In other news...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/12/politics/michael-flynn-case-judge/index.html

Judge Sullivan asking for third-party input on the Flynn case. He's not ready to immediately drop the case.

----


Manu Raju
@mkraju
Lindsey Graham told us he will call DOJ officials to come before his panel to explain rationale for seeking to drop Flynn case.
Graham said he wants to ask: "Why did you decide not to prosecute him? I mean I think it was a good decision but the country needs to hear their reason”

Dear Lord I hope this happens.

This post was edited by IceMage on May 13 2020 04:30pm

Who?

I recognize that name. But I can't remember from where.

It feels so long ago and irrelevant. As if the whole legacy has been completely erased.

Biden's campaign responds to the nonsense:



--
Also, Judge Sullivan is appointing a former judge to argue against DOJ's motion, and to help determine whether Flynn should face perjury charges. Lawl.
---

And finally...

Interesting thread on the Flynn unmasking list. Many of the unmasking requests were before he even had the call with the Russian ambassador. What else was he up to?

https://twitter.com/TheViewFromLL2/status/1260650916736151552

And another informative one:
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1260655671655034882

This post was edited by IceMage on May 13 2020 05:32pm

Deep state swamp creatures closing the ranks and providing cover for each other, big surprise!!!!111eleven



















/s

This whole Flynn/#obamagate saga is so silly.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 13 2020 05:44pm

I'm trying to imagine anything more Orwellian
What a wonderful standard this would set for civil liberties around America. Any time an innocent man is pressured into taking a plea deal and evidence later exonerates them, they can be locked up for perjury.

It would be like if John Proctor had confessed to witchcraft and recanted and was then prosecuted for perjury for a false confession.
As far as a mockery of justice goes, they're one cadaver short of a synod

This post was edited by Goomshill on May 13 2020 06:22pm

and seriously I just want to elaborate on how incredibly fucking bonkers this legal theory is and what it means for civil liberties

For Judge Emmett to hold Flynn in contempt for perjury for giving a false confession would mean that Emmett would have to accept and acknowledge that Flynn is innocent of the charges against him and thus that he was coerced into a plea deal under duress. And then arguing that the man he admits is innocent should be locked up anyway, because under duress he confessed and signed a statement saying his confession was made not under duress. What an insane catch-22. Either get railroaded with a corrupt FBI and DoJ that entraps you into a crime they created under false pretenses while denying you due process, or take a plea deal that like a barbed arrow cannot be withdrawn even if you prove you are exonerated, because the justice system will intentionally keep an innocent man in prison.

Its like the plot of Arthur Miller's The Crucible to a T. A court that obsesses over its own authority more than its integrity would declare that it cannot accept a false confession, then accept the false confession under duress only with a vow it wasn't made under duress. If you take a gun and point it at someone's head, you can make them sign a statement saying you're not pointing a gun at their head. Any reasonable court would void a contract or statement made under false pretenses or threat, but coercive plea deals have normalized the erosion of our civil liberties so prolifically across america upon excuses like 'limited resources' that we're left with courts that would knowingly and intentionally imprison innocent men in order to preserve a fig leaf of authority.

Our tax money goes to pay the salaries of these morons

This post was edited by Goomshill on May 13 2020 06:44pm

What was the lie Flynn told under oath and how did they get him to tell it when he normally wouldnt have? (Simply saying "if he hadnt been interviewed he couldn't have lied is not sufficient) The sticking point of entrapment is that the person wouldnt have committed the crime without direct assistance from the officer, and I'm having a hard time figuring out how somebody could be entrapped into lying under oath.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 13 2020 06:45pm

They're exploring whether to hold him in contempt for pleading guilty when he was innocent, that his plea deal itself would be grounds for perjury charges when he's exonerated. Which is derivative from him being entrapped by the FBI staging a legally unjustifiable ambush meeting for the sole purpose of soliciting him to lie to them about something not material to their investigation since they already knew the answer because they were wiretapping him (and illegally leaking it). He would not have lied to the FBI but for them specifically eliciting a lie from him, something they knew he would lie about because he had said it in public, and thus not lying about it in private would be as good as exposing it to them- who had no need to know about sensitive diplomacy. So in order to hold him in contempt for perjury, the judge would have to accept that the FBI's misconduct voided the lying charge and that Flynn was innocent, but that because Flynn was innocent and plead guilty that evidence exonerating him of lying to the FBI would prove he lied to the court.

Their argument is that plea deals always force defendants to vow under penalty of perjury that what they're saying is true and not made under duress. Even if its obviously coercive and they're only admitting to it under duress. Imagine some black guy gets railroaded for a murder he didn't commit, the investigators manufacture the evidence and suborn perjury from false witnesses to get him locked up and the DA offers him a 15 years plea deal or the chair. Then later an investigation into the misconduct exonerates him. Except then the judge then decides to find him guilty of perjury for a false confession? Yikes.

Some judges seem to think that the criminal justice system is infallible and can do no wrong, and thus anyone on the wrong end of it must be doing wrong.

This post was edited by Goomshill on May 13 2020 07:00pm

This is not entrapment. It is expected that you tell the truth under oath. That you have lied while not under oath is immaterial.

If you've ever watched a deposition you will see people walk back public statements because they are under oath. Watch Holmes in the Theranos depositions for an example.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 13 2020 07:01pm