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

[candide]

It's interesting that he asks an advice from another qualified person.

It makes me think of a common m.o. among instructors. When they are going to give a bad mark to a student, they often ask a colleague to double mark it, in order to avoid complaints about unfair marking.

[TKDfella]

44 minutes ago, Sujo said:

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.

I think you mean 'I also have...'. From what I have seen on the net, Judge Sullivan also said that a contempt of court was being considered. He has changed something too by considering a retired court judge, formerly appointed by H. Clinton, to advise on the issue. On the precedent question you might want to ask your friend what stops any judge from trying to make a precedent. Any judge can try but what is important is whether it succeeds or not (by challenge or appeal). That's why Gen. Flynn's defence is considering petition for Supreme Court intervention, at least according to the media. But then this is not a standard case by any means because the FBI did not go through the channels to interview Gen. Flynn in the first place so surely that brings up the 'technicality' issue. This is no secret and has been admitted by the FBI officials. Plus the result of the apparent illegal FBI wiretap ended in the case being dropped. So it seems the whole thing shouldn't have gone forward anyway. I have no politics here one way or the other but as an outsider it does seem to me that one side is sacrificing one of their own just to cast dispersion on the other side. I also notice that another institution is strangely silent and I think that should start alarms ringing too. 

Edited May 14, 2020 by TKDfella

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

I think you mean 'I also have...'. From what I have seen on the net, Judge Sullivan also said that a contempt of court was being considered. He has changed something too by considering a retired court judge, formerly appointed by H. Clinton, to advise on the issue. On the precedent question you might want to ask your friend what stops any judge from trying to make a precedent. Any judge can try but what is important is whether it succeeds or not (by challenge or appeal). That's why Gen. Flynn's defence is considering petition for Supreme Court intervention, at least according to the media.

No, that is not what he means.

Please explain why you involve H. Clinton in this.

[TKDfella]

29 minutes ago, stevenl said:

No, that is not what he means.

Please explain why you involve H. Clinton in this.

Why are you suggesting otherwise on Sujo's behalf? I mentioned in the plural Sujo replied in the particular. I haven't involved H. Clinton perhaps you should explain why you think I have.

Edited May 14, 2020 by TKDfella

[Crazy Alex]

 

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

A judge also finds people in contempt of court with no charges.

True, but they generally do not do so to retaliate against the prosecutor doing something they don't like. What on Earth is the logic for coming up with a contempt charge on Flynn because the prosecutor wants to drop the case?

[Walker88]

10 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

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. 

No, nothing is jumbled. The case went down as I wrote it. I don't believe you have any knowledge of how the bureau, the NSA or CIA work.  Similarly, you clearly have no clue how an investigation works, nor how the bureau prepares for, and sets up, an interrogation.

 

Somewhere along the way, you also do not seem to remember that flynn not only lied to pence, he lied to the FBI, and admitted to both under oath in court. By your reasoning, flynn would have committed perjury if he lied about lying. How convoluted is that!

 

I brought up the bit on the son-in-law because it adds to the body of evidence that the transition team repeatedly broke the law, as only a duly sworn POTUS and Administration is allowed to set or discuss any US foreign policy. The son-in-law, besides having committed a crime, is incredibly naive and had no idea his escapades at the Russian Embassy would become known. Flynn, OTOH, should have known better that NSA would pick up Kislyak's phone. He was simply stupid or careless, as was his reputation at DoD. He had run ins with brilliant folks like Mike Vickers, because flynn did not follow proper procedures and Op-Sec, and he was reckless.

 

Most of the details of this as well as the entire Russiagate conspiracy will not come out until the rule of law is returned to the US. The intel is there. At the moment, the AG is trying not to get access to the intel itself (because he knows it's damning), but rather to find out the source. Agency officers pride themselves in the fact that they will put their own lives on the line in order to protect an asset. Gina will not turn over any source name to the ag or durham, since neither they nor POTUS can be trusted not to immediately forward that "source and method" to Putin. The entire agency workforce will back her. In the past Putin has reacted to people who have worked as clandestine assets for foreign powers by feeding them alive into a furnace while the man's wife and children were forced to look on. Nobody is going to allow a hack like barr to have that happen again.

 

I don't know how to say this in any way except directly: you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Zero. None.

[Walker88]

11 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

 

True, but they generally do not do so to retaliate against the prosecutor doing something they don't like. What on Earth is the logic for coming up with a contempt charge on Flynn because the prosecutor wants to drop the case?

The reason is because flynn previously admitted, twice, that he lied to the FBI and Pence. Withdrawal of the charges and changing the plea is flynn saying he lied to the court about lying. That is what earns him a possible contempt charge.

 

It's pretty easy to understand.

[Crazy Alex]

3 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

No, nothing is jumbled. The case went down as I wrote it. I don't believe you have any knowledge of how the bureau, the NSA or CIA work.  Similarly, you clearly have no clue how an investigation works, nor how the bureau prepares for, and sets up, an interrogation.

 

Somewhere along the way, you also do not seem to remember that flynn not only lied to pence, he lied to the FBI, and admitted to both under oath in court. By your reasoning, flynn would have committed perjury if he lied about lying. How convoluted is that!

 

I brought up the bit on the son-in-law because it adds to the body of evidence that the transition team repeatedly broke the law, as only a duly sworn POTUS and Administration is allowed to set or discuss any US foreign policy. The son-in-law, besides having committed a crime, is incredibly naive and had no idea his escapades at the Russian Embassy would become known. Flynn, OTOH, should have known better that NSA would pick up Kislyak's phone. He was simply stupid or careless, as was his reputation at DoD. He had run ins with brilliant folks like Mike Vickers, because flynn did not follow proper procedures and Op-Sec, and he was reckless.

 

Most of the details of this as well as the entire Russiagate conspiracy will not come out until the rule of law is returned to the US. The intel is there. At the moment, the AG is trying not to get access to the intel itself (because he knows it's damning), but rather to find out the source. Agency officers pride themselves in the fact that they will put their own lives on the line in order to protect an asset. Gina will not turn over any source name to the ag or durham, since neither they nor POTUS can be trusted not to immediately forward that "source and method" to Putin. The entire agency workforce will back her. In the past Putin has reacted to people who have worked as clandestine assets for foreign powers by feeding them alive into a furnace while the man's wife and children were forced to look on. Nobody is going to allow a hack like barr to have that happen again.

 

I don't know how to say this in any way except directly: you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Zero. None.

Russiagate conspiracy theory is more like it. Then there's reality. Despite having a legion of anti-Trump prosecutors at his disposal, Mueller found no evidence of conspiracy (aka "collusion") between the Trump campaign and Russia.

[Walker88]

Now that the unctuous little guy masquerading as DNI has forwarded the names of anyone who requested 'unmasking' of the parties in the Kislyak phone call, I rather hope there is a Hearing where the unmasking process is revealed.

 

First, when a "US Person" is part of intel gained via human or electronic sources, all of it must be handed to the Bureau, as they have sole instant authority to deal with matters involving "US Persons". Anyone in CIA or NSA who has a need to know can file a request to have a party 'unmasked'. Only the person requesting is given the identity. One asks because it puts everything in the proper context and makes it understandable to those whose job is to protect the US. It also allows one to match other intel with what might make sense after the party is unmasked. Senior people generally request several unmasking every month; it is hardly unusual.

 

What many will find bizarre is the definition of "US Person", which was changed, I believe, after the Church Commission in 1978. A "US Person" is defined as any US Citizen or Green Card Holder, any person within the borders of the US even if that person is a foreigner, and any person who has boarded a flight whose next stop is a US airport. In other words, if Ayman al Zawahiri boarded a plane in Dubai whose next stop was IAD, neither CIA nor NSA could monitor his actions or listen if he made a call using the in-seat phone. Inadvertent capture is okay (though it must be passed to the bureau), but if one party to any conversation is known beforehand to fit the definition of "US Person", that call cannot be captured without first getting a warrant, usually through the FISA Court.

 

Often, when an officer requests an unmasking, the officer does not know if the party whose identity is sought is a US citizen or just someone in the US or in transit to the US. It is a bizarre system and to a large extent hamstrings intel pros.

[Mama Noodle]

24 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

I don't know how to say this in any way except directly: you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Zero. None.

Feel better? I can almost feel your rage-typing as I sit here. 
 

You still did not dispute what I posted, you just had a little meltdown. Melting down does not refute or absolve the facts nor re-write the timeline. 

[Mama Noodle]

6 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

Anyone in CIA or NSA who has a need to know can file a request to have a party 'unmasked'. Only the person requesting is given the identity.

Obama’s entire cabal, including Joe Biden (lie # 5,737,738) filed to unmask Flynn. Then it was leaked to the press (broken law # 9,837,737)

[riclag]

Sullivan notably has not appointed an amicus to counter Gleeson's argument.

Sullivan has said, however, that he anticipated that "individuals and organizations" will file briefs "for the benefit of the court," as he prepares to rule on the government's motion to dismiss the case, citing a mountain of previously undisclosed exculpatory evidence".

"Among those unearthed materials was a handwritten note from a top FBI official debating whether the bureau's goal in pursuing Flynn was to "get him fired."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-sullivan-appoints-third-party-to-present-arguments-against-flynn-consider-holding-him-in-contempt

 

Who is Judge gleeson !  Is he bias!

Where is the transcript of the interview of Flynn!

Who are the two so called career  profesional fbi agents(strzok and pientka  ) that  was sent in by mccabe and comey the latter who was refereed by horowitz for criminal prosecution  and mccabe was fired  for lying  to congress !

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/why-wasnt-andrew-mccabe-charged/

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/18/james-comey-referred-criminal-prosecution-justice-/

"Consequently, the government’s entire case boils down to the testimony of two FBI agents: Peter Strzok, who was terminated for misconduct, and Joe Pientka, who appears to have been the case-agent on the Trump-Russia investigation and to have played a significant role in serial misrepresentations made to obtain surveillance warrants against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page".

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/497064-why-dismiss-the-flynn-case-because-the-fbi-cant-prove-it

 

 Now with that said,I would like to see gleeson argue the infamous chuck schumer theory ,that intel has six ways to sunday to get you, with another amicus individual  !

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by riclag

[TPI]

14 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.

Gosh Mr Walker, I'm impressed! To think that an American "spy Master" lives amongst us is mind boggling! I don't know where we'd be if it wasn't for the eagle eyed folk we are surrounded by?  It's a pity you've ignored the sworn statements of the group of unauthorised people who sat in on the conversation of the two people! As I can recall those people swore that there wasn't any discussion, between the two, that was not above board? I'm very curious to find out how you've managed to read

unredacted copies of documents that have been redacted by the DOJ?

[Crazy Alex]

So let's see here... the judge handling the Flynn case ranted to Flynn about committing treason. He had to later apologize. Now he admits he doesn't know how to handle the government's motion to drop the case. He thinks maybe Flynn should be held in contempt..... because the US government dropped the case? Does that make sense to ANYBODY? Clearly, this judge is a biased clown who is simply upset that the truth of Flynn being set up and extorted into a bogus guilty plea. The only problem I see here is this admittedly incompetent and obviously biased judge.

 

Sadly, it's also another example of how liberals aren't even really liberals anymore. They're leftists. Big difference. A liberal would be outraged at the prospect of the US government abusing their power to go after any American, much less a decorated 3-Star General.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Crazy Alex

[TPI]

Mr walker I feel that you should take a "bex" and have a good lie down! You obviously have not been reading alternate news sources that are available to the rest of the world! You really should stop reading Le Carre, if you are in Thailand you are obviously out of the loop and probably have  been for some time... let the world go on without you, it'll be for the best in the long run! ????????

[candide]

Sullivan has the typical record of a dangerous leftist: initially nominated by Reagan and H.W. Bush, ruled in favour of Trump in Blumenthal v Trump.... ????

[Crazy Alex]

28 minutes ago, candide said:

Sullivan has the typical record of a dangerous leftist: initially nominated by Reagan and H.W. Bush, ruled in favour of Trump in Blumenthal v Trump.... ????

OK, so Sullivan was nominated by Reagan and ruled in favor of Trump in a case. Therefore....

[Chomper Higgot]

6 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Russiagate conspiracy theory is more like it. Then there's reality. Despite having a legion of anti-Trump prosecutors at his disposal, Mueller found no evidence of conspiracy (aka "collusion") between the Trump campaign and Russia.

We’ll come back to that when we see the full, un-redacted Mueller report.

[metisdead]

A post using unattributed content that was copy and pasted from some site has been removed:
 

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

 

Some troll posts and replies have been removed. 

[cmarshall]

9 hours 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.

Flynn was convicted the moment his guilty plea was accepted by the court.  Judges have long had wide powers to hold someone in contempt for crimes especially perjury since it undermines the basic functioning of a trial.

 

Judge Sullivan can summarily hold Flynn in contempt of court for perjury and sentence him for that or he can deny the DoJ's motion to drop the case and proceed to sentencing on Flynn's two guilty pleas.  There is nothing innovative here, except possibly the dismissal of the motion to drop.  

[cmarshall]

8 hours ago, candide said:

It's interesting that he asks an advice from another qualified person.

It makes me think of a common m.o. among instructors. When they are going to give a bad mark to a student, they often ask a colleague to double mark it, in order to avoid complaints about unfair marking.

A trial is fundamentally an adversarial proceeding.  In the extraordinary case where the DoJ has become so corrupt that it decides to agree with the defendant the two sides are no longer adversaries.  So, Judge Sullivan is bringing in independent expert opinion to argue the case against the DoJ's extraordinary motion.  Seems eminently reasonable to me.  Judge Sullivan will probably also accept an amicus brief from the sixteen Watergate prosecutors who have requested to file one against the DoJ's motion.  Accepting amicus filings in a criminal case is somewhat unusual, but then the DoJ has violated all the norms of criminal jurisprudence.

[Crazy Alex]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

We’ll come back to that when we see the full, un-redacted Mueller report.

No need to come back to it. The wording makes it clear:

 

"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.”

 

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

 

Of course, it is your right to cling to..... I'm not sure what you can cling to, given how definitive the report is.

[Crazy Alex]

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

A trial is fundamentally an adversarial proceeding.  In the extraordinary case where the DoJ has become so corrupt that it decides to agree with the defendant the two sides are no longer adversaries.  So, Judge Sullivan is bringing in independent expert opinion to argue the case against the DoJ's extraordinary motion.  Seems eminently reasonable to me.  Judge Sullivan will probably also accept an amicus brief from the sixteen Watergate prosecutors who have requested to file one against the DoJ's motion.  Accepting amicus filings in a criminal case is somewhat unusual, but then the DoJ has violated all the norms of criminal jurisprudence.

No, you have it wrong. The DOJ found the jack-booted government agents involved in the original prosecution so corrupt, the DOJ had to drop the case.

 

As for Judge Sullivan: sour grapes. He's already had to apologize for bias against the defendant. He's considering holding Flynn in contempt of court because.... because what? Because the DOJ dropped the case?

[Crazy Alex]

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

Flynn was convicted the moment his guilty plea was accepted by the court.  Judges have long had wide powers to hold someone in contempt for crimes especially perjury since it undermines the basic functioning of a trial.

 

Judge Sullivan can summarily hold Flynn in contempt of court for perjury and sentence him for that or he can deny the DoJ's motion to drop the case and proceed to sentencing on Flynn's two guilty pleas.  There is nothing innovative here, except possibly the dismissal of the motion to drop.  

Flynn was never charged with perjury.

[Langsuan Man]

1 hour ago, Crazy Alex said:

Flynn was never charged with perjury.

YET

[TKDfella]

3 hours ago, cmarshall said:

Flynn was convicted the moment his guilty plea was accepted by the court.  Judges have long had wide powers to hold someone in contempt for crimes especially perjury since it undermines the basic functioning of a trial.

 

Judge Sullivan can summarily hold Flynn in contempt of court for perjury and sentence him for that or he can deny the DoJ's motion to drop the case and proceed to sentencing on Flynn's two guilty pleas.  There is nothing innovative here, except possibly the dismissal of the motion to drop.  

Oh yes, I don't deny the situation about Gen. Flynn's guilty plea and I did mention the power(s) that a Judge has for using the contempt option. And I did also mention the two types of contempt rules that are used in the USA. What I don't know is what the guidelines are for judges to decide which to use. Obviously a judge would use the direct contempt when a warning is given to the offender during a court session but in this case I don't know. Judge Sullivan seems to have performed some kind of adjournment because he is apparently seeking advice from other sources etc. So might that not classify the contempt issue as being a indirect contempt and therefore requires a separate hearing and/or trial?

[J Town]

2 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Flynn was never charged with perjury.

He's being charged now because he told the FBI two conflicting stories about the same subject under oath. That's textbook perjury. Why do you continue to defend criminals?

[cmarshall]

32 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

Oh yes, I don't deny the situation about Gen. Flynn's guilty plea and I did mention the power(s) that a Judge has for using the contempt option. And I did also mention the two types of contempt rules that are used in the USA. What I don't know is what the guidelines are for judges to decide which to use. Obviously a judge would use the direct contempt when a warning is given to the offender during a court session but in this case I don't know. Judge Sullivan seems to have performed some kind of adjournment because he is apparently seeking advice from other sources etc. So might that not classify the contempt issue as being a indirect contempt and therefore requires a separate hearing and/or trial?

You mention the two kinds of contempt, but you misconstrue the differences.  Direct contempt applies to actions that take place in court in front of the judge, such as a defendant's committing perjury in the courtroom.  Indirect contempt covers action that takes place outside of the physical purview of the court, such as a refusal to obey an injunction.  In the current case we are clearly concerned with direct contempt, which does not require a separate trial.

 

There has been no adjournment of any kind in Flynn's case.  Once Flynn pleaded guilty he became convicted at which point the case is under control of the judiciary, not the DoJ.  The motion by the DoJ to drop the prosecution is pending and requires a decision from the judge.  Judge Sullivan can simply decide on his own, he can schedule a hearing to question the prosecution on the reasons for their decision, and the basis for it, and he can consider any amicus brief from a relevant party.  He has called for amicus briefs and appointed Judge Gleeson to produce one.  I think he will certainly schedule a hearing at which he will grill the prosecution.  He could also call for the previous prosecutor in the case, who resigned from the case just prior to DoJ's submitting its motion, and ask him his opinion.  Legal opinions vary as to how much leeway Judge Sullivan has to deny the motion, but at least some opinion holds that he could do so if he were to decide, for instance, that the DoJ decision was not made in good faith. 

 

Judge Sullivan could issue a summary judgment on Flynn's perjury and impose a penalty for that crime which could include imprisonment.  Or he could dismiss the DoJ motion and proceed to sentencing on the two charges to which Flynn has already pleaded guilty.  Or he could do both or he could accept the motion at which point the proceedings would cease.  If he were to sentence Flynn he could remand him into custody on the spot rather than release him on bail pending appeal.

 

At any time, including right now, the President could pardon Flynn for any or all past actions, but not future ones.  If Judge Sullivan were to deny the motion and sentence Flynn I expect that Trump would indeed pardon Flynn, but he might wait until after the election to do so to mitigate the odor of corruption.  So, Flynn could face at least a relatively short time in prison.  

Edited May 15, 2020 by cmarshall

[cmarshall]

3 minutes ago, J Town said:

He's being charged now because he told the FBI two conflicting stories about the same subject under oath. That's textbook perjury. Why do you continue to defend criminals?

Not correct. Flynn has not yet been charged with perjury, although he could be.

[J Town]

2 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Not correct. Flynn has not yet been charged with perjury, although he could be.

It will happen. It's received too much light of day.