The Flynn Entrapment

TreeFrogTrader said:
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.
More...

Haven't you heard? The Flynn case is over. Flynn admitted guilt and was awaiting sentencing for lying to the FBI. The DOJ asked Sullivan to close the case without sentencing Flynn, because in their, i.e., Barr's opinion, the FBI was not justified in questioning Flynn in the first place. Sullivan in effect said, "not so fast DOJ. Let's hear from the other parties before making a decision." The DOJ then asked the Appeals court to intervene and order Sullivan to close the case. The Appeals Court did not weigh in on the merits of the Flynn case, but rather on another question entirely. What was a routine District Court case now becomes a potentially ground breaking Appeals Court case. For that reason I think it is fairly likely that the Appeals Court will decide to review en banc. We don't know what Sullivan will do, he has more than one option.
 
Last edited:
piezoe said:
Haven't you heard? The Flynn case is over. Flynn admitted guilt and was awaiting sentencing for lying to the FBI. The DOJ asked Sullivan to close the case without sentencing Flynn, because in their, i.e., Barr's opinion, the FBI was not justified in questioning Flynn in the first place. Sullivan in effect said, "not so fast DOJ. Let's hear from the other side before making a decision." The DOJ then asked the Appeals court to intervene and order Sullivan to close the case. The Appeals Court did not weigh in on the merits of the Flynn case, but rather on another question entirely. What was a routine District Court case now becomes a potentially ground breaking Appeals Court case. For that reason I think it is fairly likely that the Appeals Court will decide to review en banc. We don't know what Sullivan will do, he has more than one option.
More...
Maybe he plead guilty to protect his son. How many people are wrongfully incarcerated because they were forced to cop to a plea deal because their attorneys told them they had no chance regardless of their innocence? A lot.
 
vanzandt said:
Maybe he plead guilty to protect his son. How many people are wrongfully incarcerated because they were forced to cop to a plea deal because their attorneys told them they had no chance regardless of their innocence? A lot.
More...
Maybe. That's why Sullivan wanted a hearing on the matter, to get to the truth.
 
piezoe said:
The DOJ then asked the Appeals court to intervene and order Sullivan to close the case.
More...

Not really.

It was Flynn's attorney who petitioned for the writ of mandamus. Since the appeals court decided to hear the request, the DOJ was required to respond as an involved party.

Otherwise, Bill Barr expected Sullivan to just make a decision and then they would appeal it up to Appeals Court. And if the full appeals court becomes involved and decides to remand it to Sullivan to let him make an decision first which can then be appealed, Bill is more than fine with that, and moi aussi as I explained yesterday.

We can give Judge Asshole as many trips to the woodshed as he wants. The outcome will be the same. We can recycle it back for a full appeals court hearing, then back to Judge Asshole if they want to do that and then appeal it up to the Supreme Court. I am fine with all of it.

You also said: Sullivan in effect said, "not so fast DOJ. Let's hear from the other side before making a decision." Which is complete bullshit. There are only two sides in the case -the prosecution and the defense- and both have asked the court to dismiss the case. Judge Asshole has decided that he wants to bring in a third side to help him make his case. Except he should not be promoting any side. Refer to the Appeals Court decision and Ruthies case at the Supreme Court for more on this. The judiciary is not in the business of coming up with new cases if the parties in the original case no longer have a controversy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top