Clown Show: Flynn Was Never Charged With Perjury, But Now Could Be Facing Charges...of Perjury

[mystery-ak]

Clown Show: Flynn Was Never Charged With Perjury, But Now Could Be Facing Charges...of Perjury
Matt Vespa

Posted: May 13, 2020 8:07 PM

Ex-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s war with the government isn’t over just yet. He scored a decisive win, with the Department of Justice filing a motion to dismiss the bogus “lying to the FBI” charges against him. Charges that were politically motivated, part of an elaborate and expansive FBI plot to entrap the former top Trump official. James Comey and Andrew McCabe were out to get Flynn no matter the cost. Department policy and the Constitution be damned; they were going to him. Flynn was the target of the FBI’s counterintelligence probe into Russian collusion because he spoke with the Russians…because that’s what incoming national security advisers do. That’s their job. In the end, there was no evidence of collusion—nothing. There was no evidence to even target Flynn in a counterintelligence probe. And yet, the anti-Trump elements at the DOJ proceeded anyway. The FBI was running amok.

Now, even as Flynn is closer to total and complete victory, the judge presiding over the case, Judge Emmet Sullivan, a Clinton-era appointee, is gumming up the works. As Beth wrote last night, he’s allowing amicus briefs to be filed from the most viciously anti-Trump elements in our legal system in opposition to the DOJ motion.

more
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2020/05/13/what-in-the-fresh-hell-is-this-judge-overseeing-flynn-case-continues-to-gum-up-the-works-n2568777

[Cyber Liberty]

Claiming Flynn is guilty of Perjury because he originally pleaded guilty to a crime he now says he did not commit is appalling.  That would be like dismissing a condemned man's challenge to a conviction after DNA evidence proves him innocent.  It assumes nobody has ever pleaded guilty to a crime they did not commit!  Only ivory tower law school profs and moronic leftists believe that.

[skeeter]

Claiming Flynn is guilty of Perjury because he originally pleaded guilty to a crime he now says he did not commit is appalling.  That would be like dismissing a condemned man's challenge to a conviction after DNA evidence proves him innocent.  It assumes nobody has ever pleaded guilty to a crime they did not commit!  Only ivory tower law school profs and moronic leftists believe that.

The judge is accusing him of perjury for lying because he admitted doing something that wasn't a crime and now is claiming he committed no crime.

Can't make this stuff up.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Supreme Court Ruled Unanimously Last Week Against Improper Use of Amicus Briefs; Relevant for Flynn Case
Breitbart, May 13, 2020, Joel B. Pollack

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously last week against the improper use of amicus briefs by judges to shape a court case as they wish — which is what Judge Emmet G. Sullivan is doing, critics say, in the ongoing Michael Flynn case.

On Tuesday, Judge Sullivan announced that he would accept amicus briefs about whether he should grant the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) motion to dismiss the case against Flynn. On Wednesday, Sullivan went a step further, appointing retired judge John Gleeson as amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) to argue against dismissal, and to argue Flynn be held in criminal contempt.
 
(Gleeson had already expressed his views in an op-ed in the Washington Post on Monday, attacking the DOJ’s motion.)
 
But last week, in the case of U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith, the Supreme Court held that the Ninth Circuit acted improperly by appointing three amici and directing them to brief issues that the judges wanted to consider — but the litigants had not raised.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for a unanimous Court, held:

In our adversarial system of adjudication, we follow the principle of party presentation … Our system “is designed around the premise that [parties represented by competent counsel] know what is best for them, and are reponsible for advancing the facts and argument entitling them to relief.” Id., at 386 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).

In short: “[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government.” United States v. Samuels, 808 F. 2d 1298, 1301 (CA8 1987) (Arnold, J., concurring in denial of reh’g en banc)). They “do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties.” Ibid.

While such amicus briefs could be used in “extraordinary circumstances,” the Court’s list of examples did not include cases in which prosecutors simply dropped a case.

Sullivan has been criticized for inviting the intervention of amicus briefs. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published Wednesday, for example, Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz argued that judges are “umpires,” not “ringmasters”: “If the litigants come to an agreement, there is no controversy. The case is over. … Judge Sullivan should get back to the business of deciding actual controversies and get out of the business of producing political shows.”

https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2020/05/13/supreme-court-ruled-unanimously-last-week-against-improper-use-of-amicus-briefs-flynn/

[Right_in_Virginia]

And in another case in 2016...

In US v Fokker Services the DC COA held: "[T]he `leave of court' authority gives no power to a district court to deny a prosecutor's Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the prosecution's exercise of charging authority." United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 742 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

The case further held:

"The Constitution allocates primacy in criminal charging decisions to the Executive Branch. The Executive's charging authority embraces decisions about whether to initiate charges, whom to prosecute, which charges to bring, and whether to dismiss charges once brought. It has long been settled that the Judiciary generally lacks authority to second-guess those Executive determinations, much less to impose its own charging preferences. "

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15625756419141649783&q=fokker+services+bv&hl=en&as_sdt=4,130

[240B]

I personally witnessed General Flynn crossing a street in the middle of the road. Not in a crosswalk!
Jaywalking! I saw it! And I am willing to testify before Congress.

[Cyber Liberty]

I personally witnessed General Flynn crossing a street in the middle of the road. Not in a crosswalk!
Jaywalking! I saw it! And I am willing to testify before Congress.

You should file an Amicus Brief with Judge Sullivan.  He'd accept it.

[240B]

You should file an Amicus Brief with Judge Sullivan.  He'd accept it.

Believe it or not, years ago a video popped up of Trump crossing the street out of Trump Tower to get to his limo.
And yes, there were actual calls from Democrat activists to prosecute. That is a real deal. Democrats are insane.

[mystery-ak]

It's time for Trump to just pardon Flynn, it's obvious the rats will not let the persecution of Flynn stop.

[Cyber Liberty]

It's time for Trump to just pardon Flynn, it's obvious the rats will not let the persecution of Flynn stop.

I think he's waiting for the Judge to formally find Flynn guilty of Perjury.  He may even wait on an appeal, if its expedited. 

[aligncare]

It's time for Trump to just pardon Flynn, it's obvious the rats will not let the persecution of Flynn stop.

IMO If Trump were to pardon now it would shift attention away from the central and critical element of the Obama administration’s criminal activity to justify spying on the Trump transition team and on to the public outcry the democrats and media would gin up over Flynn’s pardon.

[Free Vulcan]

So it's contempt now to change your plea from guilty to innocent? I thought that was one of the fundamental principles of our judicial system?

This sounds like a turd world, kafkaesque, kangaroo court railroading.

[mystery-ak]

IMO If Trump were to pardon now it would shift attention away from the central and critical element of the Obama administration’s criminal activity to justify spying on the Trump transition team and on to the public outcry the democrats and media would gin up over Flynn’s pardon.

You are probably right about that...

[Cyber Liberty]

So it's contempt now to change your plea from guilty to innocent? I thought that was one of the fundamental principles of our judicial system?

This sounds like a turd world, kafkaesque, kangaroo court railroading.

Yes, this Judge is doing a great job of proving he's a "Rogue Judge."

[Fishrrman]

skeeter wrote:
"The judge is accusing him of perjury for lying because he admitted doing something that wasn't a crime and now is claiming he committed no crime."

If that's the case, then Mr. Trump should pardon Flynn almost immediately after the judge dares to charge him as such.

In other words, slap that judge right down to earth.

[Cyber Liberty]

skeeter wrote:
"The judge is accusing him of perjury for lying because he admitted doing something that wasn't a crime and now is claiming he committed no crime."

If that's the case, then Mr. Trump should pardon Flynn almost immediately after the judge dares to charge him as such.

In other words, slap that judge right down to earth.

A Pardon won't get the job done.  He needs to be appealed right now, and the Circuit needs to do it.  He also needs to be Impeached, but that would require a majority of the House and 2/3rds of the Senate.  Not gonna happen.

[libertybele]

MSM is still not reporting ... yet if they find a way to make fraud charges stick ... they'll start reporting.  They'll leave out of course all the information about Obama and other's corruption and announce how Flynn almost got away with lying.