The Flynn Entrapment

[TreeFrogTrader]

I read both the Opinion and Wilkins Dissent. I found the Dissent to be Powerful and Compelling in comparison to the Opinion. I, of course, have no idea what the view of the remaining eight Appeals Court Judges will be. It is possible that if Judge Sullivan were allowed to proceed in the regular order he would dismiss the case with Prejudice. How will he dismiss it now. I suppose he could dismiss it without Prejudice. That would not be in Flynn's interest. The possibility of an en banc review remains as well.

As a practical matter a dismissal for Flynn- regardless of with or without prejudice- is an acquittal. The judge knows that, and everyone else does too.

To try him again on the issue would be to subject him to double jeopardy which is not allowed under the Constitution. Jeopardy- the first time- attaches to a case when it has been put before a jury or if it is a bench trial with just a judge then it attaches when the first witness is called. A defendant is considered to have been put in jeopardy at that point. If a case is dismissed before that then the defendant can be tried again because he was just subjected to preliminary filings and maneuvering. Since Flynn plead to a deal then those two conditions were arguably not met- no jury, no witnesses called, I don't think. However, jeopardy is also considered to have occured (ie, it is attached to the case in legal parlance)when the judge accepts a guilty plea from a defendant- and that has it occurred.

So basically the case is far enough along that legally and constitutionally the defendant has been exposed to jeopardy once. The prosecutor therefore must do the deed and get a conviction or stand down and allow a dismissal knowing that it will also be an acquittal. There are rare exceptions which I will not go into now, and do not confuse a dismissal with a mistrial when you google around in your attempt to be an expert.

For a few million dollars you can get a legal team to argue against the double jeopardy barrier but it not the side that an attorney wants to be on.

Ironically, Flynn has a request to withdraw his guilty plea which Judge Asshole has not granted yet that guilty plea acceptance is what will prevent double jeopardy. Yet if Asshole approves the request to withdraw, then that just means that Flynn can go to trial but the government stands there ready to say that it is not interested in or able to prosecute him due to misconduct by its own agents. womp...womp...womp.

As I have said many times, Judge Asshole can keep this thing going for several more rounds if he wants. It is just a matter of how much he wants to disgrace himself with his superiors and colleagues. The outcome wil be the same though. Flynn is going to walk and not need a pardon to do it.

Keep googling Peizo. We will find something for you to be right about.

 

[piezoe]

To try him again on the issue would be to subject him to double jeopardy which is not allowed under the Constitution.

If the case is dismissed without prejudice, double jeopardy does not apply. Flynn could be indicted again on the same charges so long as the statute has not run. I doubt that would happen however. But it could. If you want to convince yourself of this, try googling it. Nowadays, I'm sure the information you seek is readily available.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

If the case is dismissed without prejudice double jeopardy does not apply. Flynn could be indicted again on the same charges so long as the statute has not run. I doubt that would happen however. But it could. If you want to convince yourself of this, try googling it. Nowadays, I'm sure the information you seek is readily available.

The judge has the power to do all sorts of things that will not hold up under legal challenge down the road. I think that should be abundantly clear based on the pickle he is in now. He had his fun but now he is struggling to find a way out.

Similarly, he can dismiss without prejudice but if anyone tries to prosecute again they have to overcome the argument that he has already been subjected to jeopardy once. The fact that Judge Arsehole dismisses without prejudice does not clear that constitutional matter. As Judge Asshole is finding out, defendants get to have attorneys and make cases too.

The outcome is the same. Flynn walks. As discussed before, you are the google doctor who argues that you are right about every little thing, except all your patients die. Ditto for the Flynn case. Flynn is going to walk. You will have a list of all sorts of side issues that should have or could have been right.

In any case, we are about to move into a phase where there will be others under threat of prosecution- swamp and Obama types. Then you will have to google around and find all sorts of arcane arguments about why they are immune. Go for it. You have a boner for prosecuting Flynn for perjury but never say a peep about prosecuting McCabe who was fired for perjury as determined by the independent inspector general. Why is that? Nevermind.

 

[piezoe]

The fact that Judge Arsehole dismisses without prejudice does not clear that constitutional matter.

Sorry, but this is incorrect.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Sorry, but this is incorrect.

100% correct.

The determining factor as to whether the double jeopardy prohibition applies is where the case advanced to the point whether the defendant was exposed to jeopardy in the original case. A judge accepting a guilty plea has been determined to be such and same. If so, then there is a constitutional barrier to prosecuting again.

If that first exposure occurred, the court cannot make it go away simply by issuing a motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court can do whatever it wants as I said. I am not going to tell you that he cannot or will not dismiss without prejudice. I am saying though that it does not remove the constitutional defense that the defendant has if he is charged again. As we have already seen, Judge Asshole can do all sorts of things that do not hold up under challenge and appeal. Asshole can do all sorts of things to disgrace himself even more and probably will. Unfortunately for Asshole, Flynn has a real attorney now and things have gone badly for Judge Asshole ever since she showed up.

Sidney Powell. Man of the Year.

Judge Sullivan. Asshole of the Year.

 

[piezoe]

Sidney Powell. Man of the Year.

It remains to be seen just how flattered she'll be by your nomination.

 

[Dr. Love]

 

[WeToddDid2]

“He was going to audit the intel agencies because he knew about the billions Brennan and company were running off the books,” Powell said.

 

[Tony Stark]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/09/jud...n-forcing-him-to-drop-michael-flynn-case.html

• The judge in Michael Flynn’s criminal case asked a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling ordering him to dismiss the prosecution of the former national security advisor to President Donald Trump.
• Judge Emmet Sullivan’s lawyer asked for a so-called en banc review of the decision of the appeals court, which would involve all active judges on the court rehearing the case.
• Trump has criticized the case against Flynn, who admitted lying to FBI agents about his discussions with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. before Trump was inaugurated

The judge in Michael Flynn’s criminal case asked a federal appeals court Thursday to reconsider its ruling ordering him to dismiss the criminal case against the former national security advisor to President Donald Trump.

Judge Emmet Sullivan’s lawyer asked for a so-called en banc review of the 2-1 decision of the three-judge appeals court panel.

If the review is granted, all active judges on the appeals court would rehear Flynn’s argument that the case needs to be dismissed by Sullivan, without any delay or input from outside parties, as Sullivan has allowed.

A lawyer for Sullivan argued in a lengthy court filing that the appeals panel’s order to quickly grant the Department of Justice’s request to drop its prosecution of Flynn “threatens to turn ordinary judicial process upside down.”

“It is the district court’s job to consider and rule on pending motions, even ones that seem straightforward,” wrote Sullivan’s lawyer, Beth Wilkinson, in that filing.

“This Court, if called upon, reviews those decisions—it does not preempt them.”

Wilkinson also wrote that while the appeals panel’s decision “is couched as a fact-bound ruling,” it “in fact marks a dramatic break from precedent that threatens the orderly administration of justice.”

The Justice Department and Flynn’s lawyer, Sidney Powell, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In its decision ordering that the case be dismissed, the appeals panel had said that the executive branch of the federal government, which includes the Justice Department, has “primacy over charging decisions.”

Appeals Judge Neomi Rao wrote in that panel’s decision that it was appropriate to order Sullivan to dismiss the case after he slow-walked his decision in order “to prevent the judicial usurpation of executive power.”

En banc reviews are rarely granted. But Flynn’s case has been unusual for years, and such a move would not be the oddest thing to happen in the case.

Flynn, 61, in December 2017 pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with Sergey Kislyak, the then-Russian ambassador to the U.S., in the weeks before Trump’s inauguration the prior January.

The charge was brought as part of then-special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Flynn was nearly sentenced in December 2018. But his sentencing hearing was aborted when he accepted Sullivan’s offer to postpone it until he had finished cooperating with law enforcement officials as part of his plea agreement.

In 2019, however, Flynn replaced his legal team with Powell, who began laying the groundwork for what became Flynn’s request to withdraw his guilty plea.

The Justice Department had opposed Powell’s efforts until May, when, in a stunning reversal, the department told Sullivan it wanted to drop the prosecution.

The department argued to Sullivan that a review of the investigation found that Flynn should not have been questioned by the FBI, much less charged with lying to federal agents.

The department also said that potentially exculpatory evidence had been withheld from Flynn’s lawyers.

Sullivan did not immediately grant the request to dismiss the charge. Instead, the judge appointed a lawyer, former federal judge John Gleeson, to make arguments to him about why the case should not be tossed out.

Sullivan also said he would consider arguments for or against the dismissal request from third parties not involved in the case.

Gleeson later told Sullivan in a court filing the Justice Department engaged in “a gross abuse of prosecutorial power” in seeking to drop the case against Flynn and “has engaged in highly irregular conduct to benefit a political ally of the President.”

Flynn’s lawyers then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, requesting that it force the lower court to grant the DOJ’s request to dismiss the charge. The appeals panel ruled in Flynn’s and the Justice Department’s favor last month.

 

[Tony Stark]

Thank you Judge Sullivan,you are an American hero