Reply With Quote
talk to text... meant "a legal"
As long as you've been posting here you seriously have to ask that question as bipolar as this form is?
talk to text... meant "a legal"
oh. i think its clear the legal decision by the appellate court is absolutely counter to "my narrative." but that had less to do with the merits and facts of the flynn case, and more of a procedural question. i didnt think a writ was warranted because the judge had not even made a ruling yet and nothing would prevent the parties from appealing an eventual, hypothetically adverse, ruling.
so i mean, i disagree with the court's conclusion there, but its not really related to the facts i was discussing
Perhaps but the judge was playing politics by dragging the case out further than the Department of Justice wanted to. There's absolutely no reason for the judge to do that other than political activism. Maybe he had a legal right to do it but doing it capriciously like that most likely raised some eyebrows at a higher level.
They should become lawmakers if they want to change the law. Even if what he did was within the confines of the law he still has some discretion and I think it's pretty obvious what was happening. It's also interesting how the opinions on this issue seem cleanly divided down the red and blue Isles. If that's not political I don't know what is.
that may all be true, but every appellate court ruling sets mandatory precedent... so if it is understood that the judge had an actual legal right to do it, its improper to shut it down just because they think politics are in play.
there was no guarantee that the judge was going to deny the motion, and if he did, i'd have no issue with them appealing it, and based on today's ruling, there's a fairly certain chance they would have won on appeal if it came to it. it just seems really wonky procedurally to rule this way on the writ because it requires a showing of irreparable harm, and the court found that it wasn't even Flynn with the irreparable harm, but the government, because evidently having them discuss their decision making to drop the charges is irreparable harm
But did they have a legal right to shut it down?
Perhaps because separation of powers. It's their charges, they filed them, they should be able to drop them.there was no guarantee that the judge was going to deny the motion, and if he did, i'd have no issue with them appealing it, and based on today's ruling, there's a fairly certain chance they would have won on appeal if it came to it. it just seems really wonky procedurally to rule this way on the writ because it requires a showing of irreparable harm, and the court found that it wasn't even Flynn with the irreparable harm, but the government, because evidently having them discuss their decision making to drop the charges is irreparable harm
does the appellate court have the legal authority to order the district court to dismiss a case? yes if a writ of mandate is granted
this is generally true, and even sullivan's brief acknowledged that there is a presumption of normalcy when it comes to the government's decision making that would have to be overcome to justify a denial of the motion to dismiss. its particularly noteworthy that at the time of this ruling, sullivan had not denied the motionPerhaps because separation of powers. It's their charges, they filed them, they should be able to drop them.
but the statue for dismissal sought by the prosecution still requires leave of court (aka permission) and isn't inherently automatic. the appellate court didnt very clearly define what they thought the boundaries of that were, but they found that the facts of this case did not fall under it. they appeared to somewhat limit the leave of court requirement to situations where there is prosecutorial abuse and the defendant is not in favor of the dismissal (ie they are concerned the case is going to be dismissed and refiled just to with him). and thats a reasonable policy position, i just dont know that there was any specific authority, either case law or statute, that had previously expressed such limitation
Yes, and only to watch him avoid addressing it like he's doing now.
The DOJ claims the evidence was newly discovered right here in the link you provided
"In its motion, the government explains that in light of newly discovered evidence of misconduct by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the prosecution can no longer prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any false statements made by Flynn were material to a legitimate investigation—an element the government contends is necessary under Section 1001. See United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509 (1995)."
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...b-efff27b20001
Giuliani No Longer Worst Lawyer in Country
WASHINGTON —In an unexpected turn of events for the former New York mayor, a poll of legal experts has determined that Rudolph Giuliani is no longer the worst lawyer in America.
Giuliani’s dethronement from the worst-lawyer championship was all the more shocking because
his claim to that le had remained unchallenged for so long.
“Giuliani had faced worthy compe ion from the likes of Michael D. Cohen and Michael Avenatti and dispatched them with ease,” Logsdon said.
“But this new challenger left Rudy in the dust.”
The new leholder as the nation’s worst lawyer, who won in a nearly unanimous vote, is so egregious that he may cause some legal experts to reassess Giuliani’s career as an attorney.
“Compared to our country’s new worst lawyer,
Rudy demonstrated the utmost respect for the Cons ution and the rule of law,”
Giuliani took the news of his ouster philosophically.
“I had a good run,” he said.
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/giuliani-no-longer-worst-lawyer-in-country
It certainly didn't seem to be new to the DOJ, to the point that the DOJ's own prosecutor had to convince the court previously that the investigation was material (something the Flynn defense had challenged), and I believe as recently as last January of this year, the court concluded that the prosecution was correct in it's assesment. It only became an issue once Barr enlisted a third party to second-guess his own lead prosecutor in the case. There is a problem with the government itself making the claim because they're the one suspect, which is what the Judge had an issue with (and thus the request for an amicus). That case went on for years, only for the DOJ to suddenly turn around and on their own prosecutors, which is extremely rare, especially at this juncture. Again, the case was already won, we were on the sentencing phase here. Flynn certainly had a chance to re-try the case on appeals, including removing his guilty plea, challenging any Brady materials, etc.The DOJ claims the evidence was newly discovered right here in the link you provided
"In its motion, the government explains that in light of newly discovered evidence of misconduct by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the prosecution can no longer prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any false statements made by Flynn were material to a legitimate investigation—an element the government contends is necessary under Section 1001. See United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509 (1995)."
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...b-efff27b20001
I also still don't know what happened with the lying to the DOJ re:Turkey charges. I believe (I could be wrong) they were included in his plea deal, and had nothing to do with the FBI investigation, at least that's what the Sullivan filing implied. I suppose the DOJ felt they suddenly couldn't prove that either?
Like I said a few pages back, you never know how the district court will rule, but I also find it interesting they thought there would be harm to the executive in this case. I would've thought they would rule for harm to Flynn in having to continue the defend himself, but without an actual ruling on the motion from the lower court, I don't believe there's a precedent for granting the writ in those cir stances (IIRC, the dissenting judge said the same), and the precedent that sets.
Ultimately, my concern isn't with this case particularly. I felt that Flynn was going to be pardoned regardless, and for all the claims of "FBI corruption", nobody from the FBI was actually indicted of such behavior, so that's a very flimsy claim by itself.
My concern is the precedent this sets when a corrupt DOJ official (regardless of the party) moves to dismiss a case they already won based on flimsy excuses. But I suppose, as sr21, that might not be the role of the judiciary, and should be the role of impeachment proceedings instead.
yeah, i'm not certain that sullivan would have been in the right to deny the motion to dismiss. it's somewhat alarming to me that the notion of the government having to explain its decision is tantamount to "irreparable harm" and the general precedent that you can "appeal" from a ruling that hasnt even been made
The other problem I see too, is that now Rule 48(a) is not any more clear than it was. I would argue that it's even more difficult to interpret. I get the feeling that, at some point, the SCOTUS will need to get involved in clarifying that (not particularly for this case).
That's the defense you used for Sullivan - that it was within his legal authority. Proper or improper is up to opinion.
Sullivan hadn't denied the motion, he was dragging it out for theater and yes to not only with Flynn, but to with the DOJ, with Barr and mostly with Trump.
this is generally true, and even sullivan's brief acknowledged that there is a presumption of normalcy when it comes to the government's decision making that would have to be overcome to justify a denial of the motion to dismiss. its particularly noteworthy that at the time of this ruling, sullivan had not denied the motion
but the statue for dismissal sought by the prosecution still requires leave of court (aka permission) and isn't inherently automatic. the appellate court didnt very clearly define what they thought the boundaries of that were, but they found that the facts of this case did not fall under it. they appeared to somewhat limit the leave of court requirement to situations where there is prosecutorial abuse and the defendant is not in favor of the dismissal (ie they are concerned the case is going to be dismissed and refiled just to with him). and thats a reasonable policy position, i just dont know that there was any specific authority, either case law or statute, that had previously expressed such limitation
Any time there's a high profile case, there seems to be a big risk that a judge will try to show his ass. We've seen it many times.
You rarely, if ever, see people at that level go to prison for anything. There are too many powerful people tied to him who he has dirt on.
It should be noted that Sullivan was actually skeptical from the get go about the charges against Flynn... he also ruled in favor of Trump on a separate case in Feb 2020... so the notion he disliked Trump doesn't really jive with his actions.
Even if I largely agree with that sentiment, setting a legal precedent for corruption to escape unscathed by the judiciary is certainly never good news.
I mean, I get that guys like TSA or Chris only care because it's their administration that got away with it, but I'm 100% sure they'll flip their tune as soon as it's team blue doing it.
That's the kind of shortsightedness that's really stupid, IMO, but that's what you get in partisan politics.
Anyone who was surprised at that must reset their life experience daily.
"In a highly unusual public statement Tuesday morning, FBI director James Comey said Hillary Clinton and her aides may have violated the law in using a private email server when she was Secretary of State, but that their actions didn’t warrant criminal charges. In its year-long investigation of how government secrets got onto the server, Comey said, the FBI found “evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” but he said, “we are expressing to [the] Justice [department] our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.” " -Time magazineI mean, I get that guys like TSA or Chris only care because it's their administration that got away with it, but I'm 100% sure they'll flip their tune as soon as it's team blue doing it.
Why do you act like this is a new thing?Sides take turns being offended over it, then accepting it, then offended again. Every iteration the rules get bent or broken, every iteration half the country is fine with it.That's the kind of shortsightedness that's really stupid, IMO, but that's what you get in partisan politics.
Neither the FBI, nor the DOJ are precedent-setting courts of law, which is why this is different from what you quoted. Considering stare decisis is an overly important part of judicial decisions, precedents like these are very difficult to undo (except for a law passing or the SCOTUS clarifying).
"In a highly unusual public statement Tuesday morning, FBI director James Comey said Hillary Clinton and her aides may have violated the law in using a private email server when she was Secretary of State, but that their actions didn’t warrant criminal charges. In its year-long investigation of how government secrets got onto the server, Comey said, the FBI found “evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” but he said, “we are expressing to [the] Justice [department] our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.” " -Time magazine
Why do you act like this is a new thing?
Sides take turns being offended over it, then accepting it, then offended again. Every iteration the rules get bent or broken, every iteration half the country is fine with it.
It's just another branch doing what it can to further their political agendas. The DOJ and the FBI are not supposed to be trick ing the law to excuse the wealthy and elite, but they do. The judicial system isn't on a pedestal, there have been activist judges for a long time.
https://law.vanderbilt.edu/news/a-su...cial-activism/
Either the judiciary only interprets the law or they seek to create the world they personally envision. Sounds bifurcated but you cannot do both at the same time. You cannot seek to create your vision through interpretation of the law that is based on precedence. It would have to be based on your vision. Activist judges have political viewpoints and they more and more try to legislate from the bench. More and more I see scenarios where "I can do this, so I should do this" comes into play, in all branches.
Last edited by DMC; 06-25-2020 at 11:28 PM.
He (supposedly) gave Trump a favorable ruling; he can't be against him.
Dude, not accepting a prosecutor's decision to drop charges is unheard of.
Then again, lawyers being beholden to client cofidentiality suddenly wasn't a thing with Cohen.
Deep State just making up new rules as they go.
Non sequitur. He can rule in someone's favor and still dislike them but I never said he disliked either of these people. I said he wanted to with them, to create a rain delay.
Judicial activism is both generally rare and short lived, mostly due precisely to things like stare decisis. I can see how in States where judges are appointed through elections there's more politicization than states where they aren't, but that's neither here or there.
To levy a criticism that Judge Sullivan was doing anything but interpret the law you would have to point to something that was illegal in his procedure, but you haven't. Not even the writ order from the circuit court makes that allegation.
And obviously, you have Congress not always being completely clear on legislation and lawyers trying to interpret the laws in different ways, and so there are disagreements all the time between instances, which is why it's good the justice system has a multi-tiered appeal system.
That's the allegation DMC made. I was merely pointing out that if the Judge wanted to be anti-trump, he had plenty of opportunities to be, but did not.
It's not unheard of, there's actually case law, which was listed in all the motions to the circuit court you didn't read. Your ignorance is not an excuse.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
