Tribe is a Democrat first and foremost; he is a legal scholar second unless it conflicts with the first; and an American third (maybe).
It’s Larry Tribe an unrepentant corruptocrat
In this case, regardless of how Gen. Flynn plead, we have the prosecutors moving to end the case since they now believe no crime was committed. If the prosecution comes to the belief that no crime was committed, then there is no basis for the Court to do anything but end the case as per the DOJ's motion.
Once the DOJ realized that in truth there was no criminal act by Gen. Flynn, then his plea deal is moot.
That Lawrence Tribe makes the argument he does shows how partisan political viewpoints have corrupted legal thinking. Would Tribe write a similar article if the DOJ decided that it had the wrong person for a drug trafficking charge and filed a motion to drop the charges against the innocent person?
Right on the first try.
2) Ensuring That a Plea Is Voluntary. Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court must address the defendant personally in open court and determine that the plea is voluntary and did not result from force, threats, or promises (other than promises in a plea agreement).
The fly in the ointment is a recent request by Attorney General William Barr
The Motion to Dismiss was not by William Barr. It was by Prosecutor Timothy Shea.
Respectfully submitted,TIMOTHY SHEA
BY:_____Timothy Shea_________
United States Attorney
D.C. Bar No. 472845
basically says: Never mind. Ignore those guilty pleas
It is more like the prosecutor said it was impossible to ignore what the FBI did. They had the transcript of the call before they questioned Flynn. His answers were never material to any FBI investigaiton. Included in the motion is the following at pp. 17-18: (and much more)
Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.
Tribe was algore's point man in the attempt to overturn the 2000 election.
David Boies was lead attorney for Gore, and argued the case to the Supreme Court.
Tribe is a leftist psychopath which is why he teaches at a leftist university’s law school.
Unfortunately he is joined by hundreds, if not thousands of other unhinged leftist professors/lawyers so I can’t say that he is “a man without a tribe”, but is a “One Man Tribe with a band of psychos”.
Don't go Full Senile.
I learned back in law school in 1985 that if Laurence Tribe was advocating it that I would invariably disagree with him and his consistently hyper-liberal interpretation of all things legal.
He’s been a menace to the Constitution for five decades now.