Posted on 05/18/2020 7:31:42 AM PDT by Kaslin
Dirty “Judge” Sullivan exposes the corrupt blackrobes
just like Comey and the other seditionists exposed
and ruined the image of the FBI for a century.
Dirty “Judge” Sullivan’s behavior should make
all Americans never again trust the Article III courts.
I believe President’s can pardon up to their last full day in office. I don’t think President Trump would leave them hanging.
I think too many of us forget something important about Trump. These people have attacked his family and pledged to attack his family long after he is out of office. Look at the AG for New York! It is outlandish.
Trump is not dumb and he knows better than anyone that if he does not clean this up his family will be attacked by lawfare for the rest of their lives.
Didn’t Bill Clinton issue some pardons the morning of his last day in office?
if Pres.Trump is not reelected he would probably just issue a pardon for LT Gen Flynn before he left office
Yes, he did. Marc Rich among them if memory serves (a big-time Clinton donor/supporter).
Self ping
I am basing my comment on the contents of this post alone. The poster’s take on the matter is superficial, and as with ALL the legal analysis on our side in the Flynn case (including Powell’s), fails to make distinctions.
As I have said before on this site, people get the “exceedingly slow” part of the saying, but they do not get, or even consider, the “exceedingly fine” part of the saying.
Legal analysis is all about distinctions based on context. The contexts change and the distinctions change with them. For instance, Powell readily demonstrated her gross incompetence by yelling Brady and citing the Steven’s case.
Witnesses commit perjury all the time during testimony. One of the principal duties of a jury is to determine who is telling the truth, both in terms of veracity and reliability. To give a judge power to hold someone in contempt for perjury during trial is giving a judge too much power to interfere in a jury’s authority.
A guilty plea is an entirely different legal context. A guilty plea implicates hugely significant duties of a judge, and the plea is a very special and specific interaction between a judge and a defendant.
An oath is administered before a guilty plea because it is essential (in many ways I will not go into here) that a defendant be scrupulously truthful to the judge while pleading guilty. There may be a dozen aspects of the plea of crucial significance, all dependent upon a defendant telling the utter truth.
A person is not entitled to lie to a judge just because the lie is told during a guilty plea. And a judge who is lied to his face is properly entitled to hold a person in contempt. Ask any judge in America, from village court to Supreme Court, what he thinks about people in court lying to his face.
Powell was grossly incompetent in this case. And every time I post that opinion there is an explosion of lawyers on our side who rush to assure us how brilliant Powell is. What they never do is write a post explaining her legal strategy in coherent terms, citing the actual law, and addressing the objection’s to Powell’s incoherent legal strategy and poor grasp of legal analysis.
Powell blundered her way into having Flynn commit perjury. No one on our side has even addressed that issue, because they cannot. That blunder alone (which I predicted before it happened) demonstrates Powell’s incompetence. But it is one example of many.
I have never doubted for one instant the corruption which lead to Flynn’s case. What I am questioning is how Powell handled the case after she took over.
And otherwise I am amazed at the people on our side, lawyers in particular, who keep doubling down on Flynn despite having no idea what they are talking about.
ping
Pollyannish much?
Exactly.
I know who Blood and Guts , and Stonewall were of course but I coun't find anything an a general "Vinegar Joe, if there was supposed to have been one, What I found was Vinegar Joe were a British R&B band in the early 1970s, who were best know for live shows.
So what's up with that?
Remember when Bill Clinton fired the travel team that was left over from the previous administration(s) President Trump should have fired everyone from the 0bama team. Unfortunately it would have taken forever to get a team together. You know how the rats are.
Can you clarify? Do you mean by withdrawing his original plea?
Remember when American Generals had nick-names like “Blood and Guts,” or “Stonewall” or “Vinegar Joe?”
Instead we have Beltway marshmallows who are so a part of the swamp, and so afraid of the perfumed apparatchiks of the FBI, they plead guilty to manufactured charges on crimes they didn’t commit.
************
One thing Stonewall never had to face was the possibility of being tried before a DC jury that would convict him just because of who he was. All the prosecutors had to do with Flynn was to put him in front of any DC jury and he would have been dead meat.
Remember when American Generals had nick-names like “Blood and Guts,” or “Stonewall” or “Vinegar Joe?”
Instead we have Beltway marshmallows who are so a part of the swamp, and so afraid of the perfumed apparatchiks of the FBI, they plead guilty to manufactured charges on crimes they didn’t commit.
************
One thing Stonewall never had to face was the possibility of being tried before a DC jury that would convict him just because of who he was. All the prosecutors had to do with Flynn was to put him in front of any DC jury and he would have been dead meat.
One of my criticisms of Powell (of many) has been her relentless antagonism toward the government in this case.
Put aside whether the criticism is justified; was it necessary in the way in which it was expressed and how it was expressed? Again, put aside the truth of the matter, where is the common sense in the matter?
At the very beginning Powell insisted she did not want to move to have the plea withdrawn. I heard her say it myself.
Now, there were grave legal and logical problems with her refusal to move to withdraw the plea in the context of her overall argument. There were also grave legal and logical arguments with her complete omission of arguing ineffective assistance of counsel.
Nevertheless, as non-nonsensical as these two aspects were, they made complete sense from a practical point of view. If she moved to withdraw the plea, then Flynn would be required to commit perjury. And if she argued ineffective assistance of counsel, she would invite a devastating refutation which undermined the “public” reasons for the plea.
I predicted several times that her style of antagonism and public airing against the government, as well as her legal position, was going to get the government to drop the support of probation and recommend incarceration. That was not a foregone consequence, it was just common sense which had a good chance of happening.
It happened. And once it happened Powell was LEGALLY REQUIRED to move to withdraw the plea. She did not choose to do so.
And once she moved to withdraw the plea, she necessarily had Flynn confess to perjury. Similarly, she now had to assert ineffective assistance of original counsel, which invited disclosures from the law firm highly damaging to Flynn’s and Powell’s credibility.
BTW, Powell also forced Flynn into making humiliating assertions in his “declaration” which are totally at odds with his public persona. But he needed to humiliate himself in this way in order to support the motion. The analysis of Flynn’s humiliating statements has not been publicly made anywhere, that I have seen, but they are there and it will only take time. This will probably be in conjunction with disclosures from his original lawyers, if they are made.
The last thing Powell wanted to happen is have Flynn and Flynn’s lawyers testify. She at least “got” that part. Now this appears to be exactly what Sullivan is aiming at, hearings, regardless of how he eventually decides the case.
Barr appeared to take Powell off the hook, much to her relief. And IMO Barr wanted to put a stop to Powell’s mishandling of the case by doing so, as her screw-ups could interfere with Durham.
But Powell so jerked the court around with her political statements and lack of legal coherence, that Sullivan as a matter of personal integrity appears to not be letting her off the hook. In that respect, this is on Powell and Powell only.
let’s see. . .in a trial, one side says one thing and the other side says something completely different.
So, if one side says one thing and is convicted, technically that person was deemed to be lying (perjury).
Why hasn’t this corrupt agenda-driven crayon eating judge punished all defendants in his court found to be guilty?
This whole thing is a farse and you have to wonder why the “judge” is doing this.
He’s got to know he is making a top-shelf brain-dead fool of himself and showing his partisan butt to the world.
I know of a US district attorney in Oklahoma that once said, "the law is what I say it is". He was a democrat and that's what we're up against. They can charge you with anything they wish to make up. The FBI can fake 302s and there is no defense.
Yes. . .and the day he entered office he fired EVERY federal DA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.