The Flynn Entrapment

Here4money said:
I recall this being the last stop from some article I read, good to know there's more appeals available.
More...

If Judge Asshole wants to disgrace himself before the full appeals court rather than limit his beating to just a three judge panel, that could be fun too.

Lots of lefty idiots are speculating that if you can get more democrat judges involved it will reverse it. Don't count on it. Flynn and the DOJ relied upon a Supreme Court opinion written by none other than Ruthie to make their case so this is not necessarily a left versus right issue.

Some of the justices will dissent- not on the merits but for precedural reasons - ie. they think the proper way for this to arrive at the appeals court is to just let Sullivan take a final action and then for the defendant to appeal it- versus having the defendant submit a motion to dismiss before the appeals court. So they just want it to arrive at their door via a different route so that they can then blow it away. That's fine. They can't get a majority to sign on for that but I see that it makes some sense so do not worry about it in the least if it goes that way. I also do not worry if it arrives at the Supreme Court. Ruthie is still there and most likely stands by her previous position.

It's up to Judge Asshole as to how many beatings he wants to take. Oh, and Judge Asshole has the right to appeal which he has done. He does not however have the right to have the full appeals court hear the case. That is at the discretion of the full appeals court. The ruling by the three-court panel fulfills his right to appeal. He can request a full court appeal (an "en banc" hearing within the parlance) but has no right to it.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
If Judge Asshole wants to disgrace himself before the full appeals court rather than limit his beating to just a three judge panel, that could be fun too.

Lots of lefty idiots are speculating that if you can get more democrat judges involved it will reverse it. Don't count on it. Flynn and the DOJ relied upon a Supreme Court opinion written by none other than Ruthie to make their case so this is not necessarily a left versus right issue.

Some of the justices will dissent- not on the merits but for precedural reasons - ie. they think the proper way for this to arrive at the appeals court is to just let Sullivan take a final action and then for the defendant to appeal it- versus having the defendant submit a motion to dismiss before the appeals court. So they just want it to arrive at their door via a different route so that they can then blow it away. That's fine. They can't get a majority to sign on for that but I see that it makes some sense so do not worry about it in the least if it goes that way. I also do not worry if it arrives at the Supreme Court. Ruthie is still there and most likely stands by her previous position.

It's up to Judge Asshole as to how many beatings he wants to take. Oh, and Judge Asshole has the right to appeal which he has done. He does not however have the right to have the full appeals court hear the case. That is at the discretion of the full appeals court. The ruling by the three-court panel fulfills his right to appeal. He can request a full court appeal but has no right to it.
More...

Remember this is the countdown to Horowitz and Biden will never be the nominee idiot.
 
Last edited:
TreeFrogTrader said:
I also do not worry if it arrives at the Supreme Court.
More...


Just as you weren't worried about DACA arriving at The Supreme Court.The Supreme Court would rule for Trump and force Democrats to give in to Trumps immigration demands to save DACA kids you said.Fucking idiot.
 
Last edited:
I would think we haven't heard the end of the Flynn case. This case is important because it violates the usual Federal Court procedure wherein the Judge's permission is sought when the Prosecutor decides to drop a case. In this case, Sullivan has clearly not yet decided whether dropping of the Flynn case is warranted by the facts. To determine that, was the purpose of the hearing Sullivan had scheduled. The DOJ then went over Sullivan's head, so to speak, by requesting that the Appeals Court order Sullivan to dismiss the case without a hearing on the merits of the Prosecutors' request. Most unusual indeed, as it is apparent that Judge Sullivan believed that in this particular case there was some reason to suspect that DOJ was showing favoritism toward the defendant. Without a thorough review of the Prosecutors' decision, the usual check against the possibility that the Prosecutors are engaged in undue favoritism is absent. I strongly suspect an en banc hearing is in the future of the Appeals Court. An Appeals Court's decision whether to rehear the arguments en banc can not help but be influenced by the on-going testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. That, it would seem, will increase the odds of an en banc review...
 
piezoe said:
I would think we haven't heard the end of the Flynn case. This case is important because it violates the usual Federal Court procedure wherein the Judge's permission is sought when the Prosecutor decides to drop a case. In this case, Sullivan has clearly not yet decided whether dropping of the Flynn case is warranted by the facts. To determine that, was the purpose of the hearing Sullivan had scheduled. The DOJ then went over Sullivan's head, so to speak, by requesting that the Appeals Court order Sullivan to dismiss the case without a hearing on the merits of the Prosecutors' request. Most unusual indeed, as it is apparent that Judge Sullivan believed that in this particular case there was some reason to suspect that DOJ was showing favoritism toward the defendant. Without a thorough review of the Prosecutors' decision, the usual check against the possibility that the Prosecutors are engaged in undue favoritism is absent. I strongly suspect an en banc hearing is in the future of the Appeals Court. An Appeals Court's decision whether to rehear the arguments en banc can not help but be influenced by the on-going testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. That, it would seem, will increase the odds of an en banc review...
More...
Wouldn't surprise me if today's testimony helps galvanize Sullivan's resolve.
 
piezoe said:
I would think we haven't heard the end of the Flynn case. This case is important because it violates the usual Federal Court procedure wherein the Judge's permission is sought when the Prosecutor decides to drop a case.
More...

The prosecutor does not need the court's permission to drop the prosecution of a case. The prosecutor needs the court's permission to "take leave of the court." In other words a prosecutor cannot just walk away from a case and leave the court hanging and then no show. The fact though that he remains subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that case until it is formally closed by the court does not mean that the judge has the power to order a prosecutor to prosecute a case if the prosecutor has determined that a basis no longer exists to proceed.

If the court wants to drag its feet in entering the dismissal, it can do that for a reasonable period, but it cannot order the government to prosecute the case during that time. Prosecution is an executive branch function. Refer to the Appeals Court and Ruthie's decision at the Supreme Court for more on this.

Dream on though. It's all you got.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top