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

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

There is no black and white in things human. Apparently in American so called justice system people plead guilty to things they did not do all the time as the system is rigged ( from what I have learned about it over the years ), and it's beneficial to plead guilty than suffer far worse penalty by staying the course of innocence. If indeed Flynn's son was threatened, it follows that he may have been coerced to plead guilty to save his son.

A guilty plea in America apparently does not mean that the person was actually guilty.

And yet trump fired him.

[TKDfella]

19 hours ago, TKDfella said:

Interesting. I've just read an article on Forbes by Mark Chenoweth

(https://www.forbes.com/sites/markchenoweth/2020/05/14/judge-sullivan-disregards-two-controlling-precedents-by-appointing-amicus-in-flynn-case/#287f3a1c6f0a)

The author writes that he wonders if Judge Sullivan paid attention to the SC ruling. The author also writes of the Ninth Circuit violation of the 'party presentation principle' and that Judge Sullivan will duplicate the violation if he does anything other than accept dismissal of the charges. There is another article by the WSJ saying something similar.

Will be interesting to see how this goes.????

 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Wouldn't it be a gas if Sullivan was impeached for knowingly violating a SC ruling?

Well, I will assume that you are making a bias (ha!) in your comment towards the humorous.

All my comments here have been in the same vein that I see all things. I question! That is I seek the facts, or truths, and the underlying events, again cause and effect. I'm not really interested in whether Gen. Flynn is guilty or not because 'guilty' is not necessarily a fact and much less an assumed truth. 'guilt' may be a truth if the accused knows it to be so otherwise it has to be determined. I am sure there are a great many cases where where the accused have changed their plea and therefore proceedings have change accordingly and likewise where the prosecution have had reason to change their position (such as obtaining new evidence). But this is bound to happen just for the sole reason we are human beings, we are fallible and sometimes fickle, greedy etc. 

I have been heavily criticised in previous comments (I don't mind that makes it all the more interesting, Ha!) for my stance over such items as 'advice' and 'oppose' but the fact remains all dictionaries common, legal and scientific do not say these have the same definition. They are not the same or even equivalent. But even the light of these determinations others remain entrenched and deny the logic before them. It would seem that 'flexibility' is not in their dictionary.

 

Now what is my reason for this lengthy reply to your simple post? The recent comments, or ruling, by the US Supreme Court would seem to suggest that appointing an (extra) opposing entity is beyond the jurisdiction of a judge and according the articles I've read, quote three rules (ppp, ps and 48A) [*and before anyone claims I am misunderstanding these rules, I inform them that I don't know what these entail or how they work. I am just repeating what other learned people have written*].

My point is this, I have no desire to see anyone impeached, put in prison, sacked etc etc. and that applies to Judge Sullivan. But if, and I say if, he has broken the rules then he should pay a price just like everyone else...that's my bias towards the idea of cause and effect.

I thought Governments, House and Senates, House of Commons, House of Lords etc were there to protect and work for the people they represent, not to engage in a full scale war and infighting against each other...but then as I said, we are human. 

[metisdead]

A post using content from an unapproved YouTube source and a reply has been removed:

 

18) Social Media content is not to be used as  source material unless it is from a recognized or approved news media source,  the source of any such material (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube  etc.) should always be shown

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

And yet trump fired him.

So? What has that to do with the current court case? Was Trump called as a witness?

[Tippaporn]

Excellent explanation of why Judge Sullivan cannot charge Flynn with perjury.

 

The Federalist - Here’s Why Judge Sullivan Can’t Legally Punish Michael Flynn For ‘Perjury’

 

Sullivan needs to issue a show-cause order to Flynn but he hasn't done so yet.  He's counting on Gleeson to advise him if he should or can.

 

"The answer is absolutely not, because Sullivan lacks the authority to sanction Flynn for perjury.

Under the separation of powers established by the Constitution, criminal charges are brought by the executive branch and adjudicated by the judiciary. Thus, any actual prosecution of Flynn under federal statutes for perjury would have to be brought by the Department of Justice."

 

What an utter disgrace of a Judge.  There doesn't seem to be a rational explanation for Sullivan's doomed to fail behaviour and the only one I can think of is that he's been compromised.  Did Epstein have him on tape?

[Tippaporn]

I think we need to scrape together some dosh and offer it as a finder's fee for the missing original, unedited FBI 302 on Flynn's Strzok/Priestap interview.  Who's in?

[TKDfella]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Excellent explanation of why Judge Sullivan cannot charge Flynn with perjury.

 

The Federalist - Here’s Why Judge Sullivan Can’t Legally Punish Michael Flynn For ‘Perjury’

 

Sullivan needs to issue a show-cause order to Flynn but he hasn't done so yet.  He's counting on Gleeson to advise him if he should or can.

 

"The answer is absolutely not, because Sullivan lacks the authority to sanction Flynn for perjury.

Under the separation of powers established by the Constitution, criminal charges are brought by the executive branch and adjudicated by the judiciary. Thus, any actual prosecution of Flynn under federal statutes for perjury would have to be brought by the Department of Justice."

 

What an utter disgrace of a Judge.  There doesn't seem to be a rational explanation for Sullivan's doomed to fail behaviour and the only one I can think of is that he's been compromised.  Did Epstein have him on tape?

As I have mentioned in my other posts I have no political stance one way or the other. Other posts, including my own, have mentioned the Supreme Court Ruling on three rules, one of which is in your post, that should he ignore them, learned people say, Judge Sullivan is risking the Supreme Court's wrath. Surely, Judge Sullivan must realise that. According to what I've read Judge Sullivan's decision in the earlier Blumenthal v Trump case was reversed by the Court of Appeals who gave him instructions to dismiss the case. So my question, why is he risking, what would seems to me, a more serious instruction to do the same? Well perhaps an alternative reason might be that he just wants to 'make a point' (as it were). Now, I have no idea how a judges performance is measured or even if there is such procedure but there is such a thing as 'reputation'. Having two different 'higher' authorities instructing him to dismiss cases twice in one year does not seem like idea to boost a reputation. I would have thought that Judge Sullivan has now made his point and it's time to move on.

 

[herfiehandbag]

On 5/14/2020 at 8:01 AM, TopDeadSenter said:

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

Why not wait until he loses the election in November? If you are going to abandon all pretence of the United States being a democracy, you might as well "go large"

[stevenl]

49 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

As I have mentioned in my other posts I have no political stance one way or the other. Other posts, including my own, have mentioned the Supreme Court Ruling on three rules, one of which is in your post, that should he ignore them, learned people say, Judge Sullivan is risking the Supreme Court's wrath. Surely, Judge Sullivan must realise that. According to what I've read Judge Sullivan's decision in the earlier Blumenthal v Trump case was reversed by the Court of Appeals who gave him instructions to dismiss the case. So my question, why is he risking, what would seems to me, a more serious instruction to do the same? Well perhaps an alternative reason might be that he just wants to 'make a point' (as it were). Now, I have no idea how a judges performance is measured or even if there is such procedure but there is such a thing as 'reputation'. Having two different 'higher' authorities instructing him to dismiss cases twice in one year does not seem like idea to boost a reputation. I would have thought that Judge Sullivan has now made his point and it's time to move on.

 

How about this, he is judging according to the law. All you and others are is onlookers, he is the independent insider.

[TKDfella]

42 minutes ago, stevenl said:

How about this, he is judging according to the law. All you and others are is onlookers, he is the independent insider.

Oh dear you've done it again. Didn't understand my post at all did you. Never mind eh? Better luck next time.

[stevenl]

32 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

Oh dear you've done it again. Didn't understand my post at all did you. Never mind eh? Better luck next time.

I totally understand, and completely disagree. Hence my post, which you apparently didn't understand at all. Never mind, better luck next time.

[Tippaporn]

10 hours ago, TKDfella said:

As I have mentioned in my other posts I have no political stance one way or the other. Other posts, including my own, have mentioned the Supreme Court Ruling on three rules, one of which is in your post, that should he ignore them, learned people say, Judge Sullivan is risking the Supreme Court's wrath. Surely, Judge Sullivan must realise that. According to what I've read Judge Sullivan's decision in the earlier Blumenthal v Trump case was reversed by the Court of Appeals who gave him instructions to dismiss the case. So my question, why is he risking, what would seems to me, a more serious instruction to do the same? Well perhaps an alternative reason might be that he just wants to 'make a point' (as it were). Now, I have no idea how a judges performance is measured or even if there is such procedure but there is such a thing as 'reputation'. Having two different 'higher' authorities instructing him to dismiss cases twice in one year does not seem like idea to boost a reputation. I would have thought that Judge Sullivan has now made his point and it's time to move on.

 

Exactly my point.  Sullivan seems to be making a career ending, doomed to fail move and there doesn't seem to be a rational explanation for it.  The only explanation I can think of is that he's compromised.  Someone must have some serious dirt on him.  I could be wrong but there is no other reason I can think of.

[Tippaporn]

9 hours ago, stevenl said:

How about this, he is judging according to the law. All you and others are is onlookers, he is the independent insider.

All assumptions and I wouldn't agree with any of them.  There are enough facts publicly known about this case for people to come to proper conclusions on many of this case's aspects.

[Crazy Alex]

9 hours ago, stevenl said:

How about this, he is judging according to the law. All you and others are is onlookers, he is the independent insider.

Looks to me like he's also asking another judge to come in and judge according to the law. Why can't he figure it out himself?

Edited May 19, 2020 by Crazy Alex

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Looks to me like he's also asking another judge to come in and judge according to the law. Why can't he figure it out himself?

A great point and one that I hadn't mentioned before.  Sullivan is supposed to be capable of coming to decisions on his own and he certainly is in possession of everything he needs to do so.  So why can't he?

 

Perhaps the true answer is that he doesn't want to (compromised).

[thaibeachlovers]

20 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Looks to me like he's also asking another judge to come in and judge according to the law. Why can't he figure it out himself?

Perhaps because he wishes to keep the case in the public eye for as long as possible. I'd like to know his political bias.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps because he wishes to keep the case in the public eye for as long as possible. I'd like to know his political bias.

Interesting to note, as well, that Sullivan made his decision directly after Obama's "leaked" remarks to supporters blasting the DOJ's decision to drop Flynn's case.  What was Obama's meaning regarding a "sense of urgency?"  I'll leave it up to readers to decide for themselves.

[Langsuan Man]

14 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Interesting to note, as well, that Sullivan made his decision directly after Obama's "leaked" remarks to supporters blasting the DOJ's decision to drop Flynn's case.  What was Obama's meaning regarding a "sense of urgency?"  I'll leave it up to readers to decide for themselves.

Give it a rest Obama left office:

 

It is 1216 days from the start date to the end date

Or 3 years, 4 months excluding the end date.

Or 40 months excluding the end date.

[Sujo]

On 5/18/2020 at 2:21 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

So? What has that to do with the current court case? Was Trump called as a witness?

 

On 5/18/2020 at 2:21 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

 

People saying he was tricked into pleading guilty. Saying many people plead guilty who are not guilty.

 

not only did he plead guilty twice in court, he admitted what he done to trump, who believed his admission so fired him.

 

he is a self admitted liar, sentence him. Or give him a job in the whitehouse.

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps because he wishes to keep the case in the public eye for as long as possible. I'd like to know his political bias.

Gop solicitors are also doing an amicus brief advising to drop the case.

 

So his political bias is to the repubs isnt it.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, Langsuan Man said:

Give it a rest Obama left office:

 

It is 1216 days from the start date to the end date

Or 3 years, 4 months excluding the end date.

Or 40 months excluding the end date.

No one involved in the coup attempt gets off scot free, as Obama says.

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Looks to me like he's also asking another judge to come in and judge according to the law. Why can't he figure it out himself?

Why are you asking, just figure it out yourself.

 

Solicitors are also sending him a brief against sentencing flynn. So he is not asking anyone to judge. He is gathering information before giving a decision. Thats what learned people do.

[thaibeachlovers]

55 minutes ago, Langsuan Man said:

Give it a rest Obama left office:

 

It is 1216 days from the start date to the end date

Or 3 years, 4 months excluding the end date.

Or 40 months excluding the end date.

We'll give it a rest when Obama stop interfering. By making comments now he loses any right to be ignored.

[thaibeachlovers]

48 minutes ago, Sujo said:

 

People saying he was tricked into pleading guilty. Saying many people plead guilty who are not guilty.

 

not only did he plead guilty twice in court, he admitted what he done to trump, who believed his admission so fired him.

 

he is a self admitted liar, sentence him. Or give him a job in the whitehouse.

He wasn't arrested for what he said to Trump, but you knew that.

 

Many people apparently plead guilty when they did not have to to avoid worse harm in the US.

[Phulublub]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He wasn't arrested for what he said to Trump, but you knew that.

 

Many people apparently plead guilty when they did not have to to avoid worse harm in the US.

Trump fired him for lying.  Or was Trump lying when he gave that as his reason?

 

PH

 

[TKDfella]

17 hours ago, stevenl said:

I totally understand, and completely disagree. Hence my post, which you apparently didn't understand at all. Never mind, better luck next time.

Wrong again. Your reply to my post was about the law...my post was not about the law.

[stevenl]

20 hours ago, TKDfella said:

As I have mentioned in my other posts I have no political stance one way or the other. Other posts, including my own, have mentioned the Supreme Court Ruling on three rules, one of which is in your post, that should he ignore them, learned people say, Judge Sullivan is risking the Supreme Court's wrath. Surely, Judge Sullivan must realise that. According to what I've read Judge Sullivan's decision in the earlier Blumenthal v Trump case was reversed by the Court of Appeals who gave him instructions to dismiss the case. So my question, why is he risking, what would seems to me, a more serious instruction to do the same? Well perhaps an alternative reason might be that he just wants to 'make a point' (as it were). Now, I have no idea how a judges performance is measured or even if there is such procedure but there is such a thing as 'reputation'. Having two different 'higher' authorities instructing him to dismiss cases twice in one year does not seem like idea to boost a reputation. I would have thought that Judge Sullivan has now made his point and it's time to move on.

 

 

1 hour ago, TKDfella said:

Wrong again. Your reply to my post was about the law...my post was not about the law.

You're right, your post I reacted to was clearly not about the law, because the supreme court, judge Sullivan, Blumenthal vs Trump, court of appeals etc are all not about the law.

Lol.

[TKDfella]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

 

You're right, your post I reacted to was clearly not about the law, because the supreme court, judge Sullivan, Blumenthal vs Trump, court of appeals etc are all not about the law.

Lol.

You really do need to learn the difference between a 'citation' and subject matter. The subject matter of my post was 'So my question....'. I did not use the alphanumeric index as I I thought it unnecessary in this case and also it would seem somewhat out of place and too formal for a TV thread. Next time I will lead you by the hand in strict ABC fashion...or maybe I'll just ignore you.

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, TKDfella said:

You really do need to learn the difference between a 'citation' and subject matter. The subject matter of my post was 'So my question....'. I did not use the alphanumeric index as I I thought it unnecessary in this case and also it would seem somewhat out of place and too formal for a TV thread. Next time I will lead you by the hand in strict ABC fashion...or maybe I'll just ignore you.

You derived your conclusion, at first posed as a question, from the law, for which you stated quite a few sources.

So clearly 'about the law'.

[TKDfella]

I have just read two articles (CNN, WP) that say that the Appeal court has given Judge Sullivan 10 days to respond in this case. Anyone care to comment on that?