U.S. judge no 'mere rubber stamp' in case of ex-Trump aide Flynn, lawyers say

[webfact]

U.S. judge no 'mere rubber stamp' in case of ex-Trump aide Flynn, lawyers say

By Sarah N. Lynch and Jan Wolfe

 

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

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. judge in the criminal case against President Donald Trump's former adviser Michael Flynn defended himself on Monday, saying it was proper to seek outside views on the Justice Department's request to drop a charge to which Flynn has pleaded guilty.

 

Lawyers representing U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said in a court filing that he is not a "mere rubber stamp" and needed to carefully consider the department's "unprecedented" request. Democrats and former federal prosecutors have accused Attorney General William Barr of politicizing the criminal justice system to go light on Trump associates in key cases.

 

A lawyer for Flynn, who briefly served as national security adviser, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had ordered Sullivan to respond to an emergency petition in which Flynn said the Justice Department's request to drop the prosecution should be quickly granted.

 

Sullivan, who has tapped former federal prosecutor Beth Wilkinson to represent him in the appellate court case, has not yet ruled on the department's May 7 request to drop the false-statement charge against Flynn.

 

The department made the request after Trump and his allies publicly criticized the case against Flynn. Critics also have assailed the department for abandoning a tough sentencing recommendation by career prosecutors after the conviction of longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone.

 

Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the weeks before Trump took office.

 

Sullivan asked retired judge John Gleeson, a former prosecutor, to serve as a "friend of the court" and instructed him to present arguments against the department's request - including whether he should hold Flynn in contempt for perjury. Gleeson's legal brief is due June 10.

 

Sullivan "will not blindly accept Judge Gleeson's recommendations," Sullivan's lawyers said on Monday.

 

"Someone needs to fill the adversarial gap to ensure full consideration of the issues, and a former prosecutor and federal judge is well-positioned to do so," the court filing said.

 

Flynn initially agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in a plea deal, but later changed legal tactics and pursued a scorched-earth approach that included accusing the FBI of a secret plot to entrap him.

 

Barr this year tapped Jeff Jensen, a federal prosecutor in St. Louis, to review the case. Jensen later urged Barr to drop it on the grounds the investigation lacked a proper legal basis.

 

That led the lead prosecutor on the Flynn case to withdraw.

 

Sullivan said in Monday's court filing that his handling of the case was proper in light of the unusual way it has unfolded.

 

"It is unusual for a criminal defendant to claim innocence and move to withdraw his guilty plea after repeatedly swearing under oath that he committed the crime," Sullivan said.

 

It was also "unprecedented" for Justice Department leaders to overrule career prosecutors in the way they did in the Flynn case, Sullivan said.

 

(Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Scott Malone, Will Dunham and Tom Brown)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-06-02

 

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

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Puchaiyank]

You can spin this case to suit your political preferences...facts are in Flynn's favor...

 

Clear case of entrapment by high level officials within the FBI...

 

It is a complicated case that Judge Sullivan has decided needs to be dragged out past the Presidential election...

[BobBKK]

That judge is a disgrace. Flouting the very basics of the legal system for political grand-standing.

[Langsuan Man]

17 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

That judge is a disgrace. Flouting the very basics of the legal system for political grand-standing.

Why ?

 

He isn't running for office, you know who is though

[stevenl]

59 minutes ago, Puchaiyank said:

You can spin this case to suit your political preferences...facts are in Flynn's favor...

 

<snip>

There you go, spin anyway you like.

[BobBKK]

56 minutes ago, Langsuan Man said:

Why ?

 

He isn't running for office, you know who is though

It don't stop them USA has never been more divided and you think and aging establishment is going to help?  think again

[bkkcanuck8]

2 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:

You can spin this case to suit your political preferences...facts are in Flynn's favor...

 

Clear case of entrapment by high level officials within the FBI...

 

It is a complicated case that Judge Sullivan has decided needs to be dragged out past the Presidential election...

If you don't like the system, change the system -- don't give the president's friends special treatment.  There are lots of people that went to prison, plead guilty to - etc. for lying to the FBI...  If you think it should be fine to lie to the FBI... change the law.

 

It is also not entrapment since a one of the factors necessary is completely missing, there was no inducement to commit a criminal act....

 

And no, it is highly unlikely it will be dragged out past the presidential election since all that has to be decided is this.  He has already plead guilty and all that was left was sentencing... At that point the defendant if he feels aggrieved has the proper avenue of appeal. 

Edited June 2, 2020 by bkkcanuck8

[Boon Mee]

Flynn only pled "guilty" in order to keep the corrupt FBI agents from entrapment (false) of his son. 

[Paul Henry]

Amazing how the Trumpist can turn the facts to support the most corrupt president the USA has ever had.

With the ability they have for creating facts they should all be writing children's books filled with fictional characters.

[rudi49jr]

2 hours ago, Paul Henry said:

With the ability they have for creating facts they should all be writing children's books filled with fictional characters.

More like horror books .....

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, Paul Henry said:

Amazing how the Trumpist can turn the facts to support the most corrupt president the USA has ever had.

With the ability they have for creating facts they should all be writing children's books filled with fictional characters.

 

Why so amazing, leading Democrats and their supporters do it daily!

[earlinclaifornia]

7 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Why so amazing, leading Democrats and their supporters do it daily!

Deny, Deflect, I did it so what!

[billd766]

4 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Flynn only pled "guilty" in order to keep the corrupt FBI agents from entrapment (false) of his son. 

Where is your proof of that?

[i84teen]

The M Flynn setup now exposed with irrefutable evidence of massive deception, lies, coverups, by prosecutors and the FBI.

 

https://tinyurl.com/fbi-corruption

 

Sullivan is a deep state political hack-job hiding behind the bench and should be turfed. His actions are nothing about justice and all about his political agendas.

 

 

Edited June 2, 2020 by i84teen

[i84teen]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

Where is your proof of that?

How about your proof, u have none, u just playing games here.

[Dap]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

Where is your proof of that?

Well ... wellll, uhh  ... because, ...  uhh, ... trump, Yea! trump!  said so! and there ya' go ... gospel if there ever was one 

[i84teen]

39 minutes ago, Dap said:

Well ... wellll, uhh  ... because, ...  uhh, ... trump, Yea! trump!  said so! and there ya' go ... gospel if there ever was one 

Did I or anyone mention Trump, where is your proof. WRT Flynn, his attorney, S Powell files a supplement to the DC court to dismiss the case:"... 

Quote

 

In addition, Mr. Flynn’s counsel has found further evidence of misconduct by Mr. Van

Grack specifically. Not only did he make baseless threats to indict Michael G. Flynn, he made a

side deal not to prosecute Michael G. Flynn as a material term of the plea agreement, but he

required that it be kept secret between himself and the Covington attorneys expressly to avoid the

requirement of Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Exs. 1, 2.

 

It's a matter of public record now, and is true unless shown to be false at this point and u can check it yourself. I have a link to the filing if you cannot locate it.

 

If you know the full history of the events u would know the above formed part of the secret plea deal.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, i84teen said:

How about your proof, u have none, u just playing games here.

I don't need any proof as I didn't make any claim in the first place. I am not playing any games, just asking for confirmation.

 

If you claim something then back it up with proof if you can. He is claiming that "Flynn only pled "guilty" in order to keep the corrupt FBI agents from entrapment (false) of his son."

 

He is accusing the FBI has corrupt agents. Perhaps they do or perhaps they don't. But if you claim that is true, then surely you must be able to back it up with facts.

 

Ask Boon Mee as he wrote it.

 

  8 hours ago, Boon Mee said:
Flynn only pled "guilty" in order to keep the corrupt FBI agents from entrapment (false) of his son.

[candide]

3 hours ago, i84teen said:

The M Flynn setup now exposed with irrefutable evidence of massive deception, lies, coverups, by prosecutors and the FBI.

 

https://tinyurl.com/fbi-corruption

 

Sullivan is a deep state political hack-job hiding behind the bench and should be turfed. His actions are nothing about justice and all about his political agendas.

 

 

Lol! The biased article (from the Federalist) that you link is based on the ridiculous assumption that expelling diplomats were not considered as a sanction, so Flynn did not talk about sanctions. Sorry, but they were part of sanctions, and Putin perfectly understood it.

"Putin says Russia will not expel anyone in response to US sanctions"

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/29/russia-retaliates-to-obamas-sanctions-cnn-reports.html

 

The transcripts clearly show that sanctions have been discussed several times, and that there is no way Flynn could have forgotten about it.

 

Judging from Putin's reaction, Flynn's calls have been particularly successful.  It is quite surprising he did not talk to his bosses about this brilliant achievement.

 

 

[riclag]

IMOP,It’s unusual that a judge acts like a prosecutor.

You sold your country out sully by refusing to recognize the habitual malfecense by career fbi officials 

Edited June 2, 2020 by riclag
Adddition

[i84teen]

5 hours ago, candide said:

Lol! The biased article (from the Federalist) that you link is based on the ridiculous assumption that expelling diplomats were not considered as a sanction, so Flynn did not talk about sanctions. Sorry, but they were part of sanctions, and Putin perfectly understood it.

"Putin says Russia will not expel anyone in response to US sanctions"

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/29/russia-retaliates-to-obamas-sanctions-cnn-reports.html

 

The transcripts clearly show that sanctions have been discussed several times, and that there is no way Flynn could have forgotten about it.

 

Judging from Putin's reaction, Flynn's calls have been particularly successful.  It is quite surprising he did not talk to his bosses about this brilliant achievement.

 

 

Easy now, I'll lay it out here in simple terms for u to finally grasp:

The expulsion of the 35 Russian diplomats on Dec 28/2016 occurred under Obama’s directive based on Persona Non Grata status in United States and NOT under the Executive Order (Sanctions) 13757 of December 28, 2018. The sanctions contained in EO-13757 affected only 4 named individuals and is separate from the persona Non Grata status imposed on the 35 other naughty Russians. Sanctions are never used nor needed to expel persons considered non Persona Non Grata status in the US.

 

Herein is the proof then that Flynn did not lie to the corrupt cops conducting a hoax investigation based on corrupt practices. It’s well documented for all to see. That’s why the bungling feds and DOJ are gonna get nuked over this nonsense and probably on or before Aug31/2020.

 

https://twbrian.wordpress.com/2016/12/31/diplomat-expulsions-and-obama/

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-30/barack-obama-orders-expulsion-of-russian-officials/8153682

https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13757.htm

Edited June 2, 2020 by i84teen

[candide]

54 minutes ago, i84teen said:

Easy now, I'll lay it out here in simple terms for u to finally grasp:

The expulsion of the 35 Russian diplomats on Dec 28/2016 occurred under Obama’s directive based on Persona Non Grata status in United States and NOT under the Executive Order (Sanctions) 13757 of December 28, 2018. The sanctions contained in EO-13757 affected only 4 named individuals and is separate from the persona Non Grata status imposed on the 35 other naughty Russians. Sanctions are never used nor needed to expel persons considered non Persona Non Grata status in the US.

 

Herein is the proof then that Flynn did not lie to the corrupt cops conducting a hoax investigation based on corrupt practices. It’s well documented for all to see. That’s why the bungling feds and DOJ are gonna get nuked over this nonsense and probably on or before Aug31/2020.

 

https://twbrian.wordpress.com/2016/12/31/diplomat-expulsions-and-obama/

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-30/barack-obama-orders-expulsion-of-russian-officials/8153682

https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13757.htm

This is hair splitting.

Both were sanctions whether they were included in the executive order or not. When diplomats are expelled, it's not a reward, right?

 

[i84teen]

33 minutes ago, candide said:

This is hair splitting.

Both were sanctions whether they were included in the executive order or not. When diplomats are expelled, it's not a reward, right?

 

I have to disagree. Expulsion of the 35 russin diplomats and the sanctions against the intel offices and 4 russian spies listed in the EO are two separate actions and events. You even sent a cnbc write-up detailing it as separate actions. So, if the feds are mumbling to Mueller about sanctions, Flynn talked about 35 expelled russians and not the sanctions against FSB and GRU.

 

I think you need to understand from Flynns perspective is the expulsion order of 35 Russians and Sanctions are two very different concepts and anyone thinking otherwise is obtuse.

 

Here, this is what you sent earlier. (now stop bothering me please, I am busy).

 

Sanctions: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/29/russia-retaliates-to-obamas-sanctions-cnn-reports.html

“President Barack Obama announced on Thursday a decision to expel the 35 Russian diplomats suspected of spying and to impose sanctions on the two Russian intelligence agencies over their alleged involvement in hacking U.S. political groups in the 2016 presidential election”

“Washington sanctioned two Russian intelligence agencies, four officers of its largest intelligence agency, GRU, and three companies that supported GRU’s operations on Thursday. Obama also expelled 35 Russian diplomats and closed two Russian compounds in New York and Maryland.”

“The U.S. sanctions also closed two Russian compounds in New York and Maryland that the administration said were used by Russian personnel for “intelligence-related purposes.”

“President Vladimir Putin ruled out on Friday expelling anyone in retaliation for Washington’s decision to throw out 35 Russian diplomats and impose sanctions on two of the country’s intelligence agencies.”

 

 

[candide]

13 minutes ago, i84teen said:

I have to disagree. Expulsion of the 35 russin diplomats and the sanctions against the intel offices and 4 russian spies listed in the EO are two separate actions and events. You even sent a cnbc write-up detailing it as separate actions. So, if the feds are mumbling to Mueller about sanctions, Flynn talked about 35 expelled russians and not the sanctions against FSB and GRU.

 

I think you need to understand from Flynns perspective is the expulsion order of 35 Russians and Sanctions are two very different concepts and anyone thinking otherwise is obtuse.

 

Here, this is what you sent earlier. (now stop bothering me please, I am busy).

 

Sanctions: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/29/russia-retaliates-to-obamas-sanctions-cnn-reports.html

“President Barack Obama announced on Thursday a decision to expel the 35 Russian diplomats suspected of spying and to impose sanctions on the two Russian intelligence agencies over their alleged involvement in hacking U.S. political groups in the 2016 presidential election”

“Washington sanctioned two Russian intelligence agencies, four officers of its largest intelligence agency, GRU, and three companies that supported GRU’s operations on Thursday. Obama also expelled 35 Russian diplomats and closed two Russian compounds in New York and Maryland.”

“The U.S. sanctions also closed two Russian compounds in New York and Maryland that the administration said were used by Russian personnel for “intelligence-related purposes.”

“President Vladimir Putin ruled out on Friday expelling anyone in retaliation for Washington’s decision to throw out 35 Russian diplomats and impose sanctions on two of the country’s intelligence agencies.”

 

 

Hair splitting again. Expelling diplomats is a sanction. The FBI did not mention Flynn discussed  the executive order, just "sanctions".  The account of the calls, as made by the FBI, also does not hide what the content of the calls was.  During calls, Kieslav also did not distinguish between the two forms of sanctions. As far as I remember, Flynn never acknowledged he discussed the expulsion of diplomats either.

[i84teen]

6 hours ago, candide said:

Hair splitting again. Expelling diplomats is a sanction. The FBI did not mention Flynn discussed  the executive order, just "sanctions".  The account of the calls, as made by the FBI, also does not hide what the content of the calls was.  During calls, Kieslav also did not distinguish between the two forms of sanctions. As far as I remember, Flynn never acknowledged he discussed the expulsion of diplomats either.

Yes, it is hair splitting, difference between black & white, lying or truth and in this case, as submitted in a previous post which obviously did not read but instead expect readers to believe everything you spew, so here it is again, two separate events and actions:1. sanctions and 2. expulsion of foreigners both well documented in this and all the other details posted here:

 

" I have sanctioned nine entities and individuals:  the GRU and the FSB, two Russian intelligence services; four individual officers of the GRU; and three companies that provided material support to the GRU’s cyber operations.  In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury is designating two Russian individuals for using cyber-enabled means to cause misappropriation of funds and personal identifying information.  The State Department is also shutting down two Russian compounds, in Maryland and New York, used by Russian personnel for intelligence-related purposes, and is declaring “persona non grata” 35 Russian intelligence operatives."

 

quoted by Barack here: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/29/statement-president-actions-response-russian-malicious-cyber-activity

If you read the link I sent u previously you would have seen this, as well as all the references in cnbc news link.]

The DOJ/FBI decided to stop Crossfire Razor due solely to the fact that Flynn did not commit any articulable crimes, and instead set the perjury trap except now its shown Flynn did not lie as the State Dept's expulsions ARE NOT sanctions. If you think otherwise u need to show something tangible to support that or you should move on to something less complicated. if you are perhaps uneducated then I can understand your obtuse rhetoric and lack of comprehension.

Edited June 3, 2020 by i84teen

[candide]

4 hours ago, i84teen said:

Yes, it is hair splitting, difference between black & white, lying or truth and in this case, as submitted in a previous post which obviously did not read but instead expect readers to believe everything you spew, so here it is again, two separate events and actions:1. sanctions and 2. expulsion of foreigners both well documented in this and all the other details posted here:

 

" I have sanctioned nine entities and individuals:  the GRU and the FSB, two Russian intelligence services; four individual officers of the GRU; and three companies that provided material support to the GRU’s cyber operations.  In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury is designating two Russian individuals for using cyber-enabled means to cause misappropriation of funds and personal identifying information.  The State Department is also shutting down two Russian compounds, in Maryland and New York, used by Russian personnel for intelligence-related purposes, and is declaring “persona non grata” 35 Russian intelligence operatives."

 

quoted by Barack here: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/29/statement-president-actions-response-russian-malicious-cyber-activity

If you read the link I sent u previously you would have seen this, as well as all the references in cnbc news link.]

The DOJ/FBI decided to stop Crossfire Razor due solely to the fact that Flynn did not commit any articulable crimes, and instead set the perjury trap except now its shown Flynn did not lie as the State Dept's expulsions ARE NOT sanctions. If you think otherwise u need to show something tangible to support that or you should move on to something less complicated. if you are perhaps uneducated then I can understand your obtuse rhetoric and lack of comprehension.

You split hairs about the use of the word "sanctions", as it has commonly been used as a simplified way to describe what has been discussed. However, the Mueller report has been very precise about his false statements. Debating about the exact definition of sanctions is completely irrelevant.

 

From the Mueller report p.194:

First, Flynn made two false statements about his conversations with Russian Ambassador Kislyak in late December 2016, at a time when the United States had imposed sanctions on Russia for interfering with the 2016 presidential election and Russia was considering its response. See Flynn Statement of Offense. Flynn told the agents that he did not ask Kislyak to refrain from escalating the situation in response to the United States’s imposition of sanctions. That statement was false. On December 29, 2016, Flynn called Kislyak to request Russian restraint. Flynn made the call immediately after speaking to a senior Transition Team official (K.T. McFarland) about what to communicate to Kislyak. Flynn then spoke with McFarland again after the Kislyak call to report on the substance of that conversation. Flynn also falsely told the FBI that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which Kislyak stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to the U.S. sanctions as a result of Flynn’s request. On December 31, 2016, Flynn in fact had such a conversation with Kislyak, and he again spoke with McFarland within hours of the call to relay the substance of his conversation with Kislyak. See Flynn Statement of Offense ¶ 3.

 

Second, Flynn made false statements about calls he had previously made to representatives of Russia and other countries regarding a resolution submitted by Egypt to the United Nations Security Council on December 21, 2016. Specifically, Flynn stated that he only asked the countries’ positions on how they would vote on the resolution and that he did not request that any of the countries take any particular action on the resolution. That statement was false."

 

Obviously, you need to be educated about this topic. In the article linked below, you will find a detailled account and analysis.

https://www.justsecurity.org/70431/understanding-the-michael-flynn-case-separating-the-wheat-from-the-chaff-and-the-proper-from-the-improper/

[candide]

36 minutes ago, candide said:

You split hairs about the use of the word "sanctions", as it has commonly been used as a simplified way to describe what has been discussed. However, the Mueller report has been very precise about his false statements. Debating about the exact definition of sanctions is completely irrelevant.

 

From the Mueller report p.194:

First, Flynn made two false statements about his conversations with Russian Ambassador Kislyak in late December 2016, at a time when the United States had imposed sanctions on Russia for interfering with the 2016 presidential election and Russia was considering its response. See Flynn Statement of Offense. Flynn told the agents that he did not ask Kislyak to refrain from escalating the situation in response to the United States’s imposition of sanctions. That statement was false. On December 29, 2016, Flynn called Kislyak to request Russian restraint. Flynn made the call immediately after speaking to a senior Transition Team official (K.T. McFarland) about what to communicate to Kislyak. Flynn then spoke with McFarland again after the Kislyak call to report on the substance of that conversation. Flynn also falsely told the FBI that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which Kislyak stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to the U.S. sanctions as a result of Flynn’s request. On December 31, 2016, Flynn in fact had such a conversation with Kislyak, and he again spoke with McFarland within hours of the call to relay the substance of his conversation with Kislyak. See Flynn Statement of Offense ¶ 3.

 

Second, Flynn made false statements about calls he had previously made to representatives of Russia and other countries regarding a resolution submitted by Egypt to the United Nations Security Council on December 21, 2016. Specifically, Flynn stated that he only asked the countries’ positions on how they would vote on the resolution and that he did not request that any of the countries take any particular action on the resolution. That statement was false."

 

Obviously, you need to be educated about this topic. In the article linked below, you will find a detailled account and analysis.

https://www.justsecurity.org/70431/understanding-the-michael-flynn-case-separating-the-wheat-from-the-chaff-and-the-proper-from-the-improper/

Additional comment

I checked the Flynn calls transcript. After Kieslyak discussed sanctions against the GRU and FSB, Flynn said several time yeah, yep.... After that, he made again his plea for reciprocal actions. At least at this particular time, sanctions (as you define them) were included in the discussion.