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

[cmarshall]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Flynn was a highly respected man that gave his life to the service of his country. Yet he should accept being jailed like some common criminal?

Yes, he made a mistake LIKE ALL OF US DO, and he was crucified because he supported Trump. Had it not been for working for Trump likely nothing would have happened. This is, IMO entirely due to the Trump hatred that infests the US body politic.

Shame on them.

In common parlance, if not technically by law, Flynn is a traitor.  When Flynn was head of the Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama the DIA issued an order to the whole of the Dept. of Defense that by a certain date they must remove anti-virus software from the Kaspersky company from all computers, because since Kaspersky was and is under the control of the Russian government use of the product presented a serious security risk.  Flynn was fired by Obama in summer of 2014 because he was incompetent at managing that agency.  By 2015 he was hired as a consultant by Kaspersky!  In Dec. 2015 he attended a 10-year party for the Russian RT network where the former head of the DIA sat at the head table with Putin, Jill Stein, and others without informing the US government of his intentions as he is obligated to do by virtue of his former security position and without reporting the payment he received from the Russians.  Although Flynn had always been a Democrat and was not acquainted with Donald Trump, nevertheless within three weeks of returning to the US from Russia Flynn signed on to work on Trump's campaign.  Looks like he was taking orders from Russia, and in the process betrayed his country and his position of responsibility.  At this point his law-breaking was just beginning.

 

Perhaps we all make mistakes from time to time, but betraying our position of trust by fraternizing with the enemy is not among them for those of us who are retired generals.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

55 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Excellent article. Even before near the end where they mention Dick Cheney, I started thinking to myself that post-9/11 Patriot Act and probably a lot of other "precautions" and other actions to fight "the war on terror" only accelerated the erosion of civil rights. All in the name of national security, of course.

Dick Cheney started to think to himself.

 

That was big of him, the ACLU were critical from the start of the Patriot Act and many other aspects of the ‘War on Terror’.

 

Illiberals were not happy to hear it from the ACLU.

[TKDfella]

16 hours ago, cmarshall said:

Think of it this way: an adjournment is declared by the judge and stops the forward movement of the trial process.  For instance, the trial is ready to start, but an important witness has a sudden medical emergency, so the judge adjourns the case until the witness becomes available.  In the present circumstance the normal procedure of the case is continuing without interruption.  The judge has been preparing to make a date for the sentencing hearing, Flynn having already been convicted via his guilty plea, and then government makes an unexpected motion, which it is fully entitled to make.  The normal course after one side makes a motion is for the judge to review the motion and either decide to rule on it or call a hearing or call for amicus briefs to advise him or something else.  That's the phase of the process in which we find ourselves right now.  Although the motion itself is unusual the process by which the court prepares to rule on the motion is completely normal.  So, the forward motion of the case has not stopped.  There is nothing to adjourn at this point.  The judge need not adjourn any proceeding because the process has not stopped.  The judge is preparing his response to the pending motion for which he has all the time he needs.

 

Your question implies that unless the court is actually in session the forward movement of the case must have been stopped in some way, but there are many stages in the preparation for or conduct of a trial that are carried out "offstage" as it were.  The course of the trial is ongoing at this very minute even if it does not mean that lawyers are in the courtroom wrangling.

I hadn't expected to continue this conversation but I remembered reading this "Michael Flynn’s sentencing judge Wednesday asked a former federal judge to oppose the Justice Department’s request to dismiss the former Trump national security adviser’s guilty plea and examine whether Flynn may have committed perjury.' It's a quote from a Washing Post article, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/court-asks-retired-judge-to-fight-justice-dept-effort-to-drop-michael-flynn-case-and-examine-if-ex-trump-adviser-committed-perjury/2020/05/13/8c0deb0a-9567-11ea-82b4-c8db161ff6e5_story.html

This quite clearly says that the appointment is for the purpose of opposing the DOJ decision. The NYT say basically the same thing but go a step further by saying ' Judge Sullivan, he said, is essentially bringing in an outsider to represent the point of view of the original prosecutors, who believed Mr. Flynn had committed a crime before Mr. Barr intervened and essentially replaced them with a prosecutor willing to say he had not. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/us/politics/michael-flynn-john-gleeson-judge.html

CBS NEWS, '... has been tasked with reviewing Flynn's criminal case and determining...' https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-flynn-contempt-retired-judge-john-gleason/

This is clearly not just an advisory role it is an active role although it remains, apparently, under the 'friend of the court' umbrella. All news items suggest it a very unusual move but then so was the DOJ's move to dismiss. It will be interesting to see if Judge Gleeson makes an active appearance in court because none of the news items mention one way or the other. It's going to be interesting to see how this all works out.????

[Misty]

16 hours ago, riclag said:

This is a blog full of opinions  isn't it! I went through their report, the summary looking for your statement  that the report said , 'could not bring charges due to lying and deleting of evidence"! in reference to he couldn't find evidence to Russian coordination or conspiracy with the campaign I can't find that !

 

 

Not my opinion. That was a summary of a number of paragraphs in Mueller's Executive Summary. The Mueller's Executive Summary is a much shorter read than the whole report, but is still long to post all here.  However, here are some excerpts.  Please read it yourself at this link:  https://www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries

 

Under the section "The Special Counsel's Charging Decisions"

 

"...The standard set forth in the Justice Manual is whether the conduct constitutes a crime; if so, whether admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction; and whether prosecution would serve a substantial federal interest that could not be adequately served by prosecution elsewhere or through non-criminal alternatives....

 

....Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal false statements statute. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about his interactions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak during the transition period. ...

 

....Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above...

 

And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well-numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.

 

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated—including some associated with the Trump Campaign—deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.

 

Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

Flynn was fired by Obama in summer of 2014 because he was incompetent at managing that agency. 

That would not surprise me. In my experience and opinion, long time military officers are pants at managing a civilian operation. They just don't have the mentality of managing people that don't salute and go off to do whatever they were told to do. Having to have a rational reason for their orders is an unknown and for some unknowable experience. Just because an officer has been high ranking is no excuse for appointing them to manage a civilian organisation. Obama should have known better.

[simple1]

 

57 minutes ago, RoadWarrior371 said:

Pinko Liberals out in full force, proudly donning their Hillary 2016 shirts.  ????

 

What's this nonsense 'pinko liberals'. About time trump and his milieu realise it ain't the McCarthy era and opposition is still a component of democracy, even in trump's America though he tries hard to make it not so.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, Misty said:

Not my opinion. That was a summary of a number of paragraphs in Mueller's Executive Summary. The Mueller's Executive Summary is a much shorter read than the whole report, but is still long to post all here.  However, here are some excerpts.  Please read it yourself at this link:  https://www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries

 

Under the section "The Special Counsel's Charging Decisions"

 

"...The standard set forth in the Justice Manual is whether the conduct constitutes a crime; if so, whether admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction; and whether prosecution would serve a substantial federal interest that could not be adequately served by prosecution elsewhere or through non-criminal alternatives....

 

....Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal false statements statute. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about his interactions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak during the transition period. ...

 

....Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above...

 

And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well-numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.

 

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated—including some associated with the Trump Campaign—deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.

 

Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You apparently choose to believe what came out of the Mueller farce, but some of us believe it was an investigation started to find dirt on Trump and staffed by Trump haters. Ie it was a witch hunt, and even with their best efforts they didn't find enough to provide any evidence sufficient to impeach. IMO they then went after easier targets using underhand and despicable methods. All along, IMO the intention was to assist the well organised operation to bring down Trump by any means possible. The operation has been front and center during Trump's entire term, all because, IMO, the establishment feared that Trump might make good on his threat to drain the swamp, and they were creatures of the swamp.

Given that sort of mind set, it's no wonder that Trump was elected because, IMO, the ordinary folk of America have had enough of the establishment which does nothing for them and everything for the rich.

[cmarshall]

8 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

I hadn't expected to continue this conversation but I remembered reading this "Michael Flynn’s sentencing judge Wednesday asked a former federal judge to oppose the Justice Department’s request to dismiss the former Trump national security adviser’s guilty plea and examine whether Flynn may have committed perjury.' It's a quote from a Washing Post article, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/court-asks-retired-judge-to-fight-justice-dept-effort-to-drop-michael-flynn-case-and-examine-if-ex-trump-adviser-committed-perjury/2020/05/13/8c0deb0a-9567-11ea-82b4-c8db161ff6e5_story.html

This quite clearly says that the appointment is for the purpose of opposing the DOJ decision. The NYT say basically the same thing but go a step further by saying ' Judge Sullivan, he said, is essentially bringing in an outsider to represent the point of view of the original prosecutors, who believed Mr. Flynn had committed a crime before Mr. Barr intervened and essentially replaced them with a prosecutor willing to say he had not. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/us/politics/michael-flynn-john-gleeson-judge.html

CBS NEWS, '... has been tasked with reviewing Flynn's criminal case and determining...' https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-flynn-contempt-retired-judge-john-gleason/

This is clearly not just an advisory role it is an active role although it remains, apparently, under the 'friend of the court' umbrella. All news items suggest it a very unusual move but then so was the DOJ's move to dismiss. It will be interesting to see if Judge Gleeson makes an active appearance in court because none of the news items mention one way or the other. It's going to be interesting to see how this all works out.????

You misunderstand.  Judge Gleeson will not be in the role of a prosecutor.  He will not appear in court.  His only role in the case is to write an opinion (an amicus brief is just a written legal opinion submitted to the court) presumably to oppose the government's motion to drop the case and probably to lay out the options Judge Sullivan has at this point.  Judge Gleeson himself will not be deciding anything in the case against Flynn.

 

As I mentioned earlier, a trial in the American criminal justice system is fundamentally an adversarial proceeding over which the judge presides more or less as a referee.  By calling for an opinion from Judge Gleeson that may (speculation!) oppose the government's motion which is effectively colluding with the defense by dropping a case the prosecution has already won, Judge Sullivan is restoring to a very limited degree the adversarial nature of the proceedings.  He is also calling for an independent expert to inform him as to what the law is with respect to the extraordinary motion laid before him by the government.  Judge Sullivan will weigh the amicus filing from Judge Gleeson along with any other amicus filings he may permit to be submitted and with whatever he learns from a hearing at which he will question the government on their decision and and the process by which they reached it.  The Judge Sullivan alone will decide whether to accept or reject the motion to drop the case.

 

If you listened to the oral arguments before the Supreme Court this past Tuesday, the striking thing is that the justices sometimes ask one side or the other, "What are my options here?  What is the law?" even though the justices of the Supreme Court are themselves experts in the law of a high caliber. The judges in any trial may call upon counsel for either side to inform him as to some point of law. The appropriateness of such a question from a trial judge or from a justice of the Supreme Court arises because of the nature of the American/English common law system in which prior decisions in other cases reinterpret the law, by contrast with the code systems of Europe and Thailand.

 

So, you are mistaken that Judge Gleeson will fulfill any active role at all in the case against Flynn.  

[Rimmer]

Baiting troll post removed

[stevenl]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You apparently choose to believe what came out of the Mueller farce, but some of us believe it was an investigation started to find dirt on Trump and staffed by Trump haters. Ie it was a witch hunt, and even with their best efforts they didn't find enough to provide any evidence sufficient to impeach. IMO they then went after easier targets using underhand and despicable methods. All along, IMO the intention was to assist the well organised operation to bring down Trump by any means possible. The operation has been front and center during Trump's entire term, all because, IMO, the establishment feared that Trump might make good on his threat to drain the swamp, and they were creatures of the swamp.

Given that sort of mind set, it's no wonder that Trump was elected because, IMO, the ordinary folk of America have had enough of the establishment which does nothing for them and everything for the rich.

"some of us believe it was an investigation started to find dirt on Trump and staffed by Trump haters"

 

If you believe that you have fallen for the Trump lies.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

The Judge Sullivan alone will decide whether to accept or reject the motion to drop the case.

It's in itself a travesty, IMO, that the judge can adjudicate on an extraordinary situation alone. If the justice department decides to withdraw prosecution that should be the end of it- no prosecution, no case. If anyone disagrees they have the option of contesting the decision in court.

Not for nothing do many have utter contempt for the law profession.

 

6 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

If you listened to the oral arguments before the Supreme Court this past Tuesday, the striking thing is that the justices sometimes ask one side or the other, "What are my options here?  What is the law?"

If the law is so unclear that it needs to be interpreted it was written by incompetents, IMO.

Of course if law was self evident and simple it would threaten the entire profession that needs law to be so obscure that people have to pay for someone to explain it. The only people lawyers serve, IMO are themselves. Not for nothing are many politicians lawyers.

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

10 minutes ago, stevenl said:

"some of us believe it was an investigation started to find dirt on Trump and staffed by Trump haters"

 

If you believe that you have fallen for the Trump lies.

Next you'll be telling me that Peter Strzok was impartial.

[Sujo]

7 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

I've read similar stories. I also have a friend who pled out on a federal case. His attorney said the federal government in particular punishes defendants severely if they opt to go to trial. I don't claim to be an expert on the law or this case in particular. But I have read enough about this case to strongly suspect Flynn was railroaded for political expediency. The feds threatening to go after his family alone is enough to make one wonder...

No, there are sentencing guidelines. Prosecution doesnt sentence, the judges do that. Prosecution and defence make recommendations.

 

You dont get a more severe sentence for trial. What you get is your sentence reduced for an early plea because witnesses dont need to attend, wasting the court time and money. 

[cmarshall]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's in itself a travesty, IMO, that the judge can adjudicate on an extraordinary situation alone. If the justice department decides to withdraw prosecution that should be the end of it- no prosecution, no case. If anyone disagrees they have the option of contesting the decision in court.

Not for nothing do many have utter contempt for the law profession.

 

If the law is so unclear that it needs to be interpreted it was written by incompetents, IMO.

Of course if law was self evident and simple it would threaten the entire profession that needs law to be so obscure that people have to pay for someone to explain it. The only people lawyers serve, IMO are themselves. Not for nothing are many politicians lawyers.

 

 

 

Judge Sullivan will not be deciding whether the accused is guilty or not guilty as a trial jury does.  There was no jury in this case and no testimony, evidence, etc. because Flynn pleaded guilty.   The government has had ample opportunity during discovery, hearings to consider motions earlier in the process, etc. to decide to drop the case, if, for instance, new exculpatory evidence had come to light.  However, once Flynn pleaded guilty at that moment he became convicted of the charges.  Once a defendant is convicted control of the case passes from the DoJ to the judiciary, in this case Judge Sullivan.  From then on only the judge decides.  The prosecution can make, and in this case has made a motion, i.e. a request, to drop the case but this dropping the case can only be done by judge at this point.  

 

You are fully entitled to your crude misunderstanding of the American legal system, just as you are fully entitled to express your opinion in the intemperate language of the ignorant.  

 

But I don't have to read it.  Welcome to a position of honor on my ignore list.

[Sujo]

13 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's in itself a travesty, IMO, that the judge can adjudicate on an extraordinary situation alone. If the justice department decides to withdraw prosecution that should be the end of it- no prosecution, no case. If anyone disagrees they have the option of contesting the decision in court.

Not for nothing do many have utter contempt for the law profession.

 

If the law is so unclear that it needs to be interpreted it was written by incompetents, IMO.

Of course if law was self evident and simple it would threaten the entire profession that needs law to be so obscure that people have to pay for someone to explain it. The only people lawyers serve, IMO are themselves. Not for nothing are many politicians lawyers.

 

 

 

Thats why there are courts of appeal who interpret law. That what judges do, interpret law. Juries determine facts, judges determine law.

 

The law is simply not just the law. Its also the intention of the law. Happens everywhere in the world.

[Sujo]

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Next you'll be telling me that Peter Strzok was impartial.

Which is totally irrelevant to what flynn pleaded guilty to.

[TKDfella]

19 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

You misunderstand.  Judge Gleeson will not be in the role of a prosecutor.  He will not appear in court.  His only role in the case is to write an opinion (an amicus brief is just a written legal opinion submitted to the court) presumably to oppose the government's motion to drop the case and probably to lay out the options Judge Sullivan has at this point.  Judge Gleeson himself will not be deciding anything in the case against Flynn.

 

As I mentioned earlier, a trial in the American criminal justice system is fundamentally an adversarial proceeding over which the judge presides more or less as a referee.  By calling for an opinion from Judge Gleeson that may (speculation!) oppose the government's motion which is effectively colluding with the defense by dropping a case the prosecution has already won, Judge Sullivan is restoring to a very limited degree the adversarial nature of the proceedings.  He is also calling for an independent expert to inform him as to what the law is with respect to the extraordinary motion laid before him by the government.  Judge Sullivan will weigh the amicus filing from Judge Gleeson along with any other amicus filings he may permit to be submitted and with whatever he learns from a hearing at which he will question the government on their decision and and the process by which they reached it.  The Judge Sullivan alone will decide whether to accept or reject the motion to drop the case.

 

If you listened to the oral arguments before the Supreme Court this past Tuesday, the striking thing is that the justices sometimes ask one side or the other, "What are my options here?  What is the law?" even though the justices of the Supreme Court are themselves experts in the law of a high caliber. The judges in any trial may call upon counsel for either side to inform him as to some point of law. The appropriateness of such a question from a trial judge or from a justice of the Supreme Court arises because of the nature of the American/English common law system in which prior decisions in other cases reinterpret the law, by contrast with the code systems of Europe and Thailand.

 

So, you are mistaken that Judge Gleeson will fulfill any active role at all in the case against Flynn.  

I disagree. I did not misunderstand. To oppose anything is an active proposition and not passive. This is not the same as more than one judge on the original bench. Judge Gleeson is not been asked for an opinion, he has been asked to OPPOSE the DOJ. That means he has a biased position that in no way can be spun to just advice. Now, whether or not his determination and opposition is successful is for Judge Sullivan to decide. Even courts cannot ignore what how words are defined and you will find that the legal definition of 'oppose' as practise of opposition, and 'advice' as the giving of a professional or informed opinion. They are different. Judge Gleeson has been asked to Oppose.

[Chomper Higgot]

16 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

I disagree. I did not misunderstand. To oppose anything is an active proposition and not passive. This is not the same as more than one judge on the original bench. Judge Gleeson is not been asked for an opinion, he has been asked to OPPOSE the DOJ. That means he has a biased position that in no way can be spun to just advice. Now, whether or not his determination and opposition is successful is for Judge Sullivan to decide. Even courts cannot ignore what how words are defined and you will find that the legal definition of 'oppose' as practise of opposition, and 'advice' as the giving of a professional or informed opinion. They are different. Judge Gleeson has been asked to Oppose.

You do realise that the court process is adversarial?

 

The DOJ make a submission, Judge Gleeson has been asked to provide an opposing view of the law and processes that the DOJ are relying to make their submission. 

 

What possible problem can there be in examining opposing views to the DOJ's submission?

 

 

[stevenl]

25 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

I disagree. I did not misunderstand. To oppose anything is an active proposition and not passive. This is not the same as more than one judge on the original bench. Judge Gleeson is not been asked for an opinion, he has been asked to OPPOSE the DOJ. That means he has a biased position that in no way can be spun to just advice. Now, whether or not his determination and opposition is successful is for Judge Sullivan to decide. Even courts cannot ignore what how words are defined and you will find that the legal definition of 'oppose' as practise of opposition, and 'advice' as the giving of a professional or informed opinion. They are different. Judge Gleeson has been asked to Oppose.

"That means he has a biased position that in no way can be spun to just advice."

 

No, it does not mean he has a biased position. The request is for him to assume a biased position and see if there are legal arguments for that position. The other side of the biased position has been taken by the DoJ, and with 2 opposite positions it is up to the judge to decide which arguments are strongest.

[TKDfella]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You do realise that the court process is adversarial?

 

The DOJ make a submission, Judge Gleeson has been asked to provide an opposing view of the law and processes that the DOJ are relying to make their submission. 

 

What possible problem can there be in examining opposing views to the DOJ's submission?

 

 

I am not suggesting there is a problem. I was debating the difference between a request to OPPOSE and the request for ADVICE. According to what I found on the US Legal definitions this morning, OPPOSE and ADVICE are different. All the news outlets say that Judge Gleeson has been asked to OPPOSE. No problem. I didn't suggest there was a problem so how did you decide that I said there was?

[TKDfella]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

"That means he has a biased position that in no way can be spun to just advice."

 

No, it does not mean he has a biased position. The request is for him to assume a biased position and see if there are legal arguments for that position. The other side of the biased position has been taken by the DoJ, and with 2 opposite positions it is up to the judge to decide which arguments are strongest.

What are you on about? Saying that he has a biased position is in no way derogatory. That is what has been asked of the judge. He been asked to oppose and that means he has to adopt a biased position in favour of opposing and not agreeing with. Both sides have to be biased towards their own goals. Nothing wrong in that, in fact that's just democratic.

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

What are you on about? Saying that he has a biased position is in no way derogatory. That is what has been asked of the judge. He been asked to oppose and that means he has to adopt a biased position in favour of opposing and not agreeing with. Both sides have to be biased towards their own goals. Nothing wrong in that, in fact that's just democratic.

Which is exactly what I am saying, so glad we agree. I think with your statement 'That means he has a biased position that in no way can be spun to just advice.' you put me on the wrong track. 

 

Where did you get derogatory from, nobody mentioned that. So what are you on about?

[riclag]

8 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

I've read similar stories. I also have a friend who pled out on a federal case. His attorney said the federal government in particular punishes defendants severely if they opt to go to trial. I don't claim to be an expert on the law or this case in particular. But I have read enough about this case to strongly suspect Flynn was railroaded for political expediency. The feds threatening to go after his family alone is enough to make one wonder...

 Where are those entire transcripts of the interview . Is the gov gonna rely on people who were involved with serial malfeasance such as  found in the Horowitz investigation and  the other being fired for misconduct all of which has been widely reported!

 

 

[cmarshall]

9 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

I disagree. I did not misunderstand. To oppose anything is an active proposition and not passive. This is not the same as more than one judge on the original bench. Judge Gleeson is not been asked for an opinion, he has been asked to OPPOSE the DOJ. That means he has a biased position that in no way can be spun to just advice. Now, whether or not his determination and opposition is successful is for Judge Sullivan to decide. Even courts cannot ignore what how words are defined and you will find that the legal definition of 'oppose' as practise of opposition, and 'advice' as the giving of a professional or informed opinion. They are different. Judge Gleeson has been asked to Oppose.

Your question does imply a persistent misconception about the nature of the proceedings at this point.  Your accusation of "bias" against either judge is misplaced since Judge Sullivan has no remaining obligation of neutrality and Judge Gleeson never had any.

 

Below is the text of Judge Sulllivan's order appointing Judge Gleeson to file an amicus brief.  Judge Sullivan can request an amicus brief from anyone on any relevant subject taking any point of view whether or not the judge is inclined to adopt that point of view.  In a capital case, for instance, a judge could accept an amicus brief from an organization that opposes capital punishment, even if the judge is not inclined to be swayed by such an opinion, perhaps so that he could rebut such objections in his written opinion, for example. 

 

Sitting on the federal bench Judge Sullivan probably has one or more clerks working for him.  These would be recent law school graduates who provide legal research to the judge about cases pending before him.  The judge is fully entitled to request an opinion from a clerk taking any position that he wishes to provide the legal research to support an action the judge is considering taking.  Or he could ask for briefs supporting and opposing any particular action.  Such briefs prepared by his clerks do not become part of the record of the case, only the judge's own opinion does, although most or all of that will likely be cut and pasted from his clerks' briefs.

 

In a case as controversial as the Flynn case, Judge Sullivan wanted a more authoritative opinion than that of a clerk.  So, he requested the amicus from Judge Gleeson.  Prior to a defendant's conviction, a presiding judge is obligated to treat the defendant as innocent until proven guilty.  Once the defendant has been convicted, whether by the decision of a jury or, as in this case, by his own guilty plea, the judge has no further obligation of neutrality toward the guilty person, although he must always be fair.  Nor does he ever at any point in the proceedings have any obligation to treat any motion submitted by either party as having inherent merit.  

 

It's even possible, although not my own expectation, that Judge Sullivan is requesting that Judge Gleeson express the case against accepting the government's pending motion just because he is inclined to accept that motion and wants to know whether he is violating accepted law in doing so.  The point is that Judge Sullivan is free to request any opinion he wants since he has no obligation of neutrality either to the convicted person or to the pending motion from the DoJ.  

 

Judge Gleeson will be providing an expert opinion.  He will not have any other role in the proceeding.  Judge Gleeson also has no obligation of neutrality toward the guilty party or toward the government's pending motion.  

 

Consider that Judge Sullivan's order requests an opinion from Judge Gleeson opposing the government's motion, but at the same time supporting the view that Judge Sullivan cannot hold Michael Flynn in contempt of court for perjury.  Now, we can read between the lines and conclude that Judge Sullivan is inclined to do just that, but the wording of the order underlines the freedom that both judges have at this point with regards to the guilty party and the government's motion and with respect to the breadth of opinion available to them.  

 

The "innocent until proven guilty" stance disappeared from the courtroom the moment that Flynn became a convicted felon by pleading guilty.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, TKDfella said:

I am not suggesting there is a problem. I was debating the difference between a request to OPPOSE and the request for ADVICE. According to what I found on the US Legal definitions this morning, OPPOSE and ADVICE are different. All the news outlets say that Judge Gleeson has been asked to OPPOSE. No problem. I didn't suggest there was a problem so how did you decide that I said there was?

I think it was when you suggested bias.

[TKDfella]

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

Which is exactly what I am saying, so glad we agree. I think with your statement 'That means he has a biased position that in no way can be spun to just advice.' you put me on the wrong track. 

 

Where did you get derogatory from, nobody mentioned that. So what are you on about?

Well, You appeared to contradict your self by saying 'No.....' then '...assume' . If one assumes a certain position then one has that position. Your negative indicated to me that you were saying that Judge Gleeson had no bias at some point. Now, I don't know if that is true or not...I haven't asked him. But as he accepted the position he must have some inclination which would affect his decision to accept or reject the offer. Any such inclination is a bias and we all have it; Politically, to the left or right (or whatever may be available to choose from), outlook on life, realism or idealism etc., and so on.

So your negative to deny bias, when by our very nature we all possess it, suggested to me that you considered I was using the term in a disparaging manner. Hence I clarified my use. You know as well as I do that in some situations people can use the in the derogatory sense, so it was not beyond the realms of possibility that you considered I was doing just that.

However, it would seem to me that Judge Sullivan is hardly go to ask someone who has a bias opposite to what he requires (in this case opposition to DOJ's move) and according to what I've read Judge Gleeson has in the past shown his inclination. Hence, Judge Sullivan considered him suitable for that position.

[BobBKK]

'friend of the Dems' more like

[stevenl]

16 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

Well, You appeared to contradict your self by saying 'No.....' then '...assume' . If one assumes a certain position then one has that position. Your negative indicated to me that you were saying that Judge Gleeson had no bias at some point. Now, I don't know if that is true or not...I haven't asked him. But as he accepted the position he must have some inclination which would affect his decision to accept or reject the offer. Any such inclination is a bias and we all have it; Politically, to the left or right (or whatever may be available to choose from), outlook on life, realism or idealism etc., and so on.

So your negative to deny bias, when by our very nature we all possess it, suggested to me that you considered I was using the term in a disparaging manner. Hence I clarified my use. You know as well as I do that in some situations people can use the in the derogatory sense, so it was not beyond the realms of possibility that you considered I was doing just that.

However, it would seem to me that Judge Sullivan is hardly go to ask someone who has a bias opposite to what he requires (in this case opposition to DOJ's move) and according to what I've read Judge Gleeson has in the past shown his inclination. Hence, Judge Sullivan considered him suitable for that position.

There have been quite a few explanations to you now what this means and how this is done. Taking a position not related to one's believes, sometimes even opposite of one's believes, is very common in law and judiciary training.

Unfortunately they seem to have missed the mark.

I'll leave it at that.

Edited May 16, 2020 by stevenl

[TKDfella]

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

There have been quite a few explanations to you now what this means and how this is done. Unfortunately they seem to have missed the mark.

I'll leave it at that.

You asked for my explanation of my use of the term derogatory. Obviously you have completely lost track.

And I'll leave it at that too, Ha!

Edited May 16, 2020 by TKDfella

[TKDfella]

4 hours ago, cmarshall said:

Your question does imply a persistent misconception about the nature of the proceedings at this point.  Your accusation of "bias" against either judge is misplaced since Judge Sullivan has no remaining obligation of neutrality and Judge Gleeson never had any.

 

Below is the text of Judge Sulllivan's order appointing Judge Gleeson to file an amicus brief.  Judge Sullivan can request an amicus brief from anyone on any relevant subject taking any point of view whether or not the judge is inclined to adopt that point of view.  In a capital case, for instance, a judge could accept an amicus brief from an organization that opposes capital punishment, even if the judge is not inclined to be swayed by such an opinion, perhaps so that he could rebut such objections in his written opinion, for example. 

 

Sitting on the federal bench Judge Sullivan probably has one or more clerks working for him.  These would be recent law school graduates who provide legal research to the judge about cases pending before him.  The judge is fully entitled to request an opinion from a clerk taking any position that he wishes to provide the legal research to support an action the judge is considering taking.  Or he could ask for briefs supporting and opposing any particular action.  Such briefs prepared by his clerks do not become part of the record of the case, only the judge's own opinion does, although most or all of that will likely be cut and pasted from his clerks' briefs.

 

In a case as controversial as the Flynn case, Judge Sullivan wanted a more authoritative opinion than that of a clerk.  So, he requested the amicus from Judge Gleeson.  Prior to a defendant's conviction, a presiding judge is obligated to treat the defendant as innocent until proven guilty.  Once the defendant has been convicted, whether by the decision of a jury or, as in this case, by his own guilty plea, the judge has no further obligation of neutrality toward the guilty person, although he must always be fair.  Nor does he ever at any point in the proceedings have any obligation to treat any motion submitted by either party as having inherent merit.  

 

It's even possible, although not my own expectation, that Judge Sullivan is requesting that Judge Gleeson express the case against accepting the government's pending motion just because he is inclined to accept that motion and wants to know whether he is violating accepted law in doing so.  The point is that Judge Sullivan is free to request any opinion he wants since he has no obligation of neutrality either to the convicted person or to the pending motion from the DoJ.  

 

Judge Gleeson will be providing an expert opinion.  He will not have any other role in the proceeding.  Judge Gleeson also has no obligation of neutrality toward the guilty party or toward the government's pending motion.  

 

Consider that Judge Sullivan's order requests an opinion from Judge Gleeson opposing the government's motion, but at the same time supporting the view that Judge Sullivan cannot hold Michael Flynn in contempt of court for perjury.  Now, we can read between the lines and conclude that Judge Sullivan is inclined to do just that, but the wording of the order underlines the freedom that both judges have at this point with regards to the guilty party and the government's motion and with respect to the breadth of opinion available to them.  

 

The "innocent until proven guilty" stance disappeared from the courtroom the moment that Flynn became a convicted felon by pleading guilty.

I did not make an accusation of bias. Why do you immediately assume the derogatory part of the definition, that is, as in prejudice? I cannot and would not accuse someone I do not know. I have said before I have no politics in this. For your information here are the different definitions of the term 'bias'; The word originally meant oblique. Now meaning inclination (either in attitude or physically), pre-disposition, inflexion, prejudice. Immediately for you the negative accusative connotation is the only choice and produces a defensive mechanism when in fact no there was no attack. Why take something to mean an insult where no such thing was written or intended or justified. We all have a bias, an inclination which guides to what we do in life. I have a scientific objective bias to my outlook and I don't accuse people of anything if I am not acquainted with them. You have grossly misunderstood and given way to an emotional interpretation and jumping to conclusions. Perhaps seeking the correct and intended interpretation would have been right to do but no. Talk about one is innocent before proven guilty, here it is 'negative until proven positive'. I am glad I don't have that outlook.