I see nothing wrong in either picture.

people like me? that’s a rather racist comment but we will just attribute that to your bigotry

reported, btw

how is this a racist post?

Basically.

The obvious tell is they don't want to make these arguments in a court of law. They need Barr to circumvent that process. They know that in front of a judge, none of these arguments would work.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/06/10/gleeson.brief.pdf

The good stuff starts on page 47/82. Gleeson shreds DOJ's position.

About 5 pages in. God damn hes really telling it like it is lol. This is what Trumpets claim to want but are too cowardly to recognize

LOL

Without a hint of irony, he says "The Government has engaged in highly irregular conduct to benefit a political ally of the President." and "there is clear evidence of a gross abuse of prosecutorial power"

Where was all the regularity in the FBI's crossfire hurricane affair, their illegal warrants using fabricated justification, their Le Carre-esque sting operation after an investigation was supposed to be closed, their massive leaks to the media and disclosure of highly classified evidence and their revolving door of personnel after bias was found? How can there be any presumption of good faith in an investigation predicated upon a politically motivated smear manufactured to oppose a campaign? A gross abuse of prosecutorial power, like suppressing exculpatory evidence for 2 years in order to railroad someone?
The judge hired a proxy to write his statements for him to maintain a veneer of neutrality as he the pot calls the kettle black.

How much damage to the institution are they willing to do in order to press their highly irregular misconduct to damage a political ally of the president after their gross abuses of prosecutorial powers? I've heard of defense lawyers complaining that a judge is making the prosecutions case for them, but never quite so literally. Remember how years ago I talked about why Trump made the right move by dropping all his BS about locking up Clinton and instead agreeing that no matter what wrongs she had done, it would do more damage when the walls of the temple come down? When the costs of persecuting just one woman in a politically charged crusade outweigh the benefits? Well here they found out Flynn did nothing illegal in the first place and still try to tear down the walls and even constructed a catch 22 where they can claim he's guilty for being innocent. Why stop at damaging the institution of the FBI and DoJ when you can tear apart the fundamental concept of civil liberties?

He has an easy time demonstrating that the arguments for dismissal are pretextual. It's obvious that they are, albeit not for the reasons he implies.

His argument for contempt of Court is spurious. There is no manner of knowing whether the plea or the later declaration was false, and yet he explicitly (and conveniently) decides that the guilty plea is true and the declaration false. He follows this up by referencing Flynn's sworn statement that he was not being intimidated as "proof" that Flynn's claims of pressure and threats can't be true, except that this is obviously consistent with blackmail and poor representation on the whole.

He goes on to argue that Flynn's declaration led to obstruction of justice, which is true only in the event that he lied. He asserts, with only a pretext of evidence, that Flynn attempted to withdraw his plea in the spirit of "gamesmanship", and not because Flynn might legitimately that he is innocent of the charges against him, and was coerced into a guilty plea. It's not clear how he arrives at this conclusion.

Its also exceedingly disingenuous to state that Flynn is one of the cleverer or more cunning men to come before the Court, and thus not a "fish out of water" after spending the first 20 pages documenting that Flynn was exactly that, a fish out of water who committed multiple avoidable missteps despite no underlying crime.

---

As an aside, I was mildly shocked at the case law on guilty pleas. Flynn is guilty because he submitted the plea, and he could not have been coerced because he said he wasn't coerced, despite the obvious and apparent flaw in that control.

While protests are ongoing scapegoating the role of police in our society, we're witnessing a far more pernicious use of law to entrap and punish individuals that high ranking members of powerful law enforcement bureaus simply do not like.

There's an argument to be made that some people are coerced into taking a plea deal. The person who can't afford representation or bail and will sit in jail for months awaiting trial, for example. Flynn had one of the largest law firms in the country working on his case. He is absolutely not somebody you can make any honest argument in favor of being coerced. If there was any chance of that his council would have jumped on that literal years ago.

I also find the argument that his council was insufficient laughable. Maybe they weren't as good as Flynn thought they should be, but this isn't a case where he didn't receive adequate representation. It's a case where Flynn's stellar representation wasn't as good as Flynn thought they should be, and he sees a potential way out by claiming they weren't competent. Again, he hired one of the most powerful law-firms in the country.

Even ignoring all that, the real argument that is important is the argument against the motion to dismiss, which was absolutely shredded to bits.