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

[mikebike]

5 hours ago, Andrew65 said:

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

Off the top of my head I can think if a Colonel...

[Dap]

8 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

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. 

Well maybe for good reason. He did indeed ADMIT to lying, among a slew of other questionable maneuvers.

[candide]

9 hours 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. 

Who is "they"?

[Andrew65]

38 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Off the top of my head I can think if a Colonel...

Wasn't it the difference that with the Contra thing it wasn't to do with Reagan's personal business, whereas with the Flynn case it was to do with Donald's personal shennanigans?! Which is what I'm saying.

[Crazy Alex]

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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

 

 

Actually, it's the DOJ who has opted to abandon the case.

[Crazy Alex]

10 hours ago, cmarshall said:

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.

Prosecuted for what? And how can you say Trump's financial data will get him prosecuted when you don't know what's in it?

[earlinclaifornia]

Dam Walker 88 we are lucky to have your postings here in TVS.

[Srikcir]

10 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

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. 

Understand that the need for unmasking is to determine the identity of an American. 

[Crazy Alex]

9 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

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. 

Flynn wasn't charged with or convicted of perjury. Facts matter.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Crazy Alex

[J Town]

21 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Actually, it's the DOJ who has opted to abandon the case.

DT ordered his personal attorney (Barr) to drop the charges. Just about every other person involved in the justice system, current and former, had to pick their jaws up off the floor in disbelief when he did. Judge Sullivan, who heard the case in the first place, is putting the brakes on Barr and is bringing in outside experts to look again at this.

[Srikcir]

11 hours 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.

Will Barr then accuse the judge of entrapment?

[Crazy Alex]

9 hours ago, Walker88 said:

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.

Are we still going on about Russia collusion???? That issue has been settled:

 

"The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

 

Obviously, that means that not only did the Trump campaign NOT collude or conspire with Russia, it means the Trump campaign resisted efforts from Russians to do so.

 

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

[Crazy Alex]

8 hours 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?

Operation Fast and Furious and its cover up.

[Phoenix Rising]

28 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Actually, it's the DOJ who has opted to abandon the case.

Actually, it's Trump's lapdog Barr.

[J Town]

4 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Operation Fast and Furious and its cover up.

What general was involved in Fast and Furious?

[J Town]

2 hours ago, Andrew65 said:

Wasn't it the difference that with the Contra thing it wasn't to do with Reagan's personal business, whereas with the Flynn case it was to do with Donald's personal shennanigans?! Which is what I'm saying.

Reagan ordered Iran Contra then covered it up.

[Phoenix Rising]

12 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Flynn wasn't charged with or convicted of perjury. Facts matter.

That's right, he put all the cards on the table and admitted his felonious acts: "On December 1, 2017, Flynn appeared in federal court to formalize a deal with Special Counsel Robert Mueller to plead guilty to a felony count of "willfully and knowingly" making false statements to the FBI."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn

[Mama Noodle]

15 minutes ago, J Town said:

DT ordered his personal attorney (Barr) to drop the charges.

 

Gonna need proof for that whopper of a statement. 

[Mama Noodle]

Just now, Crazy Alex said:

Sometimes nepotism is OK, depending on the letter after the politician's name.

 

Most of the posters on here only started talking politics during the Trump Administration and it really shows. 

[Sujo]

22 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Are we still going on about Russia collusion???? That issue has been settled:

 

"The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

 

Obviously, that means that not only did the Trump campaign NOT collude or conspire with Russia, it means the Trump campaign resisted efforts from Russians to do so.

 

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

Mueller, the republican didnt find conspiracy. He never said he didnt find collusion. Feel free to google the difference.

[Crazy Alex]

Just now, Sujo said:

Mueller, the republican didnt find conspiracy. He never said he didnt find collusion. Feel free to google the difference.

Irrelevant, given there is no such legal charge.

[Sujo]

52 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Actually, it's the DOJ who has opted to abandon the case.

No, it was the ag.

[Sujo]

33 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Flynn wasn't charged with or convicted of perjury. Facts matter.

Oh dear. One doesnt need to be charged with perjury. If you perjure yourself in court the judge can sentence you.

 

flynn pleading guilty then not guilty means he he lied to the court with either his guilty plea or not guilty plea. One of those is a lie, perjury.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Sujo

[Crazy Alex]

 

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Oh dear. One doesnt need to be charged with perjury. If you perjure yourself in court the judge can sentence you.

 

flynn pleading guilty then not guilty means he he lied to the court with either his guilty plea or not guilty plea. One of those is a lue, perjury.

Perjury is a specific criminal charge. Flynn was not charge with perjury. Why be so opposed to facts being posted?

Edited May 14, 2020 by Crazy Alex

[hugocnx]

11 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.

Who?, Sullivan?

[Phoenix Rising]

20 minutes ago, J Town said:

Fast and Furious was on Obama's watch.

Fast and Furious 8: April 14, 2017

[TKDfella]

I have family and friends in the legal profession and they all say the same. This could become a precedent for a judge, in principle, to give someone punishment even when someone is not convicted, prosecution not proving without doubt or simply overriding the proceedings.

If there is a charge to be made then some prosecutor must submit that charge. Contempt of Court is not included here but I understand there are rules for this too. In this case I don't think the Direct Contempt rule can applies since this happens when someone disobeys the judge's warning during the court in session and the judge can immediately sanction. Indirect Contempt might be used in this case but the judge cannot issue any punishment but has to inform the accused of a hearing and/or trial date. In other (general) words, a 'backdated contempt of court' is treated like a new charge with both prosecutor and defence.

Seems to me that the Judge Sullivan is going outside of his domain or trying to establish an increase in the area of that domain. Hmmm, interesting.

Edited May 14, 2020 by TKDfella

[i84teen]

All very odd behavior for a judge, who is a judge, NOT a prosecutor. Prosecutors file charges, not judges. Sullivan seems confused, similar to Joe Biden.

 

He has a right to control the proceedings in his court but not to file charges to a defendant for changing his plea, which occurs frequently in US courts, that's just ludicrous. This judge is stuck to the pan and obviously more concerned with politics than justice.

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, i84teen said:

All very odd behavior for a judge, who is a judge, NOT a prosecutor. Prosecutors file charges, not judges. Sullivan seems confused, similar to Joe Biden.

 

He has a right to control the proceedings in his court but not to file charges to a defendant for changing his plea, which occurs frequently in US courts, that's just ludicrous. This judge is stuck to the pan and obviously more concerned with politics than justice.

No, the judge didnt file charges against him, he isnt filing charges for changing his plea. Though he can decide to accept a change of plea or not. he pleaded guilty so a judge can sentence him. A judge also finds people in contempt of court with no charges.

[Sujo]

13 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

I have family and friends in the legal profession and they all say the same. This could become a precedent for a judge, in principle, to give someone punishment even when someone is not convicted, prosecution not proving without doubt or simply overriding the proceedings.

If there is a charge to be made then some prosecutor must submit that charge. Contempt of Court is not included here but I understand there are rules for this too. In this case I don't think the Direct Contempt rule can applies since this happens when someone disobeys the judge's warning during the court in session and the judge can immediately sanction. Indirect Contempt might be used in this case but the judge cannot issue any punishment but has to inform the accused of a hearing and/or trial date. In other (general) words, a 'backdated contempt of court' is treated like a new charge with both prosecutor and defence.

Seems to me that the Judge Sullivan is going outside of his domain or trying to establish an increase in the area of that domain. Hmmm, interesting.

You also have a friend here in the same profession. Its not a trial, its a guilty plea so the judge changed nothing. No conviction from prosecution required.

 

may want to ask your friends to tell you again about precedent. Only higher courts precedents are followed, similar standard courts dont need to follow.