Patterico's Pontifications

8/31/2020

Court of Appeals Decisively Overturns Silly Panel Decision in Flynn Case, 8-2

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:15 pm



Mostly trust content from Patterico!

I blew the prediction on the panel decision, giving Judge Henderson far too much credit. (I never gave Judge Rao any, nor did she deserve it.) But I did make this prediction:

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.

Bada bing, bada boom. 8-2. Meaning the only two people who stuck up for the dishonest panel decision were the two judges in the majority in the dishonest panel decision.

The lesson here is that this was not a hard case. Whether to dismiss the case is a tough call. Conventional wisdom says Judge Sullivan won’t deny the Government’s motion, and I agree he probably won’t, though I think there’s a decent argument he should. But no matter what you think about the merits, this was never a valid case for mandamus. Never! Only partisans and people who had totally lost their perspective (there’s almost complete overlap there, by the way) thought that the dishonest panel decision made any sense. It never did, and today the rule of law was restored for a brief moment. Hats off to the en banc panel.

And stop paying attention to the partisans who told you to expect a different result.

76 Responses to “Court of Appeals Decisively Overturns Silly Panel Decision in Flynn Case, 8-2”

  1. Interesting to see how the per curiam decision incorporates some of the silly concerns raised at oral argument, like the hysterical judge who screeched about Sullivan going too slow because isn’t this just like a murderer exonerated by DNA? Eyes rolling upwards emoji… It’s clear that some judges say “I’ll sign on without a concurrence but make sure you mention x” or the like.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. i never doubted your take for a second mr p

    Dave (1bb933)

  3. I probably am a partisan but still have some perspective, and don’t see how the court could have reached a different result. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy used to correct an erroneous ruling that a judge has already made. It doesn’t apply to a ruling a judge might, or might not, make.

    I doubt it but who knows, maybe there will be solid grounds for Sullivan to deny the motion to dismiss, so let him do his job, hear evidence, and make a ruling. If he abuses his discretion or makes a legally unsupported ruling, Flynn and/or the DOJ still have their remedies for that.

    RL formerly in Glendale (750b62)

  4. Since justice has already bankrupt Flynn, should the sentence be death?

    mg (8cbc69)

  5. Could he still get a job being a security guard?
    dog catcher?

    mg (8cbc69)

  6. I’m still peeved that Sullivan gets to act like an inquisitor and have his pseudo prosecutor to “fill the gap” now that the government dropped the case.

    Is this going to be a thing now for criminal cases at the district level??

    whembly (c30c83)

  7. Flynn hasn’t complained about lacking money for a while, and it’s probably because he has a good GoFundMe account or some wealthy benefactor is bankrolling Powell’s legal fees. Or both. Trump has a little money, too, and he’s paid off witnesses before, then made them sign NDAs.

    Paul Montagu (a2078e)

  8. Could he still get a job being a security guard?
    dog catcher?

    Well, he admitted to multiple felonies multiple times, so probably not. He’s already had his security clearance revoked with prejudice.

    Of course, his probable career path will be to anchor the QAnon section of OANN, so it just bolsters his creds.

    Next year he’ll be well on his way back to a different guilty plea since now the DOJ can file all of the other crimes he got out of by pleading guilty, and his son, and their business partners…

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  9. Sullivan will run out the clock
    if heels up wins the doj will refile

    mg (8cbc69)

  10. paging franz kafka to the white courtesy phone,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  11. A panel of judges rules in favor of a judge. Surprise!

    beer ‘n pretzels (b1a479)

  12. If you can prove they are dishonest, I expect you to make a complaint to the bar association to have them disbarred for ethics violations.

    1DaveMac (4cc9b4)

  13. Is this going to be a thing now for criminal cases at the district level??

    For criminal cases where DOJ corruptly seeks to dismiss because the defendant is a partisan of the Administration, I would certainly hope so.

    (Not That) Bill O'Reilly (08c481)

  14. Sullivan gets to act like an inquisitor and have his pseudo prosecutor to “fill the gap” now that the government dropped the case.

    Yeah, Sullivan is acting very judgey. Someone needs to remind him to stay in his lane.

    Dustin (5418f4)

  15. just ask ted stevens, oh wait, he died, cheated out of the office that corrupt prosecutors gifted that punk nick begich,

    https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2020/08/flynn-petition-for-mandamus-denied.html

    the chief prosecution was a degenerate piece of trash, who had a thing for his fbi handler and vice versa,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  16. At least Flynn is out and walking about. Poor Ghislaine Maxwell will have to stay locked up until after the election before Barr moves to dismiss her case.

    nk (1d9030)

  17. @14

    Sullivan gets to act like an inquisitor and have his pseudo prosecutor to “fill the gap” now that the government dropped the case.

    Yeah, Sullivan is acting very judgey. Someone needs to remind him to stay in his lane.

    Dustin (5418f4) — 8/31/2020 @ 4:04 pm

    Indeed.

    We should always have judges appoint an amici-prosecutor if the judges doesn’t like the prosecution’s position.

    I mean… who cares what the norms says. YOLO!

    whembly (c30c83)

  18. Indeed.

    We should always have judges appoint an amici-prosecutor if the judges doesn’t like the prosecution’s position.

    I mean… who cares what the norms says. YOLO!

    whembly (c30c83) — 8/31/2020 @ 4:18 pm

    It was just a joke, that a judge is doing his best to use his discretion to run a courtroom and get to justice if he can, when we all know justice ain’t happening at the end of this case.

    But to be sure, judges have done this before. It’s not a bad idea and it’s a new one. Sullivan used this when the prosecutors in the Ted Stevens case were being shady.

    it is not a violation of ‘norm’ for a judge to recognize when a guilty criminal is being let off the hook due to his friendship with the prosecutor’s boss. this is something that can happen and this is why the norms actually existed for a judge to either accept or reject or, in this case, ask to learn more with an advocate for each side arguing each side.

    We shouldn’t get bent out of shape about it, assume the most horrible conspiracy against poor Trump. At a certain point, with all these folks from his administration saying he’s obstructed justice and partnered with enemy governments, we need to accept there’s a lot of smoke, maybe a fire.

    Remember, what Sullivan did was normal. The common talking point that this is an extreme and unprecedented thing was complete fiction intended to manipulate your desire for an impartial justice system.

    Flynn’s going to win one way or another. Trump pardoned Stone so he’ll do anything. So we’re really not arguing about outcomes. We’re just arguing about whether it’s OK to know more. And yeah, it’s OK for Sullivan to know more.

    Dustin (5418f4)

  19. just ask ted stevens, oh wait, he died, cheated out of the office that corrupt prosecutors gifted that punk nick begich,

    Thereby providing the supermajority vote to pass Obamacare.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  20. Thereby providing the supermajority vote to pass Obamacare.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 8/31/2020 @ 4:41 pm

    You see stuff like that, corrupt and with consequences for all of us, see Lois Lerner skate, and after a while, a guy like Trump can do whatever he wants because there’s no way to really trust anything. Folks like Whembly are appealing to fairness and are hearing Sullivan’s actions are extreme, and recall all the history of corruption and give trump’s pal Flynn what I consider an undeserved benefit of the doubt (Flynn confessed).

    But that’s how it is now. And when Biden crushes Trump on election day, and Trump pardons a bunch of guys, both sides will have plenty of reason to doubt the integrity of anything.

    That’s how you chip away at a republic. That’s why Putin is so successful. He’s not doing some grandiose thing. He’s using what’s already there, giving it a little more energy.

    Dustin (5418f4)

  21. 20 – Olympia Snowe [rino] voted it out of conference to start the whole mess, but prior to that rino extraordinaire mittens forced it down our throats in taxachusetts. With the help of the notorious Jonathon Gruber.

    mg (8cbc69)

  22. It’s a very straightforward and very narrow opinion. Writ of mandamus is not appropriate at this time, and the Court of Appeals does not have the authority, under the law, to grant it.

    I did not bother to read the dissents. Let them have the have the last word. (Do I need to add “if you know what’s good for you”?)

    nk (1d9030)

  23. *the have*

    nk (1d9030)

  24. @21

    You see stuff like that, corrupt and with consequences for all of us, see Lois Lerner skate, and after a while, a guy like Trump can do whatever he wants because there’s no way to really trust anything. Folks like Whembly are appealing to fairness and are hearing Sullivan’s actions are extreme, and recall all the history of corruption and give trump’s pal Flynn what I consider an undeserved benefit of the doubt (Flynn confessed).

    Trump RECANTED.

    He’s arguing that he did plead guilty for strategic reason, as his son was threatened and his first lawyers counseled to get this over with quickly.

    Why do you insist to ignore that?

    If ya’ll keep up the mantra “but he plead guilty” without considering the full context…imma accuse you of being a hack solely because you hate all things Trump.

    My appeal for fairness is SOLELY because outside of that, BOTH parties will see no choice BUT to weaponize the government against their opposition.

    But that’s how it is now. And when Biden crushes Trump on election day, and Trump pardons a bunch of guys, both sides will have plenty of reason to doubt the integrity of anything.

    Indeed, as both parties will weaponize the levers of government that will be much worse than today, to such a degree that outgoing administrations will routinely issue a blanket pardons for all administration officials and acts on Jan 19th.

    …and I don’t consider that an hyperbole at all. This is where we’re heading.

    That’s how you chip away at a republic. That’s why Putin is so successful. He’s not doing some grandiose thing. He’s using what’s already there, giving it a little more energy.

    Dustin (5418f4) — 8/31/2020 @ 4:49 pm

    Okay Joseph McCarthy.

    whembly (c30c83)

  25. @13

    Is this going to be a thing now for criminal cases at the district level??

    For criminal cases where DOJ corruptly seeks to dismiss because the defendant is a partisan of the Administration, I would certainly hope so.

    (Not That) Bill O’Reilly (08c481) — 8/31/2020 @ 4:01 pm

    Please do point out the “corruptly” part of your declarative statement.

    The only corruption I see are the acts of Obama era officials in this sordid ordeal.

    Frankly, because of their acts, no incoming administration in their right mind will retain ANY appointed positions appointed by the opposition party. Don’t be surprise that it’s going to be de jour from now on that when the Whitehouse changes party, there will be a full-on purge of all appointment positions (ie, Head of FBI usually serves for 10 years, that will be ignored).

    whembly (c30c83)

  26. Trump follows the law only when his back is to the wall, his hands are tied, and Kellyanne won’t give him his meatloaf, Diet Coke, and chocolate cake a la mode, so shuck that fit about “now everybody’s going to be doing it”. Trump does not know the meaning of integrity and could not possibly care less. He does what he wants to do and the only things that stop him are his cowardice, laziness, and incompetence.

    nk (1d9030)

  27. Trump RECANTED.

    You mean Flynn. Like I said you’re giving criminals the benefit of the doubt and that’s OK up to a point. I think we’re past that point and I also think the amount of fighting to shut down a mere inquiry, when we all know at the end of this, Flynn gets off because that admin is above the law, it’s wrong. Let’s stop obstructing investigations.

    Okay Joseph McCarthy.

    whembly (c30c83) — 8/31/2020 @ 5:10 pm

    Guilty as charged.

    Dustin (5418f4)

  28. nk’s take is better. Rao’s decision was beyond the law, plain and simple. There’s a time and a place and they weren’t there. They wanted something stopped. Appeals are supposed to be fixing errors, not preventing them.

    Dustin (5418f4)

  29. Please do point out the “corruptly” part of your declarative statement.

    The part where they adopted a laughable definition of “materiality” that they’ve since admitted they don’t apply for defendants who aren’t close personal associates of the President.

    Thought I suggest you’ll have to look up “materiality” since I gather you haven’t paid attention to the actual law involved here, as opposed to the partisan histrionics.

    (Not That) Bill O'Reilly (08c481)

  30. “The only corruption I see are the acts of Obama era officials in this sordid ordeal.”

    Really, that’s the only corruption? Not a single other case brought by the Obama era FBI is also corrupt? Just the one the president’s buddy was involved in? Surely a review has been conducted to confirm that there was just this one singular instance of corruption?

    Davethulhu (3988bc)

  31. We could start with the bureau asset that was the father of the pulse shooter, the informant who led the shootee to target panela geller, those are just two that come to mind.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  32. Plenty of blame for the FBI in this case, although I don’t know how germane it is for this narrow ruling. Let’s not forget the FBI had its massive problems with: the FBI Laboratory falsifying reports, an FBI agent working for Whitey Bulger, bungling the Amerithrax investigation, destroying an innocent man in the Atlanta Olympic bombing investigation – all of which are icing on the cake baked during the corrupt days of J. Edgar Hoover.

    But I’m sure they did the Flynn investigation by the book…

    Hoi Polloi (dc4124)

  33. Places where military men are forced to declare patently false statements, stalins russia, the ochoa show trials the turkey of erdogans ergonokon, its not a good look.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  34. “But I’m sure they did the Flynn investigation by the book…”

    If the FBI is corrupt, why isn’t the Trump administration cleaning house?

    Davethulhu (3988bc)

  35. Because you keep screaming russia russia likr its a recite chekhov competition.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  36. Flynn only has temporary money problems. Turkey, Russia, hell, maybe China (Erik Prince has been working with them) will put him back on the gravy train soon enough.

    He’d probably best remember to register as a foreign agent *before* getting to work, though.

    john (cd2753)

  37. I still can’t get over that the Army’s top spy did not know that the Russian ambassador’s phones are monitored by the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, the DIA, and a whole bunch of foreign alphabets too.

    nk (1d9030)

  38. And Trump made him his National Security Adviser.

    nk (1d9030)

  39. Flynn only has temporary money problems. Turkey, Russia, hell, maybe China (Erik Prince has been working with them) will put him back on the gravy train soon enough.

    He’d probably best remember to register as a foreign agent *before* getting to work, though.

    john (cd2753) — 8/31/2020 @ 7:58 pm

    Think about all the little capabilities he knows, all the little scandals with his former colleagues. A general could enjoy an awesome pension, set for life, but this guy wanted a better lifestyle and I guess Lockheed wasn’t hiring so he went to a country like Turkey, a pretty bad government, and he sold you and me out. Why do people spend so much time sticking up for Flynn?

    No wonder a lot of soldiers are voting for Biden. I bet a lot of them do not like Biden that much, but realize something’s gotta change here and quick.

    But there’s a good reason to surround yourself with compromised scumbags. You can trust crooks in a way you cannot trust patriots.

    Dustin (5418f4)

  40. Appeals court dismisses silly House suit to enforce subpoena. Rules that Congress had failed to give panel said powers.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/court-dismisses-house-lawsuit-seeking-to-enforce-a-subpoena-of-former-white-house-counsel-donald-mcgahn/2020/08/31/c693ad3e-ebaf-11ea-ab4e-581edb849379_story.html

    I don’t see that nonsense surviving an en banc.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  41. From Judge Griffith’s concurring opinion in today’s Flynn decision:

    In cases that attract public attention, it is common for pundits and politicians to frame their commentary in a way that reduces the judicial process to little more than a skirmish in a partisan battle. The party affiliation of the President who appoints a judge becomes an explanation for the judge’s real reason for the disposition, and the legal reasoning employed is seen as a cover for the exercise of raw political power. No doubt there will be some who will describe the court’s decision today in such terms, but they would be mistaken.

    Which has me wondering, where the heck is rcocean?

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  42. @40 Well the patriots keep saying no when you want them to do unconstitutional things, so you have to fire them, er, invite them to spend more time with their families and then hire the scumbags.

    Nic (896fdf)

  43. Id have to side with Flynn, knowing that all Generals are crooked sticks. Anything over a captain is sketchy.

    mg (8cbc69)

  44. All the clintonistas think the service members will vote heels up. lmao.
    the ticket is heels up/2020, joe is napping it off.

    mg (8cbc69)

  45. Never Trumpers aren’t interested in governance, only bailing out rioters and looters. Its sinful – holding the nation hostage to their four-year psychosis over the pant suit darling losing an election.

    mg (8cbc69)

  46. And stop paying attention to the partisans who told you to expect a different result.

    LOL. Those losers are dead to me. Fool me once….

    No more partisan idiots for me. All my prediction eggs are going in the Jim Hoft basket!

    Unskew the boat parades!!!

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  47. @26, Whembly, I know we’ve talked about this before. But I think the evidence supports that there was a legitimate suspicion about the Trump campaign and Russian interference. I don’t think evidence has been provided to support concluding that it was politically motivated. We just disagree on this.

    Time123 (306531)

  48. @48

    @26, Whembly, I know we’ve talked about this before. But I think the evidence supports that there was a legitimate suspicion about the Trump campaign and Russian interference. I don’t think evidence has been provided to support concluding that it was politically motivated. We just disagree on this.

    Time123 (306531) — 9/1/2020 @ 5:38 am

    We do disagree here….the evidence literally paints a picture of the outgoing administration using the powers of the governance against the opposition party incoming administration. I agree that our investigative services only need something as a predication to initiate an investigation, which is a much SMALLER hurdle than what most folks believe. That’s not my main contention.

    My beef, with respect to Flynn, is that by early January after investigating Flynn for more than 6 months, multiple agencies found no derogatory information on Flynn. So, by early January the FBI were closing the Flynn investigation, only to be kept open by a rogue leadership, Peter Strzok, which is problematic as the “investigation” is being done by the leadership instead of the rank and file.

    Then, a major Brady violation, we have the actual transcript between Kislyak and Flynn which literally shows that Flynn didn’t discuss financial sanctions (he was discussion centered over diplomats and was literally trying to lower the temperature).

    We have Peter Strzok, on record, showing absolute animus towards Trump and Flynn (first we F*ck Flynn, then we F*ck Trump)…that it’s impossible to not conclude this was politically motivated.

    Take Flynn/Trump out of the picture for the moment please… my main concern here is if this is a new rule, new norm for politically appointed FBI/DOJ officials to spy on opposing party campaigns and continue to use the government apparatus to undermine the incoming administration…is that where we’re at now?

    whembly (c30c83)

  49. The new rules are gonna suck for everyone.

    Capsaicin Addict (041266)

  50. I don’t see that nonsense surviving an en banc.

    That’s an easy call. The two judges who ruled against Congress’ authority were the same two dissenting judges in the 7-2 en banc ruling that returned the case to the three-judge panel. Henderson will get shredded again en banc.

    Paul Montagu (a2078e)

  51. Take Flynn/Trump out of the picture for the moment please… my main concern here is if this is a new rule, new norm for politically appointed FBI/DOJ officials to spy on opposing party campaigns and continue to use the government apparatus to undermine the incoming administration…is that where we’re at now?

    No, because there was good reason for the outgoing administration to suspected
    -The Russian Government committed crimes to influence the 2016 election.
    -The Trump campaign was coordinating with the Russian government to maximize their political benefit from the those crimes.

    The senate report makes it clear that this is what happened. It may not have been a criminal violation, but it happened.

    I’m not trying to convince you that I’m right. I’m mostly trying to make clear that there is a reasonable argument to be made that this is what happened.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  52. @52

    Take Flynn/Trump out of the picture for the moment please… my main concern here is if this is a new rule, new norm for politically appointed FBI/DOJ officials to spy on opposing party campaigns and continue to use the government apparatus to undermine the incoming administration…is that where we’re at now?

    No, because there was good reason for the outgoing administration to suspected
    -The Russian Government committed crimes to influence the 2016 election.

    Never disagreed with that premise.

    China also interfered as well.

    -The Trump campaign was coordinating with the Russian government to maximize their political benefit from the those crimes.

    …sigh. You’re never going to change your mind on this.. eh? Because, if you continue to believe this, then we don’t have much to discuss anymore as this is fiction.

    The senate report makes it clear that this is what happened. It may not have been a criminal violation, but it happened.

    The senate report makes it clear that both political parties shaping their preferred narrative.

    So, with that perspective I wouldn’t hold that as gospel. Frankly that report is a mess with poo flungs on both sides.

    I’m not trying to convince you that I’m right. I’m mostly trying to make clear that there is a reasonable argument to be made that this is what happened.

    Time123 (89dfb2) — 9/1/2020 @ 7:35 am

    …and I’m trying to make clear that it’s not a reasonable argument.

    Just go through a hypothetical… reverse the parties in this ordeal, and you tell me that the outcome would the be same. Right?

    whembly (c30c83)

  53. This is bad. This was a valid case for mandamus. We have a government wanting to dismiss prosecution of a citizen. There should NEVER be any question about that unless there is clear evidence of bribery. The rule of law took a hit today, and only partisan and people who lost their perspectives think differently. They think its okay to continue to prosecute and innocent citizen. That is not what our justice system should do.

    Hopefully it will be restored soon.

    JM2 (2134ae)

  54. Whembly,
    You wrote

    China also interfered as well.

    -The Trump campaign was coordinating with the Russian government to maximize their political benefit from the those crimes.

    …sigh. You’re never going to change your mind on this.. eh? Because, if you continue to believe this, then we don’t have much to discuss anymore as this is fiction.

    The interference that most bothers me is the hacking of the DNC servers. It’s a crime, and it had a meaningful impact on the campaigns. This is from the Senate report findings.
    I’m not saying it’s flawless, but it’s likely better than any summary you or I could produce based on media report. Is there a specific reason not to find this conclusion credible? Even if there is, can you at least see that there was enough activity in this area to warrant an investigation?

    (U) Trump and senior Campaign officials sought to obtain advance information about WikiLeaks’s planned releases through Roger Stone. At their direction, Stone took action to gain inside knowledge for the Campaign and shared his purported knowledge directly with Trump and senior Campaign offictals on multiple occasions. Trump and the Campaign believed that Stone had inside information and expressed satisfaction that Stone’s information suggested more releases would be forthcoming. The Committee could not reliably determine the extent of authentic, non-public knowledge about WikiLeaks that Stone obtained and shared with the Campaign

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  55. China also interfered as well.

    Yes, but the FBI did not have sufficient predicate to launch Crossfire Monsoon. They did with Putin and with good reason, given his “sweeping and systematic” and unprecedented efforts to cyber-propaganda attack the United States. The Flynn aspect of their work on the cusp of closing until Kislyak.

    Paul Montagu (a2078e)

  56. @55

    The interference that most bothers me is the hacking of the DNC servers. It’s a crime, and it had a meaningful impact on the campaigns. This is from the Senate report findings.
    I’m not saying it’s flawless, but it’s likely better than any summary you or I could produce based on media report. Is there a specific reason not to find this conclusion credible? Even if there is, can you at least see that there was enough activity in this area to warrant an investigation?

    (U) Trump and senior Campaign officials sought to obtain advance information about WikiLeaks’s planned releases through Roger Stone. At their direction, Stone took action to gain inside knowledge for the Campaign and shared his purported knowledge directly with Trump and senior Campaign offictals on multiple occasions. Trump and the Campaign believed that Stone had inside information and expressed satisfaction that Stone’s information suggested more releases would be forthcoming. The Committee could not reliably determine the extent of authentic, non-public knowledge about WikiLeaks that Stone obtained and shared with the Campaign

    Time123 (89dfb2) — 9/1/2020 @ 8:04 am

    The Mueller Report itself…
    https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6979584/Volume-I-Final.pdf
    Stated:

    “The investigation did not identify evidence of other communications between Stone and Guccifer 2.0.”

    Guccifer 2.0 was the GRU front that took credit for the hack of the DNC and DCCC databases.

    Here’s where the Senate Democrats, hung their hat saying that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia…again from Mueller report:
    In early August 2016, Stone publicly protested Twitter’s suspension of the Guccifer 2.0 Twitter account. After it was reinstated, GRU officers posing as Guccifer 2.0 wrote to Stone via private message “thank u for writing back… do u find anyt[h]ing interesting in the docs I posted?”

    On August 17, 2016, GRU added “please tell me if I can help u anyhow … it would be a great pleasure to me.”

    On September 9, 2016, the GRU – again posing as Guccifer 2.0 – referring to the stolen DCCC documents posted online and asked Stone “what do u think of the info on the turnout model for democrats entire presidential campaign.” Stone responded “pretty standard.”

    That’s it. That two word response on Twitter is what Democrats are providing as proof that’s there’s some nefarious collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia (when Stone assuredly didn’t know Guccifer 2.0 was a GRU front).

    Both the Senate report and Mueller report doesn’t provide any evidence of contacts between Stone and Assange. Even though Stone tried to reach out to Assange.

    Again, in that Mueller report, whose prosecutor has every incentive to find anything…ANYTHING to bolster the Russian Collusion story stated that Stone lyingly bragged about having been “in contact” with Assange, who later restated his statement to say that this Assange “contact” was really through an intermediary “journalist” and that he had never met or spoken to Assange directly. Except, according to the Mueller report, that wasn’t true either because this intermediary “journalist” was Jerome Corsi, who stated that he never spoke to Assange either (even though he told Stone that he did) and that the Mueller team couldn’t find any evidence of Corsi contacting Assange.

    What’s more likely? That Stone and Corsi are traitors working for Russia (wittingly or unwittingly)? Or they’re a bunch of cranks fluffing their “credentials” looking to profit on their connections with the Trump administration?

    So, what you have cutout there above Time123 is simply the Senate Democrats ignoring what the Mueller report stated, and spun the narrative to bolster the Russia/Trump collusion. That’s the thing with these committee reports… both parties get a “say”.

    Furthermore, if you’re pissed about that hack, be mad at the DNC not allowing the FBI perform the forensic investigation on the original server/infrastructure. The DNC partisan complany CrowdStrike performed the investigation and gave their “report” to the FBI. A “report” that would be torn to bits if taken to court if the government used it in any prosecution. Can’t you see how shady as all hell that is?

    whembly (c30c83)

  57. @57 My quote block broke after the first sentance after the link… it should be:

    “The investigation did not identify evidence of other communications between Stone and Guccifer 2.0.”

    Guccifer 2.0 was the GRU front that took credit for the hack of the DNC and DCCC databases.

    Here’s where the Senate Democrats, hung their hat saying that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia…again from Mueller report:

    In early August 2016, Stone publicly protested Twitter’s suspension of the Guccifer 2.0 Twitter account. After it was reinstated, GRU officers posing as Guccifer 2.0 wrote to Stone via private message “thank u for writing back… do u find anyt[h]ing interesting in the docs I posted?”

    On August 17, 2016, GRU added “please tell me if I can help u anyhow … it would be a great pleasure to me.”

    On September 9, 2016, the GRU – again posing as Guccifer 2.0 – referring to the stolen DCCC documents posted online and asked Stone “what do u think of the info on the turnout model for democrats entire presidential campaign.” Stone responded “pretty standard.”

    That’s it. That two word response on Twitter is what Democrats are providing as proof that’s there’s some nefarious collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia (when Stone assuredly didn’t know Guccifer 2.0 was a GRU front).

    whembly (c30c83)

  58. We have a government wanting to dismiss prosecution of a citizen. There should NEVER be any question about that unless there is clear evidence of bribery.

    And how, exactly, are we to adduce such evidence in the face of obviously-pretextual justifications like those found in pending motion to dismiss, other than to conduct an inquiry like the one Judge Sullivan appears to intend?

    (Not That) Bill O'Reilly (6bb12a)

  59. the fisa warrant was based on the steele dossier, which came from a bunch of drinking buddies, the affirmations in the report, regarding certain figures, required mr steeles company, to pay out monies, buzzfeed and cnn, printed said report, which proves the intelligence community socalled is hot garbage, now mr steele actually worked for one of the figures, oleg deripaska, who also employed jonathan winer, who was isikoff’s confirming source on carter page, who was an american intelligence asset, but clinesmith, deliberately deleted evidence of same,

    Now the bureau was too lazy to actually examine the malware inside the dnc servers, so they pawned off to another contractor, who ignored that the code is not unique to russians or fsb,
    this is what jeffrey carr established, this is the same bureau that employed who we know now was a known chinese intelligence operative, after they had been living in china for 12 years,
    and had apparently been tasked before he returned to the states, how about jeffrey dobbins, he’s been spying for nearly a quarter century off and on, showing him to be arguing the russian policy prescription, at the cambridge forum, but halper kent and co, were too busy libeling
    General Flynn, and miss lovkova, to care,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  60. Our host as previously posed the hypothetical “Suppose that the defendant had bribed the AG to gain the dismissal, would not the judge have the power to investigate that?” (or words that I took to mean that). And that this hypothetical punches a gaping hole in the theory that the judge’s discretion is limited to situations where the prosecution is trying to harass with multiple aborted prosecutions.

    My reply has always been, well, but that may be justice but I don’t see where it is law, and precedent argues for for “No.”

    Hypotheticals are tricky though, since they sometimes become real-life and I suspect that if a YouTube video of Barr accepting a bribe showed up, that the court’s refusal to dismiss would hold up regardless of precedent and probably regardless of law. Even judges have consciences which can be shocked.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  61. But here’s another hypothetical, at least as likely:

    Suppose that a political party had promised a judge that if he refused to grant a dismissal in a politically charged case, he might find his career prospects brightened, and if he granted the dismissal his prospects were bleak.

    I mean, as long as we as presuming political motives…

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  62. You might want to add in your supposition that the judge is 73 years old, he worked in private practice for more than a decade at Houston & Gardner, becoming a name partner in 1980, he was appointed to the bench of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan, to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals as an Associate Judge in 1992 by President George H. W. Bush and to the federal bench in 1994 by President Bill Clinton.[3]

    Since we’re supposing.

    nk (1d9030)

  63. they lied to judge contreras, (he had the partial decency to recuse himself) and they lied to sullivan, so there’s no hypothetical about this, prosecutors lied to sullivan in the steven’s case as well, the details I elaborated on, he did offer some sanctions reversed by the doj, so what’s the lesson here, if you have the right target, you can make up any statement,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  64. Whembly,

    1 The report was published by the senate committee that’s headed by marco rubio. Not the democrats.
    2 I wrote “The Trump campaign was coordinating with the Russian government to maximize their political benefit from the those crimes.”

    more from the report below. Again, my point is not that Trump is a Russian plant or that Trump broke the law. My point is that there was reasonable evidence to warrant an investigation, and that in fact the Campaign was coordinating with the Russian government through Roger Stone.

    Trump and senior Campaign officials sought to obtain advance information about
    WikiLeaks through Roger Stone. In spring 2016, prior to Assange’s public announcements,
    Stone advised the Campaign that WikiLeaks would be releasing materials harmful to Clinton.
    Following the July 22 DNC release, Trump and the Campaign believed that Roger Stone had
    known of the release and had inside access to WikiLeaks, and repeatedly communicated with
    Stone about WikiLeaks throughout the summer and fall of 2016.
    Trump and other senior
    Campaign officials specifically directed Stone to obtain information about upcoming document
    releases relating to Clinton and report back. At their direction, Stone took action to gain inside
    knowledge for the Campaign and shared his purported knowledge directly with Trump and
    senior Campaign officials on multiple occasions. Trump and the Campaign believed that Stone
    had inside information and expressed satisfaction that Stone’s information suggested more
    releases would be forthcoming.

    In August 2016, following the Campaign’s tasking, Stone obtained information
    indicating that John Podesta would be a target of an upcoming release, prior to WikiLeaks
    releasing Podesta’s emails on October 7. Stone then communicated this information to Trump
    and other senior Campaign officials and affiliates, including Manafort and Gates. After the
    October 7 release, Trump, Manafort, Gates and others found Stone’s information to be correct.
    Stone likely received this information from Jerome Corsi, who informed Stone in early August
    that WikiLeaks would be releasing Podesta’ s emails.
    (U) The Committee could not reliably determine the extent of authentic, non-public
    knowledge about WikiLeaks that Stone obtained and shared with the Campaign. Corsi made
    contradictory statements about whether he acquired this information from a source or deduced it
    on his own. Corsi also coordinated with Stone on a cover story for Stone’s information and
    deleted communications relating to the issue. Separately, Stone communicated with Randy
    Credico between August and October 2016 in an attempt to obtain advance information about
    WikiLeaks, but Credico denied having any non-public knowledge, despite having some
    connections to Assange.

    Trump and the Campaign continued to promote and disseminate the hacked
    WikiLeaks documents, even after the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the
    Department of Homeland Security released a.joint statement officially attributing the hack-andleak campaign to Russia as part of its interference in the U.S. presidential election. The Tf1:1mp
    Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia, and was
    indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort.

    Time123 (306531)

  65. @65

    Whembly,

    1 The report was published by the senate committee that’s headed by marco rubio. Not the democrats.

    It was written by the committee…a committed made up of BOTH Republicans and Democrats. BOTH PARTIES GET A SAY on these reports time. It’s not exclusively written by Rubio and the GOP.

    2 I wrote “The Trump campaign was coordinating with the Russian government to maximize their political benefit from the those crimes.”

    more from the report below. Again, my point is not that Trump is a Russian plant or that Trump broke the law. My point is that there was reasonable evidence to warrant an investigation, and that in fact the Campaign was coordinating with the Russian government through Roger Stone.

    …and my point was the there was no Adult supervisions of these investigations to prevent political animus from being the driver of said investigations.

    And… no, there is no “in fact the Campaign was coordinating with the Russian government through Roger Stone.” The Senate report nor the Mueller report offered ANY evidence supporting that proposition.

    whembly (c30c83)

  66. @63

    You might want to add in your supposition that the judge is 73 years old, he worked in private practice for more than a decade at Houston & Gardner, becoming a name partner in 1980, he was appointed to the bench of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan, to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals as an Associate Judge in 1992 by President George H. W. Bush and to the federal bench in 1994 by President Bill Clinton.[3]

    Since we’re supposing.

    nk (1d9030) — 9/1/2020 @ 11:09 am

    Since we’re supposing… suppose Sullivan is afflicted with one of the worst Trump Derangement Syndrome such that he openly accused Flynn for arguably committing treason.

    Oh…wait, there’s not supposition there…he actually did accuse him of that.

    whembly (c30c83)

  67. Hey whembly, appreciate the continued discussion. I understand that this is a bi-partisan report. They all signed it, they all put their spin on it. But the findings and evidence was agreed to by the committee…it’s not gospel, but it’s better the the NYT/WP/WSJ/Whatever

    …and my point was the there was no Adult supervisions of these investigations to prevent political animus from being the driver of said investigations.

    The IG report didn’t find evidence the investigation was driven by political animus or that it was directed by him. The IG faulted the FBI for not keeping DOJ more in the loop. I’m not a fan of Obama and it wouldn’t bother me in the least if someone produced that evidence. What I see at this time is reasonable grounds for suspicion and investigation.

    But if someone wanted to propose more oversight on counter espionage I’d be a really easy sell. This does show that this process has for too few checks on it. I wish Trump had pushed for actual reforms.

    And… no, there is no “in fact the Campaign was coordinating with the Russian government through Roger Stone.” The Senate report nor the Mueller report offered ANY evidence supporting that proposition.

    I over stated this and need to walk it back.

    From what I’ve read in the report
    –Russia Hacked the DNC.
    –Russia provided the information to WikiLeaks
    –Stone worked with wiki leaks on behalf of the campaign to maximize the benefit of the info.
    –This continued after it was known that Russia was behind the hack.

    This is not the same as the campaign coordinated with the Russian government and I apologize for the exaggeration. I wasn’t trying to mislead.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  68. @68

    Hey whembly, appreciate the continued discussion. I understand that this is a bi-partisan report. They all signed it, they all put their spin on it. But the findings and evidence was agreed to by the committee…it’s not gospel, but it’s better the the NYT/WP/WSJ/Whatever

    Honestly, I’d chuck that committee report in the same bucket as the NYT/WP/WSJ/Whatever…

    Read with copious amount of salts. 😉

    …and my point was the there was no Adult supervisions of these investigations to prevent political animus from being the driver of said investigations.

    The IG report didn’t find evidence the investigation was driven by political animus or that it was directed by him.

    That’s not correct.

    The IG couldn’t make that determination one way or another.

    Furthermore, the IG weren’t allowed to interview the staff in the NSD department (where the FISA abuse occured) due to AAG Sally Yate’s prior prohibition. (which, Congress need to address asap).

    The IG faulted the FBI for not keeping DOJ more in the loop. I’m not a fan of Obama and it wouldn’t bother me in the least if someone produced that evidence. What I see at this time is reasonable grounds for suspicion and investigation.

    Opening an investigation is one thing…

    Continuing said investigation when it was apparent that there wasn’t “a there there” is another.

    But if someone wanted to propose more oversight on counter espionage I’d be a really easy sell. This does show that this process has for too few checks on it. I wish Trump had pushed for actual reforms.

    AG Bar and Dir Wray just released new memorandum of more oversight regarding the FISA process, which if I’m reading correctly, puts more accountability on the political appointees. (no more things like Comey saying he didn’t know).

    And… no, there is no “in fact the Campaign was coordinating with the Russian government through Roger Stone.” The Senate report nor the Mueller report offered ANY evidence supporting that proposition.

    I over stated this and need to walk it back.

    Thank you.

    From what I’ve read in the report
    –Russia Hacked the DNC.

    Alleged. No actual evidence was found mind you.

    –Russia provided the information to WikiLeaks

    If Guccifer 2.0 was a GRU front, then yep.

    –Stone worked with wiki leaks on behalf of the campaign to maximize the benefit of the info.

    No. Stone lied that he was working with wiki leak. The Committee report (aka Democrats here) is wrong here.

    –This continued after it was known that Russia was behind the hack.

    “What” continued?

    This is not the same as the campaign coordinated with the Russian government and I apologize for the exaggeration. I wasn’t trying to mislead.

    Time123 (89dfb2) — 9/1/2020 @

    I figured that. It’s just that is exactly the Democrat talking point. Hence why I continue to point that out.

    whembly (15c62b)

  69. I see that the 2nd Circuit has enjoined the NY DA’s subpoena for Trump’s taxes, say the request seemed over-broad. To be argued later this month.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  70. Since we’re supposing… suppose Sullivan is afflicted with one of the worst Trump Derangement Syndrome such that he openly accused Flynn for arguably committing treason.

    Oh…wait, there’s not supposition there…he actually did accuse him of that.

    Sidney argued it, and the Court of Appeals considered it, and said, “We have no reason to believe he’s wrong at this point, and you are grasping at straws also.”

    nk (1d9030)

  71. appointed to the bench of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan

    From whose list?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  72. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/with-election-looming-judge-sullivan-will-drag-out-the-flynn-case/

    As I observe in today’s column, the worst part of the Circuit’s decision (for the justice system, not for Flynn) is its indulgence of amicus curiae participation in criminal cases. The practice, for good reasons, has been exceedingly rare and discouraged — including by Judge Sullivan, throughout his career and in the Flynn case . . . right up until he decided that appointing amici would be an effective way to resist the Justice Department’s dismissal.

    And now we see the wages of the Circuit’s decision to accept rather than crack down on this practice. Sullivan orders the parties to include in their status report a proposed briefing schedule. The Justice Department and Flynn must come up with deadlines to file further replies to any other briefs that have already been submitted. Plus, not only DOJ and Flynn but Sullivan’s specially appointed amicus adviser, former federal judge John Gleeson, must figure out a time to respond “to any amicus brief of non-Court-appointed amicus curiae.”

    In effect, in addition to facing government prosecutors (as Flynn has been doing for four years, at millions of dollars of expense), the criminal defendant in this case now confronts a flock of judicially deputized quasi-prosecutors, most of whom are trying to rationalize further prosecution of Flynn, even though the only prosecutor with constitutional prosecution power, the Justice Department, wants to drop the case. For its part, moreover, the Justice Department must respond to the flock of amici, who also seek to second-guess the executive branch’s discretion to commence or persist in a prosecution, notwithstanding that this is discretion no court has authority to review. We thus have exactly the separation-of-powers improprieties foreseen by the Circuit’s minority judges and given the back of the hand by the majority.

    Yup.

    It’s going to be a clusterfark.

    whembly (c30c83)

  73. @71

    Since we’re supposing… suppose Sullivan is afflicted with one of the worst Trump Derangement Syndrome such that he openly accused Flynn for arguably committing treason.

    Oh…wait, there’s not supposition there…he actually did accuse him of that.

    Sidney argued it, and the Court of Appeals considered it, and said, “We have no reason to believe he’s wrong at this point, and you are grasping at straws also.”

    nk (1d9030) — 9/1/2020 @ 5:10 pm

    Judge Henderson didn’t pull any punches in her dissent, 28 U.S.C. § 455,which requires a judge to recuse when his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

    I think it’s more than reasonable to question it…

    Once Judge Sullivan filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which is something only a party has the right to do…he clearly had crossed that line.

    Ya’ll want a clownshow…

    Judge Sullivan is clowning for yalls.

    whembly (c30c83)

  74. It is what it is. Just wait and see. It will all go away.

    nk (1d9030)

  75. We’ll see what happens.

    Dave (1bb933)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3807 secs.