U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn's guilty plea

[brooklynite]

Source: Washington Post

A U.S. judge on Tuesday put on hold the Justice Department’s move to drop charges against Michael Flynn, saying he expects independent groups and legal experts to argue against the bid to exonerate President Trump’s former national security adviser of lying to the FBI.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Washington D.C. said he expects individuals and organizations will seek to intervene in the politically charged case.

Sullivan’s order came after the government took the highly irregular step last Thursday of reversing its stance on Flynn’s charges and embracing Flynn’s move to dismiss his own guilty pleas.

Flynn was convicted of lying to investigators about his contacts with Russia’s ambassador about easing U.S. sanctions during Trump’s presidential transition in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of interference in the 2016 election.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/us-judge-puts-on-hold-justice-dept-move-to-dismiss-michael-flynns-guilty-plea-to-hear-outside-groups-challenges/2020/05/12/2fb4e356-949d-11ea-82b4-c8db161ff6e5_story.html

[turbinetree]

1. Hey Barr.........your probably going to court and have talk............

[DownriverDem]

18. We all know that

trump will then pardon Flynn.

[Joinfortmill]

2. this is going to get very interesting.

[BigmanPigman]

3. What does this mean?

Is it just a delay or is he dropping it?

[TomSlick]

4. The answer to your question is unclear.

However, if the Judge was disposed to simply dismiss the case, he could have done so. Lawyers who appear before the Judge report that he is independent. From the aborted attempt at sentencing some months ago, the Judge is obviously not a Flynn fan.

The only answer is to wait and watch.

[riversedge]

7. please see posts before--some explanation and a new court motion by Flynn lawyers.

[DeminPennswoods]

23. Sullivan's the judge who told Flynn

to go back and "co-operate more" at Flynn's very first sentencing hearing. Sullivan also asked if what Flynn did compared to treason, iirc.

Flynn's a dope, though. All he and his lawyers had to do was accept the plea deal, 0 jail time plus probation for however long. Trump would've pardoned him and Flynn would be free to spout conspiracy theories to his heart's content. He'd probably have a gig on Fox News, too.

[riversedge]

5. judge 'says he'll set a schedule to receive 'amicus curiae briefs' which will allow interested 3rd.

well, it does delay the outcome--there is hope now that justice will prevail--some hope is better than none




NBC News: The federal judge overseeing the case of Ret. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn says he'll set a schedule to receive 'amicus curiae briefs' which will allow interested 3rd parties -- outside of Flynn's attorneys and the Justice Department -- to file briefings with the court.

Link to tweet

?s=20

Link to tweet

?s=20


Replying to
@Tom_Winter
Please explain what this means.

Link to tweet

?s=20

Link to tweet

?s=20

[riversedge]

6. BUT FLYNN'S LAWYERS PANTIES ARE IN A WAD OVER JUDEGES ORDER......and have filed

this motion to stop outside opinions. ha ha

Link to tweet

?s=20

[pecosbob]

11. It appears that the motion was targeted at a specific group that has previously petitioned the court

It refers to a group calling itself the "Watergate Prosecutors'.

Edit...that is Flynn's legal team's motion seems to be targeted.

[riversedge]

12. yes, it does seem be aimed that that group. But hopefully others will submit briefs also.

[bucolic_frolic]

8. I keep hoping someone will explain

how you withdraw a guilty plea, especially after so much time and in such a high-profile case, and why he should be believed now and no longer as he plead previously. These were the weightiest of issues, he had high caliber lawyers all along, it's not like a guilty plea was something lightly undertaken.

I hope this attempt to change a plea is seen as a transparent attempt to abrogate the rule of law and enable the Executive to do whatever it wants because that's how I see it.

[Igel]

15. If you search you'll find a number of people in prison that pleaded guilty.

Some pleaded guilty because they were and the evidence was overwhelming.

Some pleaded guilty although they weren't because the evidence was overwhelming and they couldn't rebut it.

Some pleaded guilty although they weren't because it was the better of the two options. A short time in prison versus spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and going into bankruptcy to convince the jury you're innocent.

Often this was with a plea deal making something that they'd lose big trying to fight into something small that they could easily survive, or they'd take the fall for others.

So Flynn agreed to cooperate in exchange for one charge he'd plead guilty to and then he'd get probation. It was clear he hadn't said what was true, and unlike others he wasn't allowed to change his statement. He had nothing exculpatory--and if he thought that things weren't right, he had no evidence. He'd use up his family's resources and leave them destitute as he headed to jail, and futile fights are fine as long as you're not sacrificing others at the altar of your honor. Pleading guilty was the sane and rational thing to do.

[lanlady]

9. I wish Flynn had been locked up months ago

It's only because he's a member of the privileged white elite that things have come to this. He should have done time for the crimes that he confessed to.

[jimfields33]

10. Trump's going to pardon him the first time a judge says jail from his lips.

That makes what Barr did even weirder.

[bucolic_frolic]

13. Correct.

There are virtually no consequences to Trump's pardon. Few voters would pay attention. So I'm thinking something else is going on with this attempt to circumnavigate a guilty plea of long duration. Why would they risk this uproar when they could get Flynn off in a matter of weeks with a pardon? What are they trying to hide, or what are they trying to accomplish, what nuance of law are they trying to establish as precedent?

[beastie boy]

14. There are consequences.

If Trump pardons Flynn and Flynn accepts the pardon, the guilty plea and the conviction remain on record forever. Flynn only escapes the punishment. If the criminal case is dismissed, there is no conviction, no verdict, no consequences for Flynn whatsoever. It's as if he was never found guilty of a crime.

[Karadeniz]

17. Trump wants everyone who investigated him tarred and feathered and everyone who has

Been incriminated to be judged innocent so that he can make the case that every charge against him was part of an illegal investigation since all his attackers have been condemned, his co-criminals found innocent, meaning he himself is innocent. Pardons won't declare his fellow conspirators innocent.

[DeminPennswoods]

24. This is all part of Trump's ego

needing to believe Russia had nothing to do with his election in 2016 and all the subsequent investigations were illegitimate. Barr is jumping through hoops to make it so. Simple as that.

[saidsimplesimon]

16. The "rule of law" is in peril. It's

a fight we must take on, or surrender to anarchy. imo

[spike jones]

19. I hope this is true.

"A few weeks ago, a dear old friend, a Republican-appointed federal judge, trying to console me during a moment of despair about the future of our country, said to me “The Judiciary branch is strong and will hold.” When I expressed skepticism, he leaned toward me, looked me dead in the eye, and said as firmly as he could without shouting: “We are strong and WE. WILL. HOLD.”

Today, thanks to Judge Mehta, I think he may be right ...


https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212113242

[murielm99]

20. I hope you are correct.

Thanks for bringing some hope to DU members.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

21. Good

[Gothmog]

22. This means that parties other than the DOJ and Flynn can present arguments

Link to tweet