33 thoughts on “ABC: DOJ moves to dismiss case against former Trump adviser Michael Flynn

    1. Including Flynn again. There are, conservatively estimated, 10s of 1000s of Federal laws. That’s estimates, plural, and not a count. I don’t believe there has ever been a successful count because court decisions and appeals have, in addition to clarifying some laws, a multiplicative effect on others. Then there are laws created by treaty.

      The upshot is that Joe Sixpack can be prosecuted for almost daily violations. The example I have heard in a lecture involved buying frozen lobster tails at a grocery can put you in violation of a treaty with Chile. I don’t recall the exact situation but you wind up being possession of an endangered species, punishable by fines for each tail.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I’m still wondering WHY Flynn lied about trump promising to lift the sanctions on Russia.

        WHY lie about that?

        There MUST be a reason that is being used by Flynn as leverage over trump….

        Liked by 1 person

    2. RE: “That’s OK, there will be plenty of others to prosecute.”

      Yup. I expect the fantasy that the prior administration was acting in good faith to become increasingly difficult to sustain.

      Like

  1. I’m wondering why it’s so quiet from the regular posters? Usually the responses are quick when news like this breaks.

    Like

      1. “What is your considered opinion about this topic?”

        Now that there are over 29 comments here, I am wondering if nivlac can bring anything worthwhile to the table.

        Actually, I’m not really wondering. He can’t.

        Like

        1. What’s odd is that he and a couple of others we’ve seen, and some we haven’t but have talked to Don, lament that there is too much criticism of Trump. Warranted or not.

          So they don’t want to jump in the discussion. Yet the whole point of a political blog is spirited discussion with some citations here and there to back up claims.

          Just a few more conservatives or libertarians, Trump supporters or not, and the liberals would be matched or outnumbered.

          IMHO

          Liked by 1 person

    1. “news like this breaks“

      I typically investigate an issue prior to commenting. It took some time to read Barr’s, as it turns out, utter and complete travesty of a legal opinion.

      I had to really dig in because as I read and cross referenced I became increasingly incredulous at the distortions and outright lies that Barr was basing his position(s) on.

      Another setback for justice and rule of law…

      Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “I had to really dig in because as I read and cross referenced I became increasingly incredulous at the distortions and outright lies that Barr was basing his position(s) on.”

        If you in fact did all that work, you should have noticed that Barr didn’t write the motion to dismiss.

        Like

        1. “Barr didn’t write the motion” ?

          You truly don’t know how it works, do you?

          Positions are “crafted” and vetted by the AG. WHO wrote it is irrelevant. It represents the DOJ opinion and ultimately HIS position, which he attempted to defend yesterday.

          Are you being pedantic again or just ignorant?

          Liked by 3 people

          1. RE: “Are you being pedantic again or just ignorant?”

            I question your claim that you did all the work you claim to have done. You criticize Barr for legal reasoning which he did not in fact perform. Since you provide no evidence of your work, and since you missed this significant detail, I doubt the credibility of anything you say in your comment.

            Like

          2. Todd, I certainly understand, given your posts and comments, questioning other people fact checking and reading through what was ACTUALLY said and written on complex issues.

            I’d suggest you listen to Barr’s own words defending the legal reasoning used by Shea to do trump’s bidding.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. My understanding is that Sullivan has yet determined exactly what he intends to do.

            The WSJ editorial on Flynn was obviously bought and paid for by the Big Money crowd to help avert overwhelming public out rage…

            Liked by 1 person

  2. It is still up to the federal judge in the case. He might call for an investigation as to why this sudden reversal.

    He has listened to 2 guilty pleas, a change of attorneys, and pressure from the White House. It will be interesting indeed to see if he agrees or not.

    I listened to 2 prosecutors, one who thinks the dismissal would be a farce and the other who felt justice is being done by the dismissal.

    (It was an interview by Judy Woodruff on the PBS Newshour, one of the few places that would bring in such a divergent couple and let them both talk at length.)

    The dismissal seems to be based on the idea that what he lied about was not material to the case. Not that he didn’t lie to the FBI, that is not in contention. He did talk to the Russians and said he didn’t. He also did not register as a foreign agent for Turkey. I am not sure if he lied about that too.

    He sounds like the perfect top security advisor for this administration. He would fit right in.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Yes, the judge actually has the power to appoint an investigator, or call for the DoJ IG to present a report. Technically, he could table his decision until long after the 2024 elections. I don’t believe there is a statute of limitations on sentencing. Flynn stands convicted.

      Liked by 4 people

    2. RE: “It is still up to the federal judge in the case. ”

      No. Judge Sullivan has already granted the motion to dismiss.

      Like

      1. I didn’t know that.

        Still, it was up to the judge to accept or reject the dismissal.

        We abide by the rule of law and friends in high places.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. I could not find the dismissal yet. Do you have a cite?

        “ It is now up to the federal judge in Washington overseeing the case, Emmet G. Sullivan, to decide whether to dismiss it and close off the possibility that Mr. Flynn could be tried again for the same crime. If the judge wants, he could ask for written submissions and hold a hearing on that topic.”. NYT, 5/7/20

        Liked by 3 people

        1. @Adam Green
          @lenrothman

          RE: “I could not find the dismissal yet. Do you have a cite?”

          Yes. In its lead editorial this morning, The Vindication of Michael Flynn, WSJ provides this PDF that contains both the motion to dismiss and Judge Sullivan’s order granting the motion. You’ll find the order on page 21 of the file:

          https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.198.0_6.pdf?mod=article_inline

          Liked by 1 person

          1. OK, so it is a done deal.

            Trump didn’t have to waste another pardon for his coterie of criminals. Barr did it for him.

            No matter the spin, and there will be plenty, Flynn lied and pleaded guilty twice to lying, and a loophole was found. Not a good one, but enough to provide cover for the AG to please supporters.

            Like I said, the rule of law and friends in high places.

            What a travesty of justice.

            Liked by 3 people

          2. I’m not sure if it IS a done deal. Yes, the page is there in the filing, but unlike the Motion from DOJ, the Judge’s order does not indicate signature.

            It is standard practice for attorneys to prepare ALL documents relative to a filing, including the Judge’s order. Also, the Judge has the option to change the order from …”dismissed WITH prejudice”… meaning charges cannot be refiled to “WITHOUT prejudice” and the charges could be refiled under a separate indictment.

            I am NOT saying he didn’t sign it yet. I am saying the evidence posted does not say one way or the other.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. RE: “No matter the spin, and there will be plenty, Flynn lied and pleaded guilty twice to lying…”

            Of superior relevance is the fact Obama’s DOJ and FBI lied. Unless you intend to argue that such behavior is acceptable, you are barking up the wrong tree.

            Like

          4. Lying is not acceptable by anyone. But in Flynn’s case, what the DOJ under Trump did is immaterial.

            “ FBI agents interviewed Flynn on Jan. 24, 2017. It was days after Trump’s inauguration, and the FBI was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and Russian contacts with Trump’s campaign.
            Flynn told the FBI that he did not ask Kislyak to refrain from escalating the situation, which was false. Flynn also said he did not recall Kislyak calling back two days later to tell him that Russia had abided by Flynn’s request.
            Flynn also made false statements to the FBI about his lobbying work for Turkey and about another contact with the Russian ambassador over Dec. 22 and Dec. 23, 2016, pertaining to a U.N. Security Council Resolution on Israeli settlements, according to his guilty plea.”

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/07/understanding-twists-turns-michael-flynn-case/

            So Flynn lied and got away with it.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. RE: “It is standard practice for attorneys to prepare ALL documents relative to a filing, including the Judge’s order.”

            That didn’t occur to me. I appreciate the heads up.

            Like

  3. Lot’s of questions being raised by legal scholars on the Flynn dismissal and it’s origins. This one I found interesting and compelling.

    https://thebulwark.com/flynn-dismissal-bill-barr-thumbs-his-nose-at-justice/?utm_source=The+Bulwark+Newsletter&utm_campaign=99ffd9ec69-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_05_08_11_06&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f4bd64ac2e-99ffd9ec69-80816622

    The bona fides on the author are unquestionable.

    DOJ – Fully Owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Here is another LEGAL take on the move by DOJ to dismiss charges against Flynn.

    https://www.lawfareblog.com/ugly-day-justice-department

    Worthy of note (IMO) – “The government’s 20-page brief is not an honest document—perhaps the reason that it is signed only by Timothy Shea, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia—and not a single one of the career prosecutors who worked on the case. That may also be the reason why Brandon Van Grack, the prosecutor who has worked the case from the beginning, moved to withdraw from the case entirely just hours before the Justice Department filed its motion.”

    So the prosecutor who worked the case form the jump quit right before the memo was released? SMH?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s