U.S. judge asks if ex-Trump aide Flynn should be held in contempt

[webfact]

U.S. judge asks if ex-Trump aide Flynn should be held in contempt

By Jan Wolfe and Sarah N. Lynch

 

FILE PHOTO: Former U.S. national security adviser Michael Flynn passes by members of the media as he departs after his sentencing was delayed at U.S. District Court in Washington, U.S., December 18, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Wednesday signalled reluctance to allow the Justice Department to drop its criminal prosecution of Michael Flynn, tasking a retired judge with advising on whether the former Trump administration official should face an additional criminal contempt charge for perjury.

 

In a short written order, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington asked John Gleeson, a former federal judge in New York, to present arguments in the case as an amicus curiae, or friend of the court.

 

Sullivan said he was seeking Gleeson's recommendation on whether Flynn should face a criminal contempt charge for perjury because he testified under oath that he was guilty of lying to the FBI but then reversed course and said he had never lied.

 

Sullivan also said he wanted Gleeson to make the case for why a motion to dismiss the Flynn case filed by the Justice Department last week should be rejected.

 

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

 

The Justice Department's bombshell May 7 decision to drop its case against Flynn came on the heels of growing pressure from Trump and Trump's political allies who repeatedly accused the FBI of improprieties in how it handled the investigation.

 

Up until that point, the Justice Department had staunchly defended the FBI's actions in the case.

 

Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general who served as an adviser to Trump during the 2016 campaign, pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about his interactions with Russia’s U.S. ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the weeks before Trump took office.

 

However, later in the case he switched lawyers and tactics, accusing the FBI of tricking him and seeking to have his guilty plea withdrawn.

 

Attorney General William Barr in February revealed he had tapped Jeffrey Jensen, a federal prosecutor in Missouri, to work alongside career prosecutors to help review the case.

 

Jensen ultimately recommended that Barr abandon the case, which the department did in a filing on May 7, saying that the FBI’s Jan. 24, 2017 Flynn interview that underpinned the charges was conducted without a “legitimate investigative basis” and that Flynn's statements were not “material even if untrue.”

 

Since then, Barr has met with staunch criticism by Democrats as well as former career prosecutors, who said his actions amount to improper political meddling and harm the integrity of the Justice Department.

 

(Reporting by Jan Wolfe and Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-05-14

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Mama Noodle]

4 minutes ago, webfact said:

Sullivan said he was seeking Gleeson's recommendation on whether Flynn should face a criminal contempt charge for perjury because he testified under oath that he was guilty of lying to the FBI but then reversed course and said he had never lied.

 

LOL they so badly want to make something stick to Flynn so they don't look like complete idiots for going after the guy in the first place and using the courts to target political opponents. 

[TopDeadSenter]

14 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

LOL they so badly want to make something stick to Flynn so they don't look like complete idiots for going after the guy in the first place and using the courts to target political opponents. 

Only 4 words to say for this disgrace. Restart the first term.

[cmarshall]

This is an interesting, not to say extraordinary, development.  I think Judge Sullivan is going to bang the gavel and sentence Flynn to prison.  So then Trump will probably pardon Flynn, but it's better to force him to show his contempt for justice by doing that than let Barr get away with doing his dirty work for him.   Judge Sullivan at one point in the hearings asked the prosecutors if Flynn should be tried for treason, so he is not well-disposed toward Flynn.  I hope he gets 20 years.

Edited May 14, 2020 by cmarshall

[stevenl]

22 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

LOL they so badly want to make something stick to Flynn so they don't look like complete idiots for going after the guy in the first place and using the courts to target political opponents. 

 

7 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Only 4 words to say for this disgrace. Restart the first term.

Good there is an independent judiciary.

[tonray]

I hope they continue and force Trump to issue pardon. At least their turning the screws on him even though it will amount to little real effect, but they need to assert their independence otherwise our system is toast.

[Mama Noodle]

Just now, tonray said:

I hope they continue and force Trump to issue pardon. At least their turning the screws on him even though it will amount to little real effect, but they need to assert their independence otherwise our system is toast.

 

The Flynn case is a complicated mess that people on the left have been doing their level best to conceal from the public, and for most casual observers it would seem cut and dry - when in fact it isn't.

 

Flynn was targeted with politicians at the very top unmasking him and then going after him and the full weight of that was brought to bear on the guy. 

[Chomper Higgot]

Yet another attempt by the executive to interfere in the administration of justice.

 

 

[J Town]

25 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Only 4 words to say for this disgrace. Restart the first term.

If by restart the first term you mean including an election redo then HELL yes. People's eyes are now open to what a blight this president is. Yeah, people who are part of the 36% cult (the ones who ignore facts) certainly will vote for the blight again. But the 43% who did NOT vote in the 2016 election would come out to correct this atrocity.

[cmarshall]

43 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Only 4 words to say for this disgrace. Restart the first term.

I look forward to the start of Trump's first term in prison.  If Manhattan DA Cy Vance gets Trump's financial data, which looks probable, then Trump will be prosecuted.

Edited May 14, 2020 by cmarshall

[Rimmer]

A post has been removed also a reply:

 

25) No public discussion is allowed with regard to other forum members.

 

This is an internationl forum, anyone from any country is allowed to have a say on here.

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

U.S. judge on Wednesday signalled reluctance to allow the Justice Department to drop its criminal prosecution of Michael Flynn, tasking a retired judge with advising on whether the former Trump administration official should face an additional criminal contempt charge for perjury.

Perjury is a serious offense. Flynn is trying to usurp the power of the courts and accusing the courts of miscarriages of justice. Flynn can be sentenced up to 5 years. Barr will be in trouble too. He has sacrificed the intergrity of the DOJ and undercut the rule of law for political ends and will further damage the credibility of DOJ that has already become a deeply politicized institution in the Trump era. 

[Walker88]

1 hour ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

LOL they so badly want to make something stick to Flynn so they don't look like complete idiots for going after the guy in the first place and using the courts to target political opponents. 

Flynn lied to Pence. He lied to the FBI about lying to Pence. Flynn admitted his guilt in court.

 

And what did he lie about?

 

That he told Putin via Russian Amb Kislyak that Putin should not react to the expulsion of FSB, SVR and GRU types from the US over Russian interference in the 2016 election, because once 45 took over, all is forgiven (and, by the way, a BIG THANK YOU for the help !)

 

Those who do not have legal authority---which includes an Administration in transition---are prohibited by law from engaging in anything that remotely suggest official US foreign policy. That's a law. Flynn violated that, too.

 

Oh, and Flynn never registered as a foreign agent when he agreed to kidnap and send a critic of Turkish President Erdogan to Turkey. That's not only illegal from the kidnapping point of view, but also violates laws re acting as an agent of a foreign govt.

 

Flynn should never see the light of day again. If the US under 45 actually had rule of law, this would already be over and flynn would be incarcerated.

[Walker88]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Only 4 words to say for this disgrace. Restart the first term.

Ah, no. Read my response to the Noodle guy.

 

When decency and normalcy return to the US, and when rule of law is re-instated, the facts will come out regarding Russiagate, and there will be a lot of dining on crow.

 

Mueller and his team were prohibited from 'following the money'. I was not, as a private citizen I was free to pursue contacts I had built up in two very distinct but useful careers. I will leave that part aside.

 

Even with a limited mandate, this is what Mueller uncovered:

 

-Wikileaks kept Roger Stone informed of what the GRU had hacked from the DNC, and together with the 45 Campaign they coordinated the slow release of emails both from the DNC and John Podesta.

 

-The FSB concocted a false narrative about the death of Seth Rich in order to deflect attention from Russia's hacking of the DNC and Podesta, and that narrative was trumpeted by 45's Campaign and via surrogates like hannity

 

-Detailed internal polling data collected by Brad Pascale was given to Manafort, who then traveled to Spain to meet with Russian Agent Kilimnik and gave the data to Kilimnik, who passed it on to the GRU and its "Internet Research Agency" (IRA) in St Pete. The IRA then microtargeted voters in swing States like MI, WI, PA and OH with fabricated stories about HRC's health, the Clinton Foundation, the absolutely ridiculous "Uranium One" tale, and other things in an attempt to drive those swing States toward 45.

 

-Investigation also found that Putin had funded and supported the campaign of Green party candidate Jill Stein---who coincidentally sat with flynn and Putin at that infamous dinner in Moscow. Putin had learned from Perot '92 and Nader 2000 that a 3rd Party candidate could take enough votes from a main Party candidate to swing an election. As it turns out Putin was correct. Stein's votes in both MI and WI exceed 45's margin over HRC, and it is highly unlikely Stein stole a single vote from 45. The margin in PA was within a few thousand votes.

 

There is much more intel, but most of it remains classified. All of what I wrote is public. Some of it is in the redacted parts of the Mueller report, the one whitewashed by barr as he withheld it for weeks after his obfuscation-riddled presser that controlled the initial narrative.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Walker88
fix word

[Mama Noodle]

12 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

Flynn lied to Pence. He lied to the FBI about lying to Pence. Flynn admitted his guilt in court.

 

And what did he lie about?

 

That he told Putin via Russian Amb Kislyak that Putin should not react to the expulsion of FSB, SVR and GRU types from the US over Russian interference in the 2016 election, because once 45 took over, all is forgiven (and, by the way, a BIG THANK YOU for the help !)

 

Those who do not have legal authority---which includes an Administration in transition---are prohibited by law from engaging in anything that remotely suggest official US foreign policy. That's a law. Flynn violated that, too.

 

Oh, and Flynn never registered as a foreign agent when he agreed to kidnap and send a critic of Turkish President Erdogan to Turkey. That's not only illegal from the kidnapping point of view, but also violates laws re acting as an agent of a foreign govt.

 

Flynn should never see the light of day again. If the US under 45 actually had rule of law, this would already be over and flynn would be incarcerated.

 

If all thats so true then why did FBI (James Comey) try to close the case due to lack of evidence until Peter Strzok came in with his clear intention of entrapment and manipulation of 302 documents? 

[Eric Loh]

8 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

If all thats so true then why did FBI (James Comey) try to close the case due to lack of evidence until Peter Strzok came in with his clear intention of entrapment and manipulation of 302 documents? 

Sit back and listen to the Stones "It's all over now". 

[Walker88]

Your "Alternative Facts" are incorrect.  Also, there is no such thing as a "Perjury Trap", which is what you mean by erroneously using the term 'entrapment'.

The correct word for "Perjury Trap" is Lie. I'm guessing you are not a lawyer, as you misused that word.

 

In any interrogation, a skilled interrogator asks questions to which he or she already knows the answers, because that is the best way to judge the veracity and credibility of the person under interrogation. Flynn got caught lying. SIGINT had picked up Kislyak's phone call with flynn, so what he promised Russia was known to the bureau, as the NSA is required, as is the agency, to pass on to the bureau anything involving a US Person.  (Oh, and a call from Kislyak to Moscow also caught 45's son-in-law going to the Russian Embassy in Washington in Dec 2016 asking to set up a secret back channel to Russia using the secure commo system at the Embassy. Kislyak was so excited by the offer he violated Op-Sec and SIGINT picked it up. What 45's son-in-law did was 'conspiracy to commit espionage', which, incidentally, is the charge that got the Rosenbergs their date with Sparky at SIng Sing. There is no Statute of Limitations on that charge. When rule of law is returned, that guy is likely to be in deep trouble.)

 

Note that when the bureau interrogated HRC, they found nothing, as she was truthful. That's kind of like when she underwent 11 straight hours of grilling by the then-Repub House and trey gowdy's $30 million "Benghazi !!!" boondoggle that indicted no one and found nothing. Also, she didn't get caught in a "Perjury Trap", which is to say she, unlike flynn, did not lie.

 

Mueller made a profit, by the way.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Walker88
spelling

[cmarshall]

All true about Flynn's lying.  I happen not to believe that he lied to Pence, who was the head of the transition team and would have known all about Flynn's negotiations with Kislyak.  I think Flynn took a bullet for the team on that one.  But, in any case, lying to the VP is not a crime.  

 

The surprising thing is that Flynn lied to the FBI about his conversations with Kislyak even though he must have known the FBI was eavesdropping on them.  Flynn had been head of DIA until Obama fired him for being crazy.  So, why did he lie knowing that the FBI would know that he was lying?

 

Speaking of Robert "Mr. Magoo" Mueller, where is his outrage editorial complaining about the dismantling of the results of his investigation by the political hack Barr?  Two thousand former DoJ employees signed a letter criticizing Barr for undermining the rule of law, but not Mueller apparently.  So, I guess not so semper fi to the Constitution after all.

[Andrew65]

When in US history has a general been involved in criminal activity that the President was also implicated?

 

Also, if Flynn were convicted and then pardoned, what does it look like?

[stevenl]

31 minutes ago, Andrew65 said:

When in US history has a general been involved in criminal activity that the President was also implicated?

 

Also, if Flynn were convicted and then pardoned, what does it look like?

Trump wouldn't care what it looked like.

[Phoenix Rising]

35 minutes ago, Andrew65 said:

When in US history has a general been involved in criminal activity that the President was also implicated?

 

Also, if Flynn were convicted and then pardoned, what does it look like?

It would look exactly what it is, a corrupt president and administration making a mockery of US laws and democracy. If it wasn't for the spineless GOP maggots in the senate Trump would already occupy a "condo" in Leavenworth and the key to his cell door safely deposited in an active volcano. 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Phoenix Rising

[cmarshall]

27 minutes ago, Andrew65 said:

When in US history has a general been involved in criminal activity that the President was also implicated?

 

Also, if Flynn were convicted and then pardoned, what does it look like?

Various court decisions, which will soon be cited by Judge Gleeson in his amicus filing, hold that at the moment that the court accepted Flynn's guilty plea he was convicted.  So, Judge Sullivan could in theory just proceed to sentencing.  The DoJ's motion to drop the charges is "by leave of the court" meaning that Judge Sullivan can refuse to accept the motion to drop.  However, some legal theory holds that he can do so only under specific circumstances which do not apply here.  Sixteen former Watergate prosecutors have filed a request for permission to file their own amicus brief which will make the case that Judge Sullivan can indeed reject the motion to drop if, for instance, he investigates the reasoning of the DoJ and finds that the motion was not made in good faith such as if it were a result of political corruption.  

 

In addition, since Flynn testified under oath that he had indeed committed the crimes of which he was convicted his subsequent petition to withdraw his guilty plea incriminates him of perjury, for which Judge Sullivan can summarily hold him in contempt and apply a range of penalties including imprisonment.

 

If Trump pardons any members of his crime family it looks like the end of the rule of law under the most corrupt administration in US history.

[Mama Noodle]

1 hour ago, Walker88 said:

Your "Alternative Facts" are incorrect.  Also, there is no such thing as a "Perjury Trap", which is what you mean by erroneously using the term 'entrapment'.

The correct word for "Perjury Trap" is Lie. I'm guessing you are not a lawyer, as you misused that word.

 

In any interrogation, a skilled interrogator asks questions to which he or she already knows the answers, because that is the best way to judge the veracity and credibility of the person under interrogation. Flynn got caught lying. SIGINT had picked up Kislyak's phone call with flynn, so what he promised Russia was known to the bureau, as the NSA is required, as is the agency, to pass on to the bureau anything involving a US Person.  (Oh, and a call from Kislyak to Moscow also caught 45's son-in-law going to the Russian Embassy in Washington in Dec 2016 asking to set up a secret back channel to Russia using the secure commo system at the Embassy. Kislyak was so excited by the offer he violated Op-Sec and SIGINT picked it up. What 45's son-in-law did was 'conspiracy to commit espionage', which, incidentally, is the charge that got the Rosenbergs their date with Sparky at SIng Sing. There is no Statute of Limitations on that charge. When rule of law is returned, that guy is likely to be in deep trouble.)

 

Note that when the bureau interrogated HRC, they found nothing, as she was truthful. That's kind of like when she underwent 11 straight hours of grilling by the then-Repub House and trey gowdy's $30 million "Benghazi !!!" boondoggle that indicted no one and found nothing. Also, she didn't get caught in a "Perjury Trap", which is to say she, unlike flynn, did not lie.

 

Mueller made a profit, by the way.

 

You have the details all jumbled up and out of order, and seem to be having quite the meltdown bringing up stuff that no one is talking about. 

 

The phone call and the details were well known, completely known to everyone, and James Comey tried to close the case (Knowing all about the phone call and what was said) that was until Strozk went in and set him up with a friendly meeting, and manipulated multiple times the 302 documents. 

 

The FBI knew what was said in the phone call, James Comey tried to close the case, and then the Flynn Setup happened. 

[chokrai]

7 hours ago, cmarshall said:

This is an interesting, not to say extraordinary, development.  I think Judge Sullivan is going to bang the gavel and sentence Flynn to prison.  So then Trump will probably pardon Flynn, but it's better to force him to show his contempt for justice by doing that than let Barr get away with doing his dirty work for him.   Judge Sullivan at one point in the hearings asked the prosecutors if Flynn should be tried for treason, so he is not well-disposed toward Flynn.  I hope he gets 20 years.

I hope Barry and his gang get 20 years. 

[chokrai]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yet another attempt by the executive to interfere in the administration of justice.

 

 

You leftists would not know justice if it kicked you in the nuts.

[metisdead]

An off topic post and the replies have been removed.

 

An inflammatory post has been removed, please remember this forum rule when posting:

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.
 

[Eric Loh]

8 minutes ago, chokrai said:

You leftists would not know justice if it kicked you in the nuts.

I think Judge Emmet Sullivan is kicking someone nuts and it ain't the left. 

[Baerboxer]

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yet another attempt by the executive to interfere in the administration of justice.

 

 

 

Unfortunately the administration of justice in the US is being interfered with by government and the executive. And, because of the political affiliations of many judges and law enforcers, that will only get worse unless something happens.

[Baerboxer]

29 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I think Judge Emmet Sullivan is kicking someone nuts and it ain't the left. 

 

So you too believe the Judge Sullivan to be showing a clear political bias?

[Eric Loh]

15 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

So you too believe the Judge Sullivan to be showing a clear political bias?

Nope. He did ruled in favor of Trump in the Blumenthai vs Trump case.