicial accounting of the DOJ’s actions, in defiance of accepted standards. Yet that’s just what this panel did today.

ETA: There are excellent links in the piece quoted above that I highly recommend. Here are two: The Flynn Calls: His Dismissal of Russian Interference and the Kremlin’s Savvy and Four Remarkable Arguments in DOJ’s Latest Brief in the Michael Flynn Case [UPDATED with links to reply/response briefs].

From the latter (emphasis in original):

We know now that Trump (at best) didn’t care about Russia’s election interference—after all, he’s said so repeatedly for three-plus years. And if that’s your baseline understanding–that of course Trump wasn’t troubled by the cyber-operations and therefore would naturally have been trying to stymie the effects of Obama’s sanctions–then your reaction to the Kislyak call is likely to be one of nonchalance, e.g., “That’s Trump: What’d you expect?”

But consider how this call looked to intelligence and diplomatic officials on December 29, 2016, just after they had learned of Russia’s interference in the election and just hours after President Obama had imposed dramatic sanctions on Russia in response. It was unlike anything they’d ever seen before and was deeply alarming. As David Corn writes:

At no point does Flynn castigate Kislyak for Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election. He does not confront the Russian ambassador for Putin’s covert operation to subvert American democracy. He does not tell Kislyak that Moscow will have to pay a price for hacking the Democrats and using the stolen information to influence the election for Trump’s benefit. Flynn, a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, does not warn Kislyak against any further Russian information warfare targeting the United States. As the Obama administration was trying to impose a punishment on Putin for that attack, Flynn, on behalf of the Trump gang, was sending an utterly different message: We don’t care about that.

Think about this perverse set of interactions: the incoming national security adviser was essentially telling a foreign adversary that the new president wasn’t concerned about an attack on the United States and, moreover, indicating that Trump didn’t intend to do anything about it. In fact, Flynn was signaling to Putin that once Trump took office, Trump wouldn’t be pursuing the matter and, instead, would be reaching out to Russia as a partner. (A few months later, Trump, in the Oval Office, would tell Kislyak that directly.) . . .

He was dealing with the Russians as if there had been no attack.
...
The idea that the incoming President of the United States and/or his National Security Advisor would be (at best) so indifferent to Russia’s interference in the 2016 election—in secret, with the Russian Ambassador—might be old news now, but back then it was virtually unthinkable. That’s why Flynn’s calls were so shocking, and easily justified DOJ’s and the FBI’s concerns and the latter’s decision not to close its Flynn investigation. Quite simply, it was imperative to figure out why an incoming National Security Advisor would do such a thing and whether, in particular, he or the President were in any way compromised by Russia. (And then the concerns only became more acute when, several days later, incoming officials, including Vice-President-Elect Pence, began to insist publicly that Flynn and Kislyak hadn’t discussed sanctions—something they presumably wouldn’t have done if those conversations were as benign and unexceptional as the Attorney General would now have it.)

If, like Trump and Barr, you think that the Russian interference was no big deal—business as usual—and that the real threat to the Republic was the government’s response to Russia’s efforts and to the Trump campaign’s pervasive interactions with, and encouragement of, those efforts, then of course the Kislyak calls will appear to be appropriate or laudable. But if, on the other hand, you agree with the uniform conclusions of, e.g., the Intelligence Community, the Mueller Report, and the Senate Intelligence Committee, that Russia’s involvement in our election was a profound threat to our institutions, and that the Trump campaign’s eagerness to encourage that involvement was beyond the pale, then the Kislyak calls will look rather different.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Who has standing to go En Banc on their candied asses? Can the Judge do it?

It is so bizarre how we went from a guilty plea to the DoJ with the DC Court of Appeal hasty approval (not entire court) to dismiss the case.