Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Zoonart

(11,861 posts)
Mon Jun 1, 2020, 05:21 PM Jun 2020

Bill Barr's prosecutors have have-not-conclusively-established-they-have-acted-properly ...

Last edited Mon Jun 1, 2020, 06:49 PM - Edit history (1)

in-moving-to-dismiss-flynn-case-federal-judge/

On Monday, federal D.C. District Judge Emmet Sullivan filed a response to the writ of mandamus from former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn ordering him to dismiss the charges against him — a response that had been ordered by a three-judge panel from the Court of Appeals two weeks ago.

In the response, Sullivan maintained that Attorney General William Barr’s prosecutors have “not conclusively established” that they “acted properly” in moving to drop the charges against Flynn — particularly given the “unusual” refusal of several prosecutors working on the case to sign the motion to dismiss.



https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/bill-barrs-prosecutors-have-not-conclusively-established-they-have-acted-properly-in-moving-to-dismiss-flynn-case-federal-judge/
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bill Barr's prosecutors have have-not-conclusively-established-they-have-acted-properly ... (Original Post) Zoonart Jun 2020 OP
Get thee to the greatest page malaise Jun 2020 #1
Not yet. It isn't a court decision; it's a brief filed on behalf of Judge Sullivan The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2020 #5
Good point malaise Jun 2020 #6
K&R fleur-de-lisa Jun 2020 #2
the 46 page response (PDF) ... Hermit-The-Prog Jun 2020 #3
TQ Zoonart Jun 2020 #4
Sullivan called Flynn a traitor. I knew he wouldn't surrender Hassler Jun 2020 #7
Lots of moving parts bucolic_frolic Jun 2020 #8
So this is not the amicus brief ordered by Sullivan for his trial level determination? Nevilledog Jun 2020 #9
"have not 'conclusively established' that they 'acted properly' . . . elleng Jun 2020 #10
Fixed. Zoonart Jun 2020 #11
Thx. elleng Jun 2020 #12
Remember when this case, and others related to it, commanded laser focus from political watchers? BobTheSubgenius Jun 2020 #13
Understatement of the century. sandensea Jun 2020 #14
Imagine that? spanone Jun 2020 #15
K&R UTUSN Jun 2020 #16

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,683 posts)
5. Not yet. It isn't a court decision; it's a brief filed on behalf of Judge Sullivan
Mon Jun 1, 2020, 05:29 PM
Jun 2020

to the Court of Appeals arguing that the judge was not required to grant the government’s post-plea motion to dismiss. As usual, Raw Story screwed up their headline. Here's the brief: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6934669/Sullivan-Brief-Flynn-2020-06-01.pdf

Nevilledog

(51,094 posts)
9. So this is not the amicus brief ordered by Sullivan for his trial level determination?
Mon Jun 1, 2020, 06:26 PM
Jun 2020

Too busy right now to follow up.

elleng

(130,895 posts)
10. "have not 'conclusively established' that they 'acted properly' . . .
Mon Jun 1, 2020, 06:43 PM
Jun 2020

Headlines easily distort meanings.

BobTheSubgenius

(11,563 posts)
13. Remember when this case, and others related to it, commanded laser focus from political watchers?
Mon Jun 1, 2020, 08:06 PM
Jun 2020

Seems almost quaint now, doesn't it?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Bill Barr's prosecutors h...