Patterico's Pontifications

6/24/2020

Corruption Wins … for Now

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am



In a surprising development, General Michael Flynn has (for now) won his bid to have an appeals court order Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss his case without any further hearing. As predicted, Judge Rao was on Flynn’s side and Judge Wilkins was prepared to deny the petition. What was not predicted was that Judge Henderon signed onto Judge Rao’s opinion.

When the panel was first assigned I thought it would be a 2-1 decision for Flynn. Then I heard the oral argument and was convinced that it would be 2-1 against Flynn.

Well, as it turns out, my initial gloomier prediction indeed gave Judge Henderson precisely the credit she was actually due. We knew she and Rao were both hacks from the Trump tax cases, but listening to that oral argument, although I knew Judge Henderson was strangely swayed by Flynn’s view of the merits, I truly never thought her hackishness would go this far. She seemed very clear that she was against granting the writ. Very clear. As I said in a post predicting the opposite of what happened today:

A prediction is a prediction. People get predictions wrong, and I suppose Judges Henderson and Wilkins could have spent the argument sounding like firm votes against Flynn, and then could turn around and write an opinion vindicating everything he said and granting the petition. I sincerely doubt that will happen, but it could.

As to Judge Henderson, it did. Although she didn’t write the opinion. she signed onto it. She spent virtually the entire argument making the case for how crazy it would be to deny Judge Sullivan the chance to at least hold the hearing, and then signed on to an opinion ordering him … not to hold the hearing.

Unbelievable overreach.

So now what? Well …

I should have stayed out of the prediction business with this panel decision, and I should not be making further predictions on the case, but here is my prediction on the case. The full court will stay this order, rehear the case en banc, and reverse the decision.

As before, I could be wrong. I was this time.

But wasn’t Judge Rao correct? It’s a pointless exercise to hold a hearing. After all, it’s not like the Trump administration puts its thumb on the scale to benefit the President’s cronies, right?

Which brings us to our second story of the day. Aaron Zelinsky, one of the Roger Stone prosecutors, will be testifying today before Congress, and yesterday released his opening statement. For those few left who care about the rule of law, it’s an eye-opener. You should read it all, but these passages caught my eye:

We received word back from one of the supervisors on February 5, 2020, that the sentencing memo was strong, and that Stone “deserve[d] every day” of our recommendation.

However, just two days later, I learned that our team was being pressured by the leadership of the U.S. Attorney’s Office not to seek all of the Guidelines enhancements that applied to Stone –that is, to provide an inaccurate Guidelines calculation that would result in a lower sentencing range.

. . . .

In response, we were told by a supervisor that the U.S. Attorney had political reasons for his instructions, which our supervisor agreed was unethical and wrong. However, we were instructed that we should go along with the U.S. Attorney’s instructions, because this case was “not the hill worth dying on” and that we could “lose our jobs” if we did not toe the line.

We responded that cutting a defendant a break because of his relationship to the President undermined the fundamental principles of the Department of Justice and that we felt that was an important principle to defend.

. . . .

Ultimately, we refused to modify our memorandum to ask for a substantially lower sentence. Again, I was told that the U.S. Attorney’s instructions had nothing to do with Mr. Stone, the facts of the case, the law, or Department policy. Instead, I was explicitly told that the motivation for changing the sentencing memo was political, and because the U.S. Attorney was “afraid of the President.”

In my judgment, similar considerations played a role in the highly unusual reversal in Flynn’s case as well. Such rank corruption could well justify a district judge’s decision to refuse to dismiss a case where the guilty plea had already been accepted.

But Judge Sullivan will not be allowed to have that hearing.

For now.

And he may never get a chance to have that hearing. The Court of Appeals might deny en banc review. And the Department of Justice may be allowed to continue to stomp on the rule of law.

For now.

128 Responses to “Corruption Wins … for Now”

  1. Crazy.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. I recall commenting in one of the first threads on this case that the matter was governed by Fokker Servs. Which turned out to be exactly right. Might have turned out differently in another circuit where that wasn’t binding precedent, but that’s the law in the DC Circuit.

    I do recall being told repeatedly in one of the old threads that Fokker was “just dicta” and therefore didn’t bind this case. Which turned out to be completely wrong:

    Second, the dissent undermines our recent decision in
    Fokker Services by recasting its necessary and well-considered
    reasoning as dicta. In that case, we relied on “settled
    constitutional understandings” to determine that Rule 48(a)’s
    “leave of court” requirement “confers no new power in the
    courts to scrutinize and countermand the prosecution’s exercise
    of its traditional authority over charging and enforcement
    decisions.” Fokker Servs., 818 F.3d at 741, 743. This part of
    the opinion is binding… [Fokker] is fundamentally
    about the scope of the Executive’s constitutional charging
    authority. As such, it is directly controlling here.

    Al S (638581)

  3. Sean Davis
    @seanmdav

    Handwritten notes from Peter Strzok disclosed by DOJ in federal court yesterday show that the operation against Michael Flynn was ordered by President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden in the Oval Office on January 5, 2017.

    https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1275806570887237633?s=20
    _

    harkin (9c4571)

  4. Sean Davis
    @seanmdav
    ·
    According to Strzok’s notes detailing the January 5 meeting, Joe Biden (“VP”) explicitly mentioned using the Logan Act to go after Flynn, and Obama explicitly directed James Comey (“D”) and Sally Yates (“DAG”) to investigate Flynn and use “the right people” to go after him.

    https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1275808365801807874?s=20
    __

    harkin (9c4571)

  5. The direction to Sullivan is to dismiss pursuant to Rule 48(a). That’s without prejudice.

    nk (1d9030)

  6. Al S,

    The fact that Rao says it’s not dicta does not mean it’s not dicta. I agree with Judge Wilkins that: “In contending that its trailblazing result is somehow compelled by precedent, the majority transforms dicta into dogma” and I think an en banc court will as well.

    But I could be wrong!! :)

    Patterico (115b1f)

  7. @nk – the MTD was with prejudice.

    Al S (638581)

  8. nk, Al S is right that the MTD was with prejudice.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  9. “Crazy.”

    “Unbelievable overreach.”

    I saw a mention earlier that this site would be a fun read today. I expected a bit more hair to be on fire, but this is some rock-solid projection.

    In a sane world, prosecutorial misconduct has consequences. This decision is sane, for now.

    For now.

    gmmay70 (92129e)

  10. @Patterico – ???

    If the court says it’s not dicta, then it’s not dicta. At least until a higher court rules otherwise. You may in fact be right that an en banc opinion overturns this decision, but until then this court held that the discussion in Fokker Servs was not dicta.

    I mean, I can claim that a law criminalizing flag burning is in my opinion constitutional. I can even predict that the Supreme Court will overturn Texas v. Johnson. But until that actually happens, the law is the prohibiting flag burning is unconstitutional. No?

    Al S (638581)

  11. It seems that the Trump judges ruled on Gleeson’s brief before Sullivan even had a chance to. Given the lack of precedence, Sullivan should ask the whole circuit to decide the case. This just confirms that I can’t predict the future, or at least predict it with any semblance of accuracy.

    Paul Montagu (d27749)

  12. The same FBI that destroyed all of Hillary’s and her cronies phones, gave them immunity from all prosecution, is the one worthy of trust?

    Nah. Sorry.

    Flynn is dirty for his support of Turkey and trying to influence our regime for their benefit. He isn’t guilty of what they allege though.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  13. re: the MTD being with prejudice.

    Obviously the point here is that a dismissal without prejudice allows the Biden DOJ to pick the case back up and restart the prosecution in January.

    I wonder … if Sullivan had simply dismissed the case without prejudice, instead of going through all of these gyrations with Gleeson, what would have happened? Heck, I am assuming (without knowing) that a federal judge can actually respond to a MTD with prejudice by instead dismissing without prejudice.

    In that case, I assume Flynn have appealed and claimed “no, no, Sullivan has to dismiss with prejudice”? Is that a better posture for the Patterico/anti-Flynn side than what’s actually occurred?

    Al S (638581)

  14. nk, Al S is right that the MTD was with prejudice.

    I know, but that is not authorized by Rule 48(a), in either its language or its history. It is a codification of nolle prosequi which is traditionally without prejudice. Rule 48(b), dismissal for want of prosecution, can be with prejudice.

    And, no, not being final, it is not appealable. Flynn would need to wait till he was spurred before he bucked, i.e. when Attorney General Kamala Harris re-indicted him, tried him, and convicted him.

    nk (1d9030)

  15. Was that even an issue, though? That besides the behind the scenes shenanigans, the government was asking for something not authorized by law?

    nk (1d9030)

  16. I don’t see where Sullivan has to agree to dismiss with prejudice. If he’s forced to dismiss, it seems like he has the latitude to decide the manner of dismissal.

    Paul Montagu (cbbfc4)

  17. We responded that cutting a defendant a break because of his relationship to the President …

    But going after a defendant strictly because of his relationship to the President undermines nothing, except someone’s credibility.

    The bar for “rank corruption” was set by those who blew off the Stzrok texts, the false Page warrant evidence, the Flynn setup, the leaks of classified info to kickstart an investigation.

    It’s a high bar. Congratulations. That won’t stop the likes of Nadler and Schiff from feigning outrage.

    beer ‘n pretzels (ddfa85)

  18. Paul Montagu, Sullivan does not have that latitude. From the ruling:

    For the foregoing reasons, we grant Flynn’s petition for a writ of mandamus in part and direct the district court to grant the government’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss.

    The government’s motion is to dismiss with prejudice, and that is what Sullivan has been ordered to grant.

    Observer (57ba3f)

  19. Unexpectedly!!!

    Colonel Haiku (140d0a)

  20. the case against the turkish lobbyist fell apart, another flesh wound, of course the master of the casbah, richard armitage was never touched by fitz, and comey ignored that when he released the hounds,

    narciso (7404b5)

  21. The level of #NeverTrump craziness will now increase exponentially…

    Colonel Haiku (140d0a)

  22. Wow… I didn’t see this coming after hearing the arguments.

    And I totally disagree that this is rank corruption.

    The rank corruption ought to be focused on the Obama officials endeavoring this escapade.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  23. I’m sure the trumpist response to this will be, in part, that it can’t be stomping on the rule of law because the constitution grants the president complete authority to protect his friends and associates from criminal investigation and nobody can make the executive investigate someone the president doesn’t want to investigate.

    aphrael (7962af)

  24. Can someone explain this to me: I’m seeing a lot of people saying that Flynn’s false statements were were immaterial to any underlying crime and that’s why the charges were dismissed. Do y’all agree? I probably need this explained like I’m 5 b/c I haven’t really been following it.

    JRH (52aed3)

  25. I’m not a lawyer, but I found the majority opinion’s rebuttal of the dissent by Left-wing Obama judge Wilkins to be quite persuasive. The bottom line seems to be that the majority could quote one case after another supporting their opinion, while Wilkens just had a lot of blah blah
    He was obviously voting his politics and not the case law. But then he’s a lefitst

    rcocean (2e1c02)

  26. Sullivan went crazy on this case, and hopes to hurt Trump by hurting Flynn. There was no reasons to continue the Sullivan circus and hopefully the Full Court of appeals will decide they have better to do with their time. This has dragged on long enough. A politicized FBI, a polticized Mueller Team, and a polticized Judge have cause General Flynn enough Grief. Good God, you’d think he’d shot someone rather than just telling some sort of lie (no seems sure what at this point) to FBI agents out to destroy him.

    rcocean (2e1c02)

  27. The current Notes from Stzork show Comey telling Obama that Flynn’s conversation was OK and not criminal and Biden then suggesting that they use the Logan act to go after Flynn. This could be big. And BIden should be asked to explain his actions.

    rcocean (2e1c02)

  28. “Handwritten notes from fired former FBI agent Peter Strzok show that Obama himself directed key aspects of the campaign to target Flynn during a Jan. 5, 2017 meeting in the Oval Office.”

    The Federalist reports.

    The new notes, which record Comey’s accounting to Strzok of the meeting’s substance, constitute definitive evidence that Obama himself was personally directing significant aspects of a criminal investigation into his political enemy’s top foreign policy adviser.

    https://althouse.blogspot.com/2020/06/handwritten-notes-from-fired-former-fbi.html

    Colonel Haiku (140d0a)

  29. I think Judge Henderson was convinced by the rebuttal argument that the government should be able to correct its prosecution mistakes. Or maybe she was already predisposed and saw that as an argument that justified this decision.

    DRJ (aede82)

  30. I understand seeing this is a way to fix the Obama Administration’s political use of its powers. I also agree they did that, repeatedly, but you don’t “fix” political corruption by engaging in corruption for your side.

    DRJ (aede82)

  31. “Handwritten notes from fired former FBI agent Peter Strzok show that Obama himself directed key aspects of the campaign to target Flynn during a Jan. 5, 2017 meeting in the Oval Office.”

    Obama had an Article II where he had the right to do whatever he wanted as president.

    Dave (1bb933)

  32. @32

    I understand seeing this is a way to fix the Obama Administration’s political use of its powers. I also agree they did that, repeatedly, but you don’t “fix” political corruption by engaging in corruption for your side.

    DRJ (aede82) — 6/24/2020 @ 10:16 am

    What was the “political corruption” on the government’s dismissal of the Flynn case?

    whembly (c30c83)

  33. why indeed, because flynn spoke out against the treason of the iran deal, because his division spelled out two years before islamic state debuted, the salafist principality, because he told obama al queda was far from dead, because his section did the best intelligence product on libya, one month before the embassy attack, those are criminal actions,

    narciso (7404b5)

  34. “Handwritten notes from fired former FBI agent Peter Strzok show that Obama himself directed key aspects of the campaign to target Flynn during a Jan. 5, 2017 meeting in the Oval Office.”

    But Susan Rice convincingly wrote (3x!) that Obama ordered this be done “by the book.” By the book by the book by the book, so ordered at that very meeting. Who doesn’t believe this was done by the book after that belated yet last minute repetitive CYA?

    Not unbelievable judicial overreach, but believable political and prosecutorial overreach. Obama ordered the Code Red.

    Beer Here! (2f150a)

  35. For the foregoing reasons, we grant Flynn’s petition for a writ of mandamus in part and direct the district court to grant the government’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss.

    The government’s motion is to dismiss with prejudice, and that is what Sullivan has been ordered to grant.

    More evidence of Rao’s disingenuousness, if anything. It can be a Rule 48(a) motion or it can be with prejudice. It cannot be both.

    nk (1d9030)

  36. I am not a Biden fan, but this headline obviously has Biden smiling. This victory is much like when Trump beat COVID in March when cases maxed out at 15.

    The politics of extreme trolling and division, as the nation tears itself apart, continues another day.

    Dustin (e3a6ae)

  37. @30

    “Handwritten notes from fired former FBI agent Peter Strzok show that Obama himself directed key aspects of the campaign to target Flynn during a Jan. 5, 2017 meeting in the Oval Office.”

    The Federalist reports.

    The new notes, which record Comey’s accounting to Strzok of the meeting’s substance, constitute definitive evidence that Obama himself was personally directing significant aspects of a criminal investigation into his political enemy’s top foreign policy adviser.

    https://althouse.blogspot.com/2020/06/handwritten-notes-from-fired-former-fbi.html

    Colonel Haiku (140d0a) — 6/24/2020 @ 10:11 am

    …and there it is.

    #Obamagate isn’t conspiracy theory anymore. Its there in black and white.

    Another good point:

    Richard Grenell
    @RichardGrenell
    ·
    2h
    This is very troubling. The Susan Rice email to herself clearly didn’t give an accurate portrayal of the meeting.
    The “right people” is fundamentally different than “by the book”.

    Rice’s email is definitely a CYA moment.

    I want you all to take a step back and consider this implication: This wasn’t a peaceful transition of power where the executive branch changes party. The damage here, as well as what it does for future precedents, is going to be immeasurable.

    If you still give the Obama era officials in the FBI/DOJ any benefit of doubt, then what you are doing is give cover to actual abuse of power and political malfeasance. You don’t just “Move On™” and “What Difference Does it Make?®” to accept it because it happened in the past and only Trump deserves your focus.

    No. We all can walk and chew gum here.

    Frankly, any sturm and drang about Trump’s alleged malfeasance while ignoring #ObamaGate renders such arguments as impotent.

    whembly (c30c83)

  38. nk,

    More evidence of Rao’s disingenuousness, if anything. It can be a Rule 48(a) motion or it can be with prejudice. It cannot be both.

    Rule 48(a) doesn’t say that.

    If you look at state-level analogs of Rule 48(a), it shows that they are by default without prejudice, unless otherwise stated. The closest I have been able to find to your argument on the federal level is in DeMarrias v. United States (1973), which states:

    As a general rule, a dismissal with leave of court is considered to be without prejudice.

    However, a general rule that dismissal is without prejudice is not the same thing as saying it cannot be with prejudice.

    Observer (57ba3f)

  39. Sure, let’s forget that Flynn was an agent of both Russia and Turkey, and clutch our pearls that the President of the United States, that would be Obama, took a personal interest that the traitor was going to be the National Security Advisor of the incoming orange baboon.

    nk (1d9030)

  40. If Flynn’s false statements were immaterial to any underlying crime then why is not right and just for the charges against him to be dismissed?

    JRH (52aed3)

  41. “ I want you all to take a step back and consider this implication: This wasn’t a peaceful transition of power where the executive branch changes party.“
    __

    There are an awful lot of people here who have been twisting themselves into pretzels to avoid considering exactly that.
    _

    harkin (9c4571)

  42. @41

    Sure, let’s forget that Flynn was an agent of both Russia and Turkey, and clutch our pearls that the President of the United States, that would be Obama, took a personal interest that the traitor was going to be the National Security Advisor of the incoming orange baboon.

    nk (1d9030) — 6/24/2020 @ 10:50 am

    Flynn was an agent of Russia? WTF?

    Flynn was an agent of Turkey? You mean, he participated in a DC practice of lobbying? The pearl clutching here is done by you.

    Additionally, you do know that both Obama and Biden publicly stated that they were not involved in any Flynn criminal investigations. This… is going to hurt Biden just as the email saga hurt HRC.

    whembly (c30c83)

  43. So Obama is still President? Nobody tells me anything.

    There is no question that Trump had the most incompetent transition team since the Founding of the Republic. Obama is not to blame for that and it is to his credit that he tried to weed out least one traitor.

    nk (1d9030)

  44. Whembly, We have 2 contemporaneous records of that meeting.
    1. Rice’s email where she says he wants it by the book.
    2. The notes that PS took from his conversation with Comey that they wanted the “right people”.

    It’s plausible that “the right people” was code for people who would get a predetermined outcome. I’m very willing to accept that.

    But there are other plausible explanations. It’s a piece of evidence, but it’s not conclusive by itself. There have been several IG investigation that haven’t found evidence to support that the white house was running this investigatio. The last one actually faulted the FBI for the lack of info they shared with the white house and DOJ.

    Also, I don’t think the summary above is correct. Here’s what I translate that chicken scratch as.

    P: These are unusual times
    VP: I’ve been ???on the intel ???? for ten years and I never
    P: Make sure you look at things and the right people on it.
    P: Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling the transition team?
    D: Flynn–> Kislyak call but appear legit

    Could be a coded message to get Trump but it could be they’re legitimately concerned that Trump or someone on his team is compromised.

    I’m not saying it’s in the past, or that it doesn’t matter. I’m saying you haven’t proven your claim.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  45. Whembly, Flynn’s work for Turkey went well beyond simple lobbying.

    He also met Turkish representatives in September last year, according to Mr Woolsey, a board member for Mr Flynn’s consultancy.

    Mr Woolsey has previously told CNN that in September, “there was at least some strong suggestion by one or more of the Americans present at the meeting that we would be able, the United States would be able, through them, to be able to get hold of Gulen”.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  46. @48

    Whembly, We have 2 contemporaneous records of that meeting.
    1. Rice’s email where she says he wants it by the book.
    2. The notes that PS took from his conversation with Comey that they wanted the “right people”.

    It’s plausible that “the right people” was code for people who would get a predetermined outcome. I’m very willing to accept that.

    But there are other plausible explanations. It’s a piece of evidence, but it’s not conclusive by itself. There have been several IG investigation that haven’t found evidence to support that the white house was running this investigatio. The last one actually faulted the FBI for the lack of info they shared with the white house and DOJ.

    Also, I don’t think the summary above is correct. Here’s what I translate that chicken scratch as.

    P: These are unusual times
    VP: I’ve been ???on the intel ???? for ten years and I never
    P: Make sure you look at things and the right people on it.
    P: Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling the transition team?
    D: Flynn–> Kislyak call but appear legit

    Could be a coded message to get Trump but it could be they’re legitimately concerned that Trump or someone on his team is compromised.

    I’m not saying it’s in the past, or that it doesn’t matter. I’m saying you haven’t proven your claim.

    Time123 (f5cf77) — 6/24/2020 @ 11:12 am

    Totally disagree. There’s only ONE contemporaneous record of that meetings… and it’s that chicken scratch by PS.

    That Rice email is literally a ‘cover your ass’ email mere HOURS before inauguration.

    That chicken scratch is even stronger than a “smoking gun”… this is synonymous to having oodles of witnesses observing the murder with said gun.

    Biden himself… brings up the idea of using the Logan Act against Flynn. Yet publicly on May 14, 2020 (only weeks ago!): “I was never a part or had any knowledge of any criminal investigation into Flynn while I was in office, period. Not one single time.”
    https://pbs.twimg.com/ext_tw_video_thumb/1261132439461691392/pu/img/GFWjLA43Osdb7ddC?format=jpg&name=900×900

    The ironic thing here, is that this chicken scratch notes pointed out that Comey thought the call “appear legit”. Which further substantiates that Comey LATER stating that there wasn’t anything wrong with that call.

    Again, this chicken scratch literally (not figuratively) implicate Obama and Biden in directly ordering Flynn Investigation that they knew was a sham (PS noted that Comey stated that the call was legit).

    whembly (c30c83)

  47. @49

    Whembly, Flynn’s work for Turkey went well beyond simple lobbying.

    He also met Turkish representatives in September last year, according to Mr Woolsey, a board member for Mr Flynn’s consultancy.

    Mr Woolsey has previously told CNN that in September, “there was at least some strong suggestion by one or more of the Americans present at the meeting that we would be able, the United States would be able, through them, to be able to get hold of Gulen”.

    Time123 (f5cf77) — 6/24/2020 @ 11:22 am

    Oh. You mean that’s a FARA violation… the one that the Mueller team didn’t charge Flynn with?

    You mean, his partner who was actually charged with…that the Judge threw the case out for lack evidence.

    That one?

    There’s a lot of innuendo and a heaping lack of evidence that would substantiate that claim Time123. If that FARA violation was as strong as the Mueller team stipulated (which mean that they believed that they would prevail in getting a FARA violation conviction) then they would’ve charged Flynn that, as DOJ regulation requires that the most severe charge is used when extracting a plea deal.

    Now, ask yourself this: why didn’t they do that?

    whembly (c30c83)

  48. If Fokker is controlling, Flynn wins. It really is that simple.

    Ed from SFV (f64387)

  49. Justice Dept. Officials Testify on Politicization Under Barr
    Aaron S.J. Zelinsky, a career prosecutor who worked on the Russia investigation, told the House Judiciary Committee that senior law enforcement officials intervened to seek a more lenient prison sentence for Mr. Trump’s longtime friend Roger J. Stone Jr. for political reasons. And John W. Elias, a senior career official in the antitrust division, charged that supervisors improperly used their powers to investigate the marijuana industry and a deal between California and four major automakers.
    …..
    “We’re on the way to something far worse than Watergate,” said (Donald Ayer, deputy attorney general under President George Bush)……“It’s becoming very transparent many things are being done essentially for reasons that are completely unrelated to the merits of the case.”
    …..
    Even before the conflict spilled into public view, Mr. Zelinsky said unidentified supervisors had openly discussed the intervention to shorten the recommendation as having been motivated by “political reasons” even though one supervisor agreed that doing so “was unethical and wrong.”
    ……
    Mr. Zelinsky said that he was told that Mr. (Timothy) Shea “was receiving heavy pressure from the highest levels of the Department of Justice” and complied because he was “afraid of” Mr. Trump. At one point, he said, a supervisor instructed him and other line prosecutors that they could be fired if they did not comply.
    ……
    “In the United States of America, we do not prosecute people based on politics and we don’t cut them a break based on politics,” Mr. Zelinsky said. “But that wasn’t what happened here. Roger Stone was treated differently because of politics.”
    ……
    Mr. Elias, the lawyer in the Justice Department’s antitrust division, said that he believed that the division’s investigations into the cannabis and auto industries were politically motivated, and that one was at Mr. Barr’s behest. ……

    Mr. Elias also said that the department initiated a review of four major automakers the day after Mr. Trump said on Twitter that he was enraged by the news that the companies would adhere to higher fuel emissions standards than the federal government demands.
    …..
    “At the direction of Attorney General Barr, the antitrust division launched 10 full-scale reviews of merger activity taking place in the marijuana, or cannabis, industry” because the attorney general “did not like the nature of their underlying business,” Mr. Elias said in written testimony.
    ……
    Mr. Elias, who served as chief of staff to Makan Delrahim, the head of the antitrust division, said that during a meeting in September, Mr. Delrahim “acknowledged at an all-staff meeting that the cannabis industry is unpopular ‘on the fifth floor,’ a reference to Attorney General Barr’s offices.”
    ……

    RipMurdock (d2a2a8)

  50. Rule of law?? ROFLMAO.

    Reaganoptics:

    ‘John M. Poindexter: President Reagan’s national security adviser from December 1985 to November 1986 was convicted on April 7, 1990, on five counts involving charges that he obstructed, conspired to obstruct and made false statements to Congress. He was sentenced June 11, 1990 to six months in prison. A Federal appeals panel threw out the convictions on Nov. 15, 1991, on the ground that Mr. Poindexter’s testimony to Congress under immunity was improperly used against him.’ – source, NYT

    Ollie North 101: ‘Judge Gerhard Gesell dismissed all charges against North on September 16, 1991′ -source,wikiHallFawning

    Then there’s Cap and chums; 6-Year Inquiry Into Deal of Arms for Hostages All but Swept Away: … ‘the decision, [GHWBush pardoning Weinberger, Bob MacFarlane, Elliot Abrams, Duane Clarridge, Clair George and Alan Fiers for Reagan’s Iran-Contra mess] discussed in private, seemed to coalesce in the last three weeks although Mr. Bush was said to believe that Mr. Weinberger had been unfairly charged ever since the former Reagan Cabinet officer was first indicted in June.

    Throughout the deliberations, Mr. Bush consulted with Attorney General William P. Barr [name sound familiar?!] and Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser, who had sat on a Presidential review panel that examined the affair in early 1987… Today’s action followed intensive lobbying by former Reagan aides to pardon Mr. Weinberger…’

    Then there’s this nugget of irony: “‘I am concerned by any action that sends a signal that if you work for the Government, you’re beyond the law, or that not telling the truth to Congress under oath is somehow less serious than not telling the truth to some other body under oath.’ – President-elect Bill Clinton, source, NY Times, 12/24/92

    What difference does it make w/Flynn; in the end President Trump will hand out pardons across the board.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  51. Whembly,

    I went back and re-read the article. According to the federalist article those are not Stzrok’s notes of the meeting. I don’t think he was there. They’re his notes of Comey’s summary of the meeting. It’s a contemporaneous account of a comey/stzrok conversation not a stzork/obama conversation.

    I shouldn’t have said it was contemporaneous.

    The notes also appear to show that Obama was concerned that there were things he shouldn’t tell the transition team.
    Based on Biden’s comment whatever had them concerned seemed very unusual.

    P: These are unusual times
    VP: I’ve been ???on the intel ???? for ten years and I never
    P: Make sure you look at things and the right people on it.
    P: Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling the transition team?

    Again, not saying this a exoneration. But it doesn’t prove what you say it does.

    Time123 (653992)

  52. There’s a lot of innuendo and a heaping lack of evidence that would substantiate that claim Time123. If that FARA violation was as strong as the Mueller team stipulated (which mean that they believed that they would prevail in getting a FARA violation conviction) then they would’ve charged Flynn that, as DOJ regulation requires that the most severe charge is used when extracting a plea deal.

    Now, ask yourself this: why didn’t they do that?

    Because he was a retired General and they wanted him to testify and help their investigation?

    Time123 (653992)

  53. 43… most remarkable, harkin. And casting aspersions all along the way…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  54. There’s a lot of innuendo and a heaping lack of evidence that would substantiate that claim Time123. If that FARA violation was as strong as the Mueller team stipulated (which mean that they believed that they would prevail in getting a FARA violation conviction) then they would’ve charged Flynn that, as DOJ regulation requires that the most severe charge is used when extracting a plea deal.

    Now, ask yourself this: why didn’t they do that?

    Because he was a retired General and they wanted him to testify and help their investigation?

    Time123 (653992) — 6/24/2020 @ 11:45 am

    That’s the overarching goal.

    However, if that FARA violation has any merits DOJ regulation REQUIRED the Mueller team to charge Flynn that when extracting a Plea. Then, depending on his cooperation, the sentencing could be adjusted.

    My point is this: Either that FARA violation was real, then the Mueller team BROKE normal DOJ regulations. OR, it’s all innuendo to build a narrative as the Mueller team didn’t provide any evidence to substantiate that.

    The folks on the Mueller team aren’t stupid. So, it’s more likely the latter is more accurate.

    whembly (c30c83)

  55. @38. The politics of extreme trolling and division, as the nation tears itself apart, continues another day.

    Please.

    This ain’t 1968.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  56. @55

    Whembly,

    I went back and re-read the article. According to the federalist article those are not Stzrok’s notes of the meeting. I don’t think he was there. They’re his notes of Comey’s summary of the meeting. It’s a contemporaneous account of a comey/stzrok conversation not a stzork/obama conversation.

    I shouldn’t have said it was contemporaneous.

    The notes also appear to show that Obama was concerned that there were things he shouldn’t tell the transition team.
    Based on Biden’s comment whatever had them concerned seemed very unusual.

    P: These are unusual times
    VP: I’ve been ???on the intel ???? for ten years and I never
    P: Make sure you look at things and the right people on it.
    P: Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling the transition team?

    Again, not saying this a exoneration. But it doesn’t prove what you say it does.

    Time123 (653992) — 6/24/2020 @ 11:44 am

    Why are you ignoring this bolded part of the chicken scratch:

    D-DAG: lean forward on [illegible]
    VP: “Logan Act”
    P: These are unusual times
    VP: I’ve been ???on the intel ???? for ten years and I never
    P: Make sure you look at things and the right people on it.
    P: Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling the transition team?

    whembly (c30c83)

  57. However, if that FARA violation has any merits DOJ regulation REQUIRED the Mueller team to charge Flynn that when extracting a Plea. Then, depending on his cooperation, the sentencing could be adjusted.

    I did not know this and you are probably correct.

    Time123 (653992)

  58. Please.

    This ain’t 1968.

    More like the 70’s, but instead of bombs we’re just getting riots and arson.

    Capsaicin Addict (041266)

  59. Why are you ignoring this bolded part of the chicken scratch:

    D-DAG: lean forward on [illegible]
    VP: “Logan Act”
    P: These are unusual times
    VP: I’ve been ???on the intel ???? for ten years and I never
    P: Make sure you look at things and the right people on it.
    P: Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling the transition team?

    whembly (c30c83) — 6/24/2020 @ 11:55 am

    1. We’ve been talking about Obama.
    2. I don’t know what he was responding to. There’s enough of the other notes to get at least a rough idea of what they’re saying…with a lot of assumptions.
    3. I don’t know if he’s suggesting it, or if he’s asking what it means. My mental picture of Biden is not that of someone with encyclopedic knowledge of obscure laws.

    The other odd thing about these notes is the give me the feeling of a transcript, biden is saying he ‘never’ and Obama cuts him off. But supposedly they’re a summary from Comey to Strzok…

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  60. If Flynn’s false statements were immaterial to any underlying crime then why is not right and just for the charges against him to be dismissed?

    The premise of the question is false.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  61. What’s incredible about the Jan 4th meeting is that President Obama is asking his boy Comey if its OK to tell something to Trump – who’s going to be the President of the United states on Jan 21st, 2017. The President has the right to see everything. He’s the head of Executive Branch. He’s the Commander in Chief. He’s the first law enforcement officer of the USA.

    Yet, here is Obama asking what’s OK to divulge to Trump. The real meaning must be, “Will it hurt our Coup against Trump, if I tell him about the Flynn phone call?”

    rcocean (fcc23e)

  62. @Patterico – ???

    If the court says it’s not dicta, then it’s not dicta. At least until a higher court rules otherwise. You may in fact be right that an en banc opinion overturns this decision, but until then this court held that the discussion in Fokker Servs was not dicta.

    If the court says that Fokker says the Earth is flat, it doesn’t change what Fokker said. If Fokker never said that, it never said that.

    However, if the court says the Earth is flat, that’s the holding until it’s overturned. But it’s t he holding today. It doesn’t mean it’s correct and it doesn’t mean its characterization of past decisions is correct.

    If today the Supreme Court says Roe v. Wade was decided on the basis of equal protection, and henceforth abortion is legal because of equal protection, then henceforth abortion will be legal because of equal protection, but that doesn’t mean Roe v. Wade actually said that.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  63. BTW, Sullivan wanted to lock away Stzork’s memo with all the other data submitted by DoJ on the Flynn case. But Powell released it. Whether she’s violated Sullivan’s order by doing so, is unknown. Mabye, that’s the REAL reason Sullivan is trying drag thing out. Maybe he’s sitting on quite a few papers/emails/etc. from DoJ which make Obmaa/Biden look bad.

    rcocean (fcc23e)

  64. Heh heh heh. The wheels are falling off Obama’s anti-Trump efforts.

    Strzok’s notes are evidence that Comey is prepared to throw Obama and Biden under the bus. Comey memorialized the meeting contemporaneously. And he did it weeks before Rice’s lamer-than-a-Thalidomide-dachshund “by the book fantasy, errr, memo.

    And false statements to the FBI are crimes only when they are relevant to an underlying crime, no? Well, didn’t the FBI clear Flynn on Jan 4? So in his interview later that month there was no real crime being investigated? Ooopsie.

    naaah (ef2016)

  65. As for Zelinsky, he was told, he believed, he thought, etc. He’s a liberal Democrat and gives $$ to Democrats. That he would “believe” something bad about Barr means ZERO. Does he have any proof? Not that I’m aware. Without evidence, he says there was political pressure. Where’s the Beef?

    rcocean (fcc23e)

  66. @rcocean

    Indeed:

    https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1275843598588747777

    Mollie
    @MZHemingway
    Also remember that Sullivan is hiding tons more evidence under seal and Russia hoaxers want to ensure that stays hidden from the public. Media happy to help out, as co-conspirators in Russia collusion hoax.

    naaah (ef2016)

  67. As shown by their actions over the last 4 years, and their actions toward the Trump campaign, liberal and Democrat lawyers ALWAYS let politics trump the law or even justice. Good help us when these clowns are back in charge of DoJ. You’ll see “Lawfare” and “Corruption” like you’ve never seen before.

    rcocean (fcc23e)

  68. @Time123… I work in healthcare, so I’m versed in chicken scratch. 😉

    Here’s my take:
    NSA-D-DAG: Flynn calls. Other countries
    D-DAG: lean forward on unclass (?)
    VP: “Logan Act”
    P: These are unusual times
    VP: I’ve been on the intel committee for ten years and I never
    P: Make sure you look at things – have the right people on it
    P: Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling transition team?
    D: Flynn -> Kislyak calls but appear legit
    [illegible] – Happy New Year – Yeah right

    NSA=Rice
    D=Comey
    DAG=Yates
    VP=Biden
    P=Obama

    whembly (c30c83)

  69. @nk

    Rule 48(a), Fed.R.Crim.P., now requires leave of court for such a dismissal. While a court is still not free to substitute its judgment for that of the prosecutor, whose decision is deemed valid, the Rule has the effect of granting authority to the court in exceptional cases to reject a dismissal without prejudice which would allow re-prosecution if this would result in harassment of the defendant or would otherwise be contrary to the manifest public interest.[10] The Court would then instead order a dismissal with prejudice. Accordingly, although there remains a strong presumption in favor of a no-prejudice dismissal,[11] the ultimate decision in that regard depends upon the purpose sought to be achieved by the government and its effect on the accused.

    United States v. Poindexter, 719 F. Supp. 6 (D.D.C. 1989) (emphasis added)

    Looks to me like the DC Circuit agrees that this was one of those exceptional cases.

    Al S (638581)

  70. I can’t say you’re wrong…but even if you’re right I don’t know what that means about Biden saying ‘logan act’.

    Honestly, Peter Stzrok and Comey need to testify under oath about what this means to get to the bottom of it. The IG report on CH talked about political interference and stated there was no testimony or documentary evidence that there had been any, so so don’t expect they’ll find any.

    Maybe Durham will come up with something about what happened earlier. Given Barr’s credibility whatever he finds will need to be very compelling.

    Time123 (653992)

  71. BTW, Sullivan wanted to lock away Stzork’s memo with all the other data submitted by DoJ on the Flynn case. But Powell released it. Whether she’s violated Sullivan’s order by doing so, is unknown. Mabye, that’s the REAL reason Sullivan is trying drag thing out. Maybe he’s sitting on quite a few papers/emails/etc. from DoJ which make Obmaa/Biden look bad.

    rcocean (fcc23e) — 6/24/2020 @ 12:23 pm

    This is stupid. Barr runs the DOJ. If they had material they could release which did that I expect they would have done it. Wouldn’t any more unusual or corrupt than what they’ve been up to lately.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  72. OT- Did Trump really ask the president of Poland how many of his countrymen it takes to screw in a light bulb? And did the Polish president respond, ‘Vot iz light bulb?’

    Place you bets.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  73. Time, you’re right of course.

    Power is powerful, so AG Barr won the day. He fought to protect a traitor’s right to lie to the FBI. He is a true disgrace, and the Team R guys fighting to protect this kind of extreme power will flip flop so fast the nanosecond Biden swears in. Which becomes more certain with each scandal.

    I look forward to Trump pardoning Putin himself at the end of the year.

    Dustin (e3a6ae)

  74. Which becomes more certain with each scandal.

    ROFLMAO

    Until he opens his mouth.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  75. it’s really striking how brazen, but then I reference the edwin wilson case, that took 20 years to resolve itself, like a real life version of the blacklist

    narciso (7404b5)

  76. ROFLMAO

    Until he opens his mouth.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/24/2020 @ 1:04 pm

    Bernie made the same mistake, setting the expectation so low for Biden that when he was more or less normal, Biden won. After Dubya I’m surprised this still happens.

    This election isn’t about Biden. It’s a referendum on things like the corruption Trump fans defend to their dying breath.

    Besides, if I am to vote for a president who never shuts up, vs one who never talks, it’s an easy call!

    Dustin (e3a6ae)

  77. Mississippi flag: ‘In God We Trust’ for Confederate symbol?
    Two of Mississippi’s top elected Republicans proposed Wednesday that the Confederate battle emblem be replaced on the state flag with the words “In God We Trust,” seeking a path toward unity in their state amid the backdrop of national protests over racial injustice.

    ………. White supremacists in the Legislature chose the design in 1894 as backlash for the political power African Americans gained during Reconstruction after the Civil War.
    …..
    Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann and Attorney General Lynn Fitch issued separate statements Wednesday about the flag. Hosemann said a new flag would help future generations.
    …..
    Republican state Sen. Chris McDaniel of Ellisville is among those saying Mississippi should keep its flag and people should resist efforts to remove historical monuments.

    “Whether you acknowledge it or not, the American Left is waging war against us,” McDaniel said Tuesday on Facebook. “They consider the founding to be illegitimate, our history to be tainted, and our republic as inherently evil. They will not stop.”
    ……
    Funny, I don’t remember the Stars and Bars flying during the founding of the United States of America. The only time it flew was the founding of the Confederate States of America.

    RipMurdock (d2a2a8)

  78. “ Obama had an Article II where he had the right to do whatever he wanted as president.”
    __ _

    That explains why he rushed so quickly to own up to his and Biden’s actions instead of having a stooge write a CYA email on his last day in office and then himself keeping quiet for years…..oh wait.
    _

    harkin (9c4571)

  79. 3 takeaways from the scathing testimony about William Barr’s Justice Department
    ….
    ….Arguably the more interesting development came Wednesday afternoon, when a former prosecutor on the Roger Stone case testified that political pressure was indeed behind the Justice Department’s reduction in Stone’s sentencing recommendation.
    ……
    Aaron Zelinsky was one of four prosecutors who withdrew from the case when that decision was made, and on Wednesday he detailed what happened to the House Judiciary Committee.
    …..
    In his opening statement and his early testimony, Zelinsky didn’t name the official who told him that the Roger Stone decision was politicized. Instead, Zelinsky just said it was a “supervisor.” And for some reason, House Democrats didn’t probe this for nearly two hours.

    So it fell to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) to ask Zelinsky who it was. But Jordan may not have gotten the answer he anticipated.

    “So the supervisor for the questions you’re asking is the supervisor of the fraud and public corruption” in the D.C. U.S. attorney’s office, Zelinsky said, adding: “His name is J.P. Cooney.”

    Zelinsky said in his opening statement that this supervisor had said “that the U.S. attorney had political reasons for his instructions, which our supervisor agreed was unethical and wrong.”

    Zelinsky also added that other officials were party to the discussions.

    “At the time in the office, there was a first assistant, there was a criminal chief — they were all involved in these discussions,” Zelinsky said. He later named the first assistant as Alessio Evangelista.

    Jordan asked if these officials had spoken with Barr, Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen or then-U. S. Attorney Timothy Shea.

    Zelinsky responded: “My understanding is they did.”
    …….
    Rep. Douglas A. Collins (R-Ga.), for instance, accused Justice Department attorney John Elias of trying to help Democrats with impeaching President Trump.

    “You wanted to come work for the majority during the impeachment. Is that not correct?” Collins asked.

    Elias, though, indicated that his outreach to the Democratic majority on the committee came long before impeachment.

    “I actually think that, I think it was a year prior,” he said, adding: “It was early 2019.”
    …..
    “I am here because I believe that William Barr poses the greatest threat in my lifetime to our rule of law and to public trust in it,” (Former Bush I deputy attorney general Donald) Ayer said. “That is because he does not believe in its core principle that no person is above the law. Instead, since taking office, he has worked to advance his lifelong conviction that the president should hold virtually autocratic powers.”
    ……..

    RipMurdock (d2a2a8)

  80. Just wondered if anyone else thought of the headline ‘FRAUD AT POLLS!‘ when they read ‘CORRUPTION WINS…FOR NOW’

    https://www.redstate.com/uploads/2016/05/Citizen-Kane-Fraud-at-Polls-620×448.jpg
    _

    harkin (9c4571)

  81. Trump appointees = hacks, Obama judge = bulwark of the Constitution. I have looked the cases that Pat cited and find they argue the other way. Don’t care to do the research again though.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  82. Democratic congresswoman gets GOP witness to concede that ‘maybe’ Trump acted politically to help friends
    ……..
    (Rep. Val) Demings, who is on presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s short list of potential running mates, asked (former attorney general Michael Mukasey): “Do you believe that the president nor the attorney general — who has been acting more like the president’s personal bodyguard and his fixer — have not engaged in politics as it pertains to the president’s friends?”

    Mukasey responded: “I can’t speak for the president. The president is, by definition, a political –” he said, before Demings cut him off to repeat her question.

    “Based on your professional — political or professional — experience, do you believe the president has engaged in a political way as it pertains to sentences or what happens to his friends?” Demings asked more assertively.

    “The attorney general himself criticized the president for tweets that he –” Mukasey began.

    “So that’s a yes?” Demmings asked.

    “It’s a maybe,” Mukasey said.

    RipMurdock (d2a2a8)

  83. 83.

    Just wondered if anyone else thought of the headline ‘FRAUD AT POLLS!‘ when they read ‘CORRUPTION WINS…FOR NOW’

    No, I knew this was about the Flynn case – but I don’t see the corruption. Nobody was paid off.

    Sammy Finkelman (3102d6)

  84. And false statements to the FBI are crimes only when they are relevant to an underlying crime, no?

    No

    Well, didn’t the FBI clear Flynn on Jan 4?

    No

    So in his interview later that month there was no real crime being investigated? Ooopsie

    No.

    0 for 3, choosing not to prosecute after the fact (for whatever reason) doesn’t negate that it happened and that he plead guilty to it.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  85. naaah (ef2016) — 6/24/2020 @ 12:25 pm

    And he did it weeks before Rice’s lamer-than-a-Thalidomide-dachshund “by the book fantasy, errr, memo.

    I t;s not a fantasy.

    I think Obama actually told them that. Now how much they went by the book is another story. Illega; leaking was not going by the book.

    And false statements to the FBI are crimes only when they are relevant to an underlying crime, no?

    To an investigation, or the possibility of one and it ca be a counterintelligence investigation. Not much gets eliminated by that

    Thw FBI actually dropped the case (or quicly leaked to CNN a previous decision to drop the case) after Trump asked Comey to see if he could let him go.

    It was revived as part of a plea bargain.

    Well, didn’t the FBI clear Flynn on Jan 4?

    They were ready to close the counterintelligence investigation, but they hadn’t formal;ly doe it yet. Besides, there was the Logan Act, which they decided they evidently decided they didn’t have to use as the pretext for the interview. Strzok considered that a piece of good luck. That part was still by the book – although both the previous (to the Washington Post Jan 12) and subsequent (to many outlets Feb 10) leaking was not.

    So in his interview later that month there was no real crime being investigated? Ooopsie.

    No, unless the crime was the Loan Act, and notreally a counterinteilligence investigaton – although the motive was probably counter-intelligence except that opening one on Flynn would probably not have been by the book.

    They were probably trying to get Trump to fire him.

    Sammy Finkelman (3102d6)

  86. 10. NJRob (eb56c3) — 6/24/2020 @ 9:18 am

    Flynn is dirty for his support of Turkey and trying to influence our regime for their benefit. He isn’t guilty of what they allege though.

    He actually almost certainly deiberately lied to the FBI (although you couldn’t prove it) ad he pled guilty and swore to te Judge that he was. There is a claim that he is innocent because the lies were material to anything except getting him in trouble with Trump or Trump in trouble with the public if he retained him)

    Not material to anything since they weren’t relying on the Logan Act as Obama had wanted. Or if they it as material to the question if he was a Russian spy, they didn’t use that. The transcript didn’t show him to be a Russian agent, although maybe the Russian Ambassador thought Trump would be somewhat friendly and Flynn’s unauthorized half promise to the Russian Ambassador that Trump would lift the sanctions motivated Putin not to impose retaliatory sanctions.

    Sammy Finkelman (3102d6)

  87. * He (Mike Flynn) actually almost certainly deiberately lied to the FBI (although you couldn’t prove it) and he pleaded guilty and swore to the Judge that he was.

    There is a claim that he is innocent because the lies were NOT material to anything except getting him in trouble with Trump or Trump in trouble with the public if he retained him.

    It could be claimed that Flynn only had limited knowledge of its being non-material.

    But the fact of the mater is, he agreed to his guilty plea as part of a plea bargain.

    Sammy Finkelman (3102d6)

  88. @73

    I can’t say you’re wrong…but even if you’re right I don’t know what that means about Biden saying ‘logan act’.

    They’re obviously discussing Flynn… what else could Biden meant by mentioning the Logan Act???

    Honestly, Peter Stzrok and Comey need to testify under oath about what this means to get to the bottom of it.

    Indeed.

    The IG report on CH talked about political interference and stated there was no testimony or documentary evidence that there had been any, so so don’t expect they’ll find any.

    Time123…this is literally documented evidence of political interference.

    Maybe Durham will come up with something about what happened earlier. Given Barr’s credibility whatever he finds will need to be very compelling.

    Time123 (653992) — 6/24/2020 @ 12:48 pm

    I’ll say this. Durham/Barr proceeding against prior political operatives better DAMN well be compelling. I’d only wished those Obama officials held that standard in 2016.

    whembly (c30c83)

  89. I called it! I knew they would do the right thing and dismiss. It was just and also the law to do so. There is no reason that a court gets to second guess the government dismissing (other than something like bribery). That sets a mockery of our justice system. The only conservative and liberty position is a dismissal. Anything else is trying to get someone because they don’t like that person or the person who appointed that person – and that is totalitarian.

    Courts do their job for once!

    Patrick Henry, the 2nd (43976c)

  90. Good lord.

    Flynn’s prosecutors under Mueller had documentation where the head of the FBI told the President that Flynn’s calls to Kislyak were “legit”.

    That’s called “exculpatory evidence”.

    Those prosecutors FAILED to turn over that evidence to the defense despite multiple orders to do so.

    They had evidence that the FBI on Jan 4, 2017 had found “no derogatory evidence” on Flynn – AT ALL.

    The prosecutors FAILED to turn that over to Flynn’s attorneys – despite multiple orders to do so.

    They HID exculpatory evidence.

    OVER and OVER. Many times.

    Are you REALLY endorsing that, @Patterico? Seriously??!??!

    That evidence was turned over to Flynn’s attorneys only AFTER AG Barr got involved, and some of you are trying to paint Barr as corrupt?!?!?!

    What color is the sky on your planet? It sure as hell ain’t blue.

    naaah (ef2016)

  91. @Patterico

    Seriously? What is wrong with you, supporting a prosecution where it literally took intervention from the Attorney General himself to get probably hundreds if not thousands of pages of Brady material turned over to the defense?

    Seriously – what can possibly justify your support for that level of deliberate prosecutorial misconduct?

    Do you have any professional standards worth standing by at all? Because you’re standing by the continued prosecution of a defendant where the prosecutors demonstrably and deliberately withheld Brady material for literally years.

    naaah (ef2016)

  92. And for those of you still following along:

    – where is the original 302 from Jan 2017? Where Strzok and Pientka assessed that Flynn was telling the truth?

    – Why did Strzok have to rewrite so much of the 302?

    – Why did it take Strzok three weeks to edit the 302 despite procedures requiring the final 302 be filed within 5 days?

    Yep – you got that right. After they interviewed Flynn in Jan 2017, the FBI originally assessed that Flynn was truthful. Then Strzok went back, and over three weeks, reworded everything.

    All of this is documented if you have the cojones to look for it.

    That’s MORE exculpatory evidence that Mueller’s team failed to turn over.

    Again, @Patterico. What is wrong with you? Supporting continuation of this kangaroo court based entirely on prosecutorial misconduct?

    naaah (ef2016)

  93. @Sammy Finkelman

    Flynn’s plea bargain was invalid.

    All conditions of a plea bargain need to be written down in the bargain. The written plea bargain failed to mention that one condition of Flynn’s plea was that the government would not prosecute Flynn’s son.

    The prosecutors in Flynn’s case tried to hide what’s called “Giglio disclosures”. Google that.

    Even more prosecutorial misconduct.

    (And again, @Patterico: how on God’s good Earth can you support continuing the prosecution of Flynn given the level of DOCUMENTED deliberate prosecutorial misconduct?)

    Not only that – Flynn’s lawyers at the time failed to inform him of that requirement – likely because Flynn’s prosecutors were threatening **THEM** with prosecution.

    Yeah, the prosecutorial misconduct in the Flynn case was that bad.

    You can look all this up yourself – it’s out there if you have the stones to get information from someone other than CNN or MSNBC.

    Here’s a good start:

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/27/robert-muellers-case-against-michael-flynn-is-about-to-implode/

    naaah (ef2016)

  94. Frankly, any sturm and drang about Trump’s alleged malfeasance while ignoring #ObamaGate renders such arguments as impotent.

    whembly (c30c83) — 6/24/2020 @ 10:43 am

    The reverse is true, too.

    DRJ (aede82)

  95. Four days ago, Barr’s DOJ said claims of prosecutorial misconduct in the Flynn case are unfounded.

    DRJ (aede82)

  96. For naaah:

    “Flynn’s allegations are unfounded and provide no basis for impugning the prosecutors from the D.C. United States Attorney’s Office,” Justice Department attorneys said in the filing, suggesting that the government has other reasons for seeking to back away from its case against Flynn.

    DRJ (aede82)

  97. What could those other reasons be?

    DRJ (aede82)

  98. @DRJ

    In Jan 2017, the FBI had documentation that the Director of the FBI assessed Flynn’s call with Kislyak as “legit”.

    Defense counsel got that document YESTERDAY – three and a half years later.

    Do you dispute that?

    Anyone standing by this prosecution is a clown with utter disrespect for the law. End of story. Read the litany of DOCUMENTED cases where Mueller’s team FAILED to turn over Brady material. How they deliberately omitted Giglio information from Flynn’s plea deal.

    All of that is DOCUMENTED.

    Laws mean NOTHING when prosecutors can get away with that level of misconduct.

    naaah (ef2016)

  99. @DRJ

    Please address the prosecutorial shenanigans with the 302 from Flynn’s Jan 2017 interview with the FBI.

    Where is the original?

    What happened to the assessment that Flynn was truthful?

    Again – all that is documented.

    naaah (ef2016)

  100. @83. Wrong Kane. Think Caine.

    Strawberries; not raspberries. 😉

    “Doctor, you have testified that the following symptoms exist in Lieutenant Commander Queeg’s behavior: rigidity of personality, feelings of persecution, unreasonable suspicion, a mania for perfection, and a neurotic certainty that he is always in the right. Doctor, isn’t there one psychiatric term for this illness?” – Barney Greenwald [Jose Ferrer] ‘The Caine Mutiny’ 1954

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  101. @DRJ

    And please be consistent. You claimed in comment 32 (http://patterico.com/2020/06/24/corruption-wins-for-now/#comment-2380474) that this dismissal is corrupt, yet now you’re citing Barr for saying there was no prosecutorial misconduct earlier?

    You’re citing someone you claimed was corrupt? Seriously? Either Barr is an authority you can trust and therefore cite, or he’s corrupt. Please pick one.

    But maybe you don’t think failing to turn over hundreds or thousands of pages of exculpatory evidence for over three years and deliberately misdocumenting plea bargains are prosecutorial misconduct.

    I’d say they are.

    naaah (ef2016)

  102. You’re citing someone you claimed was corrupt? Seriously? Either Barr is an authority you can trust and therefore cite, or he’s corrupt. Please pick one.

    You pick one.

    Barr admits the prosecutors were not corrupt. Just like Flynn admitted he was guilty when betraying the United States and lying.

    Arguments against own interests are more credible than corrupt people telling us what they need us to believe. This is common sense.

    DRJ hasn’t contradicted herself at all, and Patterico hasn’t supported Brady violations. You can offer all the personal attacks in the world, all the allcaps in the world, but this isn’t even a close call. Sullivan was right. Rao is wrong. A lot of people with power are corrupt, and this isn’t making America great again. It’s making America unstable.

    Dustin (e3a6ae)

  103. This statement is from a court filing by the new Flynn prosecutors who are part of Barr’s DOJ. If they don’t see prosecutorial misconduct by their predecessors, why should you?

    DRJ (aede82)

  104. “Wrong Kane. Think Caine.”
    __

    Wrong again.

    Headlines, not strawberries or missing keys.

    E for effort tho – u get a film buff participation trophy.
    _

    harkin (9c4571)

  105. Barr admits the prosecutors were not corrupt. Just like Flynn admitted he was guilty when betraying the United States and lying.

    Ultimately, that is the point. The rest is misdirection.

    DRJ (aede82)

  106. Did anybody at the DOJ ever say the prosecutors in the Ted Stevens case were “corrupt”?
    Anybody in the Bush or Obama DOJ?

    MayBee (5ff0d1)

  107. @DRJ

    Your link where you claim Barr said there was no prosecutorial misconduct? It says this:

    “Flynn’s allegations are unfounded and provide no basis for impugning the prosecutors from the D.C. United States Attorney’s Office,” Justice Department attorneys said in the filing

    All that says is that Flynn’s **allegations** provide no basis for “impugning the prosecutors”. That’s limper than a 5-hours-old McDonald’s french fry soaking in a urinal. It’s meaningless fluff.

    There’s no ONE quote from Barr in that article.

    Apparently fooled you, though.

    You completely mischaracterized the article you claimed “supported” your claim.

    You’ve yet to address the facts that

    – Flynn’s calls with Kislyak were characterized as “legit”
    – The FBI originally assessed Flynn as truthful in his Jan 2017 interview
    – Both of those facts were kept hidden from Flynn’s attorney’s for three+ years.

    When you can address those, you’ll be able to say something meaningful.

    naaah (ef2016)

  108. @Dustin

    “Barr admits the prosecutors were not corrupt”

    Cite?

    Barr’s a lawyer – he’d never utter anything like that, especially not when there’s a full-fledged investigation into those very lawyers still underway (under John Durham IIRC).

    naaah (ef2016)

  109. @DRJ

    And back to the 302:

    – Why did Strzok have to edit it?
    – Why was it kept from the defense for over three years?
    – Where’s the original?

    naaah (ef2016)

  110. MayBee, great to see you.

    Judge Sullivan followed the same playbook with the DOJ’s corruption in the Ted Stevens prosecution, hiring a lawyer to investigate independent of the DOJ. The Stevens family said Judge Sullivan restored their faith in the justice system. The DOJ did in fact apologize in court, but my impression is that this was because of Judge Sullivan coming down so hard.

    Paul O’Brien, one of the new government attorneys assigned to the case, made no attempt to the justify the conduct of the previous prosecution team. “We deeply regret this occurred,” he said. “We apologize to the court.”

    This was during the Obama admin.

    How interesting that this same judge is again on the right side of an issue, even though the political parties have flipped around.

    Dustin (e3a6ae)

  111. If one read Ace or Gateway they would think all of Sullivan’s behavior recently was some crazy and unprecedented lawlessness.

    I have to wonder, why do people care so much if Flynn’s dismissal is with prejudice? Why is that important? If someone can make the case next year, is that such a big deal? Flynn’s a very wealthy man thanks to his … life in the military, with access to our nation’s secrets and willingness to work for our nation’s enemies. He can accept the consequences. Clearly he has access to supernatural legal resources that can get him off of charges he pleas guilty to.

    Didn’t Trump fire this guy… for lying?

    If you’re worked up defending Flynn like Mr. VPN, ask yourself how you got there mentally. You’re being used.

    Dustin (e3a6ae)

  112. The prosecution happened under the Bush administration.

    I was mostly asking because it doesn’t seem very DOJ-ish of me for the AG to say DOJ lawyers were corrupt. It wasn’t said in the Steven’s case. It’s not going to be said here. And in fact, the Ted Steven prosecutors remained in the DOJ.

    MayBee (5ff0d1)

  113. And hi, Dustin. Great to see you too.

    MayBee (5ff0d1)

  114. That should say it doesn’t seem very DOJ-ish *to me* for the AG to say DOJ lawyers were corrupt.

    MayBee (5ff0d1)

  115. @107. ‘Fraud At Polls’ is very raspberries.

    ‘Living is easy with eyes closed; Misunderstanding all you see…’ – ‘Strawberry Fields Forever’ – [Lennon-McCartney] The Beatles, 1967

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  116. Anyone standing by this prosecution is a clown with utter disrespect for the law. End of story.

    You’re done here.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  117. DRJ, #98, #106

    Not necessarily to disagree with you, but wouldn’t any Attorney General have an interest in not impugning the prior conduct of the Justice Department, even if he/she thought it had been unethical? If Barr thought the DOJ was going to win on the Flynn dismissal anyway, why cast aspersions on the former prosecutors?

    I’m reminded of a time many years ago when I was working on an opposition to a motion. I forget the facts of the case, but recall putting everything possible into the draft opposition to show how wrong the other side was in every possible way. I showed the draft to a colleague who said, in essence, that’s all great, but one of your arguments basically accuses opposing counsel of malpractice — do you really need to say that? I took that argument out, the motion was denied anyway, and have refrained from making arguments of that type ever since. Not that I would never make an argument like that, but why get someone into trouble on a malpractice or ethics matter when arguably they were merely mistaken about something, or simply forgot to do something on time? Maybe Barr was showing some similar restraint.

    There’s an old saying along the lines of that, as an explanation of a particular event, incompetence is more probable than malevolence. Maybe the investigation of Flynn that started under Obama was not wrongful or corrupt, and maybe the later DOJ decision to drop it was also not wrongful or corrupt.

    By the way, kudos to Time and Whembly for a civilized debate.

    RL formerly in Glendale (40f5aa)

  118. Caesar’s wife Putin’s girlfriend must be above suspicion.

    nk (1d9030)

  119. Callow noob: “long list of facts, arguments, and events”

    P-diddy: Cowardly silence.

    Callow noob: “single ad hom based on those unanswered facts”

    P-doddy: “OMG YOU’RE DONE HERE”

    And people wonder why I post only drive-by hatred under disposable names. The man earns it every day.

    Meeeeeeeeester VPN (7154eb)

  120. Putin Panty Sniffer.

    nk (1d9030)

  121. #120

    There’s an old saying along the lines of that, as an explanation of a particular event, incompetence is more probable than malevolence.

    That is known as Hanlon’s Razor. It’s one of my favorite sayings.

    norcal (a5428a)

  122. #122

    You make some salient points. Please know, however, that your arguments would be much more effective if you simmered down, refrained from all caps, and avoided ad hominem attacks (yes, even one is too much). When you get that emotional, you lose the ability to persuade.

    norcal (a5428a)

  123. The prosecution happened under the Bush administration.

    I was only referring to the apology, but you’re right about the timeline. You make a good point that the DOJ probably wouldn’t call itself out for misconduct, though these are unusual times and I do think the only possible way to dress this Flynn mess up is to argue the prosecution was a terrible injustice.

    Maybe the investigation of Flynn that started under Obama was not wrongful or corrupt, and maybe the later DOJ decision to drop it was also not wrongful or corrupt.

    It would be nice if Sullivan looked into that.

    Dustin (e3a6ae)

  124. #126. “It would be nice if Sullivan looked into that.”

    Agree. I think the Flynn dismissal should be upheld based on what I’ve seen, but disagree with today’s court decision. The majority’s argument that the mere inquiry Judge Sullivan proposed would intrude too much on the government’s prosecutorial discretion seemed forced and strained. District judges are fact-finders, so let the judge make his inquiries.

    RL formerly in Glendale (40f5aa)

  125. RL, well said on both points you’ve raised.

    Dustin (e3a6ae)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5424 secs.