Reply With Quote
Obamagate
"Don't look at how bad Trump is ing up the coranvirus-gate"
He had already ruled on whether the lie was material and Flynn already admitted it twice, so yeah.
Obamagate
"Don't look at how bad Trump is ing up the coranvirus-gate"
Why do we still not have enough corona tests?
Judge Emmet Sullivan Likely Committed Reversible Error In Taking The Guilty Plea of General Michael Flynn
Judge Sullivan screwed up the factual basis of the guilty plea entered by Gen. Flynn, and the procedure he employed was unsound and violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. I think DOJ knows this to be the case, but given Judge Sullivan’s unpredictability they have opted to not “call him out” on it at this point. Instead, I suspect there is a hope that he may recognize his error — it’s right there in the transcript — and will instead grant the DOJ motion which solves his problem without him having to confront — or be confronted on — his own astonishing error.
Below are passages from the hearing transcript. I note the page number for each passage that instructs my conclusion.
"P. 5
THE COURT: And there are some questions that I’m going to ask Mr. Flynn, and because this is an extension, in my opinion, of the plea colloquy, I’m going to ask the courtroom deputy at that time to administer the oath, because normally when we have plea colloquies, we always require a defendant to be under oath, and that’s what I’m going to do this morning, unless there are objections"
In this passage, Judge Sullivan admits that he believes a further “colloquy” is necessary with regard to Gen. Flynn’s decision to enter a guilty plea. That means that as of this point in the transcript, he still has not found that all the necessary subjects have been addressed to his satisfaction, and he’s not yet prepared to accept Gen. Flynn’s guilty plea.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 11(b)(3) states: Determining the Factual Basis for a Plea. Before entering judgment on a guilty plea, the court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea. That means the Court must determine there are facts which satisfy each element of the charged offense before the Court can “enter judgment” against a defendant based on a guilty plea.
Judge Sullivan goes down that road here:
"P. 7
THE COURT: As such, the Court concludes that it must now first ask Mr. Flynn certain questions to ensure that he entered his guilty plea knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently, and with fulsome and satisfactory advice of counsel. I cannot recall any incident in which the Court has ever accepted a plea of guilty from someone who maintained that he was not guilty, and I don’t intend to start today."
After addressing several matters raised by Gen. Flynn’s original attorneys in their Sentencing Statement — expressing some concern that the arguments made by the attorneys potentially impact the question of whether or not Gen. Flynn was really “accepting responsibility” for his conduct — in a very manner by which Judge Sullivan expressed a clear understanding that the press was going cover extensively what he said — Judge Sullivan walked back from his reservations on the “acceptance” issue (seeemingly to relief of prosecutor Van Grack), and stated as follows:
"P.16
THE COURT: All right. I am satisfied that Mr. Flynn entered his guilty plea while competent and capable. He understood at that time the nature of the charges against him and the consequences of pleading guilty. Having carefully read all the materials provided to the Court in this case, including those materials reviewed under seal and in-camera, I conclude that there was and remains to be a factual basis for Mr. Flynn’s plea of guilty."
The problem is that while he said that, he never actually did that — which he happened to admit later in the hearing.
Remember, “materiality” is a a factual element of the offense of making a false statement to a federal agent. It is subject to proof at trial — meaning the prosecution must offer witness testimony or do ents to prove “materiality”, and a jury would have to conclude that the evidence established “materiality” beyond a reasonable doubt”, i.e., that the false statement had a natural tendency to influence or to be capable of influencing the decision of the decision-maker to which it was addressed.
Under Rule 11, before Judge Sullivan could “enter judgment” on Gen. Flynn, he needed to determine that there was a factual basis — as to EACH element of the charged offense.
Here’s the part where he screwed up.
He didn’t do that — which he confirmed with his own comments, not once, but twice.
"P. 19
Mr. Flynn admitted that his false statements or omissions impeded and had a material impact on the investigation, and when I ask questions of the government, I need to know answers about how he impeded the investigation and what the material impact on the investigation was."
Judge Sullivan states in open court and on the record he still does not know how the false statements were material. Without knowing that, he can’t determine if there actually is a factual basis for Gen. Flynn’s guilty plea because Judge Sullivan MUST KNOW that factual basis BEFORE he can adjudge Gen. Flynn to be guilty of the offense to which he is pleading guilty.
But Judge Sullivan didn’t just say he didn’t know if the statements were material one time — he came back to it at the end of the hearing and confirmed a second time that he didn’t know if Gen. Flynn’s statements were material.
"P. 50
THE COURT: Let me just throw this out. Let me just share this with you. What I could do, and maybe it’s not appropriate to do it now, and maybe it’s not appropriate to do it in March. At some point — it probably won’t surprise you that I had many, many, many more questions, and at some point what I may do is share those questions with counsel so you can give some thought, maybe do some additional research to be prepared for an eventual sentencing. I’m not sure if I want to do that. I was not going to spend another hour and share those questions with you in open court today, had you decided to postpone sentencing, but I may do that. I’m not sure. These are questions that you would be prepared to answer anyway, such as, you know, how the government’s investigation was impeded? What was the material impact of the criminality? Things like that.[/i]
So, when discussing what might take place at the next hearing, Judge Sullivan reaffirms that he still needs to hear from both sides why Gen. Flynn’s statements were “material.”
Judge Sullivan entered judgment on a guilty plea without first finding that a factual basis existed. That violated the requirements of Rule 11, and makes the guilty plea unsound.
The DOJ motion says the issue of “materiality” cannot be factually established based on the investigative records in the case.
It is also clear that Judge Sullivan never made a finding on materiality that needs to be reversed.
The guilty plea was invalid as a matter of law independent of the DOJ motion.
https://www.redstate.com/shipwrecked...nn-sentencing/
still defending their ^ victory
games already fixed - Barr is already committing crimes and 2000 peers already denounced his criminality and corruption -
but
still trying to convince people that this was really really really a legit victory!
all criminals are alike
they know they committed the crime - and even when they get away with it - they continue to defend it and swear to "find the real criminals"
lolol
But they didn't actually close it, and directly due to the Ambassador call. You posted the transcripts right here. So there was an investigation ongoing, and it was material to the Russia probe. Not to mention that the Mueller probe came afterwards and was also well within it's right to look at Flynn's involvement with Russia.
Again, the discussion of whether it's material or not is a technicality. As a matter of fact, guys like McCabe and Comey pretty much disagree with Barr (and I'm not defending them or taking their side, I'm merely pointing out how this was decided based on opinion/interest, not law).
aww, sullivan bad now. i remember when he was the savior because of his (standing) BRADY ORDER
Don't need to use quotes. If Flynn himself admitted he lied, twice, then he lied. I would've certainly liked to see the court decide the case.
it's like Mueller... he was a hero, then bad...
You’re wrong on the investigation aspect and materiality. The original investigation into Flynn being an agent of Russia, as flimsy as it was based on do ented but unknown lies to the FBI at that time from a CHS, would be considered properly predicated. That investigation was closed after 5 months of no derogatory information showing up with the electronic communication being filed. With the Flynn/Kislyak calls the FBI was going after the laughable never been prosecuted Logan Act. In order for the new investigation into the Logan Act to be properly predicated the FBI would have needed to file another electronic communication stating they are now investigating per the Logan Act, and they didn’t.
It doesn’t matter if guys like Comey and McCabe think they were justified based on their feelings, the law is the only thing that matters. They didn’t follow the law, end of story.
It appears Sullivan’s ed up. Do you disagree, or are you even knowledgeable enough to dispute anything I posted from a much more experienced federal prosecutor than whatever stage you’re at now?
Sullivan bad now looks like a white flag from here.
These guys all admitted to crimes they never committed too...must be because they actually committed them and not because they were threatened with harsh punishment unless they pled amirite?
https://www.innocenceproject.org/
you think those are all guilty pleas?
a total of 41 of their cases are guilty pleas. 343 of them are not.
Mueller never ran that team and was nothing but a face to give it legitimacy. His testimony was embarrassing and he looked like a slightly more coherent Biden. The case against the Russian troll farm was dismissed by the judge and the case against Flynn’s business partner was overturnedit's like Mueller... he was a hero, then bad...
why was the Concord case dismissed, TSA?Mueller never ran that team and was nothing but a face to give it legitimacy. His testimony was embarrassing and he looked like a slightly more coherent Biden. The case against the Russian troll farm was dismissed by the judge and the case against Flynn’s business partner was overturned
If your point is no one pleads guilty when innocent after being threatened with a harsher sentence you’ve failed spectacularly.you think those are all guilty pleas?
a total of 41 of their cases are guilty pleas. 343 of them are not.
Difference here is Flynn is actually guilty.
Why was it even brought if for nothing more than political show and that Mueller’s team finally “got” something?
Human error does not make one bad, Philo; not in the context you're implying.
It appears you want to respond to everything except what was actually directed at you
you think those are all guilty pleas?
a total of 41 of their cases are guilty pleas. 343 of them are not.
not an answerMueller never ran that team and was nothing but a face to give it legitimacy. His testimony was embarrassing and he looked like a slightly more coherent Biden. The case against the Russian troll farm was dismissed by the judge and the case against Flynn’s business partner was overturned
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
