It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Michael Flynn Judge EMMET SULLIVAN - Was He Suckered by -or- In Collusion With Trump Coup Plotters?.

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2020 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

The DOJ didn't drop the case.

Facts are important.

www.politico.com...

DOJ drops criminal case against Michael Flynn


Oh really......politico is wrong?

"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," read the motion filed Thursday seeking to dismiss the criminal prosecution.


Nice try
They dropped it

Lol



In order for the judge to except the guilty plea for lying. He has to ask specific questions. Here Judge Sullivan talks about those questions.



"The judge says:
.. I was not going to spend another hour and share those questions with you in open court today, had you decided to postpone sentencing, but I may do that. I’m not sure. These are questions that you would be prepared to answer anyway, such as, you know, how the
government’s investigation was impeded? What was the material impact of the criminality? Things like that.
MR. KELNER: Your Honor, I think we would find it very helpful, actually, and would welcome the opportunity.

THE COURT: I thought you might say that. I’ll give it some thought, because my purpose is not to sandbag anyone. I want your best thoughts, your best answers about questions that are — that I believe are very relevant and important, but it’s not time to do that now, and it won’t be time to do it before March 13th, but I may do that.

MR. KELNER: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Sure. Would the government find that of any benefit? You probably know the questions I’m going to ask anyway, impeding the investigation, materiality impact.

MR. VAN GRACK: We would not object to any clarification from the Court.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you, all. And happy holidays, everyone. Thank you.

MR. KELNER: Thank you, Your Honor"


None of those questions pertaining to materiallity were asked. The DOJ even talks about it in their filing to dismiss.

That guilty plea shouldn't have been accepted until after the material basis was established in open court.




posted on May, 13 2020 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Meniscus

The judge could easily overturn the guilty plea based on materiality not being proven. That would require the judge admit a mistake was made.

I feel this judge may move ahead with sentencing. It is within his power. Flynn will have to appeal. The appellate court overturns the guilty plea. And without the guilty plea there is no longer a reason to not dismiss the case.



posted on May, 13 2020 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Meniscus
The prosecution screwed this case. They had a coerced guilty plea. That agreement included Flynn cooperating with the investigation. That's why the sentencing kept being postponed. They wanted to harvest him for information. All they had to do was wait for sentencing if they really wanted him to be found guilty. They could have at anytime just asked the judge for a sentencing date. But they didn't.
At some point the prosecution decided to put the screws to Flynn by saying he wasn't living up to his cooperating part of the plea agreement. They threatened to remove his status as a cooperating witness. The prosecution threatened to throw the book at Flynn and include the charges that they agreed not to pursue as part of the deal. But they still wanted to force him to keep the guilt plea. Flynn figured he had nothing left to lose That's when Flynn said I want out of this deal. I want to change my plea. He fired his lawyers and hired Sidney Powell. Moral of this story don't give an ultimatum to a three star general. The prosecution had this case won. Then they decided to get cute.



posted on May, 13 2020 @ 07:08 PM
link   


From: twitter.com...

Former Judge John Gleeson - the amicus appointed by Judge Sullivan - has already judged the case.

"The [Flynn] record reeks of improper political influence."

Seems to say a lot about Judge Sullivan's motives.

Even his amicus is biased.


What can be done to prevent these two conspiring "haters" from delivery their own Kangaroo-court "guilty" verdict, and proceeding with sentencing General Flynn to prison?



posted on May, 13 2020 @ 08:25 PM
link   
So the same people who made Nixon an R out to be a crook want to decide if Flynn should get treated fairly after being framed and squeezed.

NEXT!


originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Gryphon66

From what I understand, the prosecutor on this case resigned from this case, and others, just minutes before the "dismissal" was filed. Additionally, the document used the now ex-prosecutor's ID number in the filing, but it was signed by a political appointee, not associated with the case.

The Judge is allowing for amicus brief's because of a lack of representation of "a party" to the case. I suppose that gives the ex-prosecutor, and others a chance to provide input to the judge, on information he is otherwise unable to discern. Then, of course, there's that letter signed by almost 2000 former federal prosecutors protesting the DOJ's move for dismissal.

ETA: Just saw this:


Sixteen former Watergate prosecutors this week asked to file a friend-of-the-court brief weighing in on the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

"The Watergate Prosecutors ... are uniquely suited to help ensure a fair presentation of the issues raised by the government’s motion" to dismiss the case, the group's request states.

Flynn's attorneys oppose the request.


thehill.com...



posted on May, 14 2020 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Update:

Judge Sullivan is conspiring with Judge Gleeson to slap General Flynn with a charge of PERJURY or CONTEMPT.

Source: www.politico.com...



posted on May, 14 2020 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust
The judge would have to be complicit in that perjury. He wrongfully accepted the damn Guilty Plea!!!

The materiallity was never established yet the judge allowed the plea!!


The judge knowingly accepted that plea deal and now he wants to try to Say Flynn lied to the court by pleading guilty?

That means the judge is saying that Flynn is innocent of the original charge of lying to FBI investigators. And he lied to the court about it and the proof is the guilty plea.

So which is it Judge Sullivan? Did Flynn lie to the court? Or to the FBI? By calling the guilty plea perjury. The judge admits that the original charge is false!!

This judge is grasping at straws at this point trying to make anything stick.



posted on May, 14 2020 @ 06:21 AM
link   
So you think no violation of ethics by the then DOJ?


originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, I'm sure Judge Sullivan is very aware that the case is now setting precedent due to the obvious intervention of the Executive Branch into the judicial process.

I'm sure he wants to cover all the bases.






posted on May, 14 2020 @ 06:26 AM
link   
You are just wrong, the question is why?

Why are you for tyrannical practices by those wanting to frame another after ALL the facts prove that they were trying to find something to pin on someone not because there was a crime. The crime happened when they obstructed justice and lied to the FISA courts and then proceeded when they all know they wanted to shut down Trump anyway they could. FAIL

NEXT!


originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

You're making a semantic argument.

DOJ doesn't drop the case.

DOJ requested that the case be dropped; it's now up to Judge Sullivan.

Got it? Good.



posted on May, 14 2020 @ 06:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust


From: twitter.com...

Former Judge John Gleeson - the amicus appointed by Judge Sullivan - has already judged the case.

"The [Flynn] record reeks of improper political influence."

Seems to say a lot about Judge Sullivan's motives.

Even his amicus is biased.


What can be done to prevent these two conspiring "haters" from delivery their own Kangaroo-court "guilty" verdict, and proceeding with sentencing General Flynn to prison?

Two words Appeals Court.

And if not that then the Supremes.



posted on May, 14 2020 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Update:

Judge Sullivan is conspiring with Judge Gleeson to slap General Flynn with a charge of PERJURY or CONTEMPT.

Source: www.politico.com...


I'm not sure how contempt of court works, but as for perjury itself, the Supreme Court stated in US v Nixon that the executive branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion as to whether to prosecute a case.

www.law.cornell.edu...



posted on May, 14 2020 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Meniscus
a reply to: carewemust
The judge would have to be complicit in that perjury. He wrongfully accepted the damn Guilty Plea!!!


If the judge holds him in contempt for entering a false guilty plea, then it seems to imply that the judge believes that Flynn is innocent of the original charge. The judge can't have it both ways. He's exposing his own bias.



posted on May, 14 2020 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Sookiechacha
Yes, I'm sure Judge Sullivan is very aware that the case is now setting precedent due to the obvious intervention of the Executive Branch into the judicial process.

That is laughable, since you actually got it backwards.

I mean, seriously, use your noggin for a change instead of regurgitating CNN gobbledyspeak.

This is a question of separation of powers.

The Judicial Branch cannot assume the role of the Prosecution. That is the Executive Branch's role, as represented by - you guessed it, the Attorney General's office.


originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl
The AG made a request that is fairly obviously politically-biased.

What is fairly obvious is your lack of knowledge of legal process, but more importantly, incapacity for rational thought.


The Judge is deciding the outcome of the case, not the DOJ.

If the prosecution wants to drop a case, they can drop a case. FRCMP 48(a) is the rule governing this process, and has been adjudicated by the supremes. The only discretion a judge has in denying such a motion is to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment through repeated efforts to file and then dismiss charges.

What is especially delicious is that, yet again, this is par for the course... as this is the exact opposite of what has happened.

From Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (1977) - the controlling case in this matter:

"Held: The District Court abused its discretion in denying the Government's motion to dismiss on the ground that the violation of the Petite policy resulted from prosecutorial misconduct, rather than inadvertence. The salient issue is not whether the decision to prosecute was made in bad faith, but rather whether the Government's later efforts to terminate the prosecution were similarly tainted with impropriety. It does not appear that there was any bad faith on the Government's part at the time it sought leave to dismiss the indictment, but rather that the decision to terminate the prosecution, based as it was on the Petite policy, was motivated by considerations which cannot fairly be characterized as "clearly contrary to manifest public interest." The overriding purpose of that policy is to protect the individual from any unfairness associated with needless multiple prosecutions, and accordingly the defendant should receive the benefit of the policy whenever its application is urged by the Government."

There is nothing unusual about Amicus Curiae briefs being filed. What is extremely unusual is for the Judge to actually actively solicit them, especially from just one side, which shows his bias.

Usually, it is those filing them who request that they be allowed to file them.



posted on May, 14 2020 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Meniscus
a reply to: Meniscus
The judge could easily overturn the guilty plea based on materiality not being proven.

The guilty plea has been withdrawn, for reasons already established - it was extorted, by threatening his son with the same persecution he had been going through.

A deal was made - plead guilty in exchange for them not prosecuting his son.

A deal that was later - unlawfully (was it unlawful/criminal, or just against some procedural violation?) - hidden from the court.



posted on May, 14 2020 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

That aspect of why Michael Flynn plead guilty in the first place needs to be propagated better to the masses. The majority of the news media is saying over and over again that Flynn plead guilty... without saying any more.



posted on May, 14 2020 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Yup I get a lot of blank faced stares when I ask people what would you do if you were broke and they threatened to go after your son.

I know what I would do... Ill do the time to spare my son in a heart beat.



posted on May, 17 2020 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: carewemust

Yup I get a lot of blank faced stares when I ask people what would you do if you were broke and they threatened to go after your son.

I know what I would do... Ill do the time to spare my son in a heart beat.

Same here. I made a big financial sacrifice to aid my son two years ago.



posted on May, 17 2020 @ 10:40 PM
link   
A good summary of where things stand at the moment...

Tables turned on Mueller prosecutors: Ten actions ripe for scrutiny.

Recent revelations from the Flynn case fit an emerging, more general pattern of questionable prosecutorial tactics.

Justice Department documents released in connection with the withdrawal of charges against retired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn, mark the first official unraveling of one of Russia special counsel Robert Mueller’s cases.
Details at: justthenews.com...



posted on May, 21 2020 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Flynn update..


A federal appeals court on Thursday ordered the judge handling the criminal case of President Donald Trump's former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, to respond to a request by Flynn's lawyers to dismiss the case.

The order came two days after Flynn's lawyers asked the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to drop the case and assign any future court proceedings to another judge.


More: www.cnbc.com...

Sounds like judge Sullivan is going to have to explain how Trump derangement syndrome is causing him to think so irrationally.




posted on May, 21 2020 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Flynn update..


A federal appeals court on Thursday ordered the judge handling the criminal case of President Donald Trump's former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, to respond to a request by Flynn's lawyers to dismiss the case.

The order came two days after Flynn's lawyers asked the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to drop the case and assign any future court proceedings to another judge.


More: www.cnbc.com...

Sounds like judge Sullivan is going to have to explain how Trump derangement syndrome is causing him to think so irrationally.



Judge Sullivan needs a written excuse from a certified psychiatrist !! ⭕🤕⭕



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join