The Remains of administration - Obama scandals coming to light

[Ender]

This is also ordinary negotiation between prosecution and defense, it happens all the time, e.g. in mafia cases. Flynn was asked more than once, under oath, if he was entering a guilty plea because he was guilty and for no other reason. He said yes.

You’re right, this kind of extortion is very mafia-like. The thing is, the agreement Flynn made was in part based on the understanding that the DOJ would not pursue his son, an agreement that was supposed to be revealed to the court.

Under federal law, all understandings that are relevant to a guilty plea must be disclosed to the judge. It would be not merely a serious ethical breach for government lawyers to fail to reveal such an arrangement. It would be a fraud on the court.

Explosive Revelations in the Flynn Case | National Review

New documents suggest that Flynn ‘was set up by corrupt agents’ who threatened Flynn’s son and made a secret deal with Flynn’s attorneys.

www.nationalreview.com

This is also ordinary negotiation between prosecution and defense, it happens all the time, e.g. in mafia cases. Flynn was asked more than once, under oath, if he was entering a guilty plea because he was guilty and for no other reason. He said yes.

This is irrelevant to the question of whether, after the government has decided to drop the charges, the trial judge can proceed.

 

[Ender]

Let’s take these one at a time and discuss the Turkey question later.

Regarding Turkey: Flynn never pleaded guilty to anything related to Turkey, so that’s a non-issue. He admitted to one charge (not two) of lying to the FBI.

Michael Flynn plea agreement documents.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

He was PROTECTING HIS SON. Get over what he said and look at the GLARING IN YOUR FACE corruptive/malfeasant actions that led to the false charges in the first place, i.e., stop putting the cart in front of the horse!!

Lying about your guilt to cover up for your son’s crimes is a crime all by itself.

They LIED TO HIM about the nature of that interview!

This is not relevant. They are allowed to do this.

Please address the question of why, if these things are disqualifying, did the DOJ not use them as a justification in its motion to dismiss?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Regarding Turkey: Flynn never pleaded guilty to anything related to Turkey,​

I guess you didn’t bother to read your own link, or forgot that I started off by indicating I had already read the actual court filings:​

1. On March 7, 2017, FLYNN filed multiple documents with the Department of Justice pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act pertaining to a project performed by him and his company, the Intel Group, Inc. for the principal benefit of the Republic of Turkey (“Turkey project”).
   In the filings, FLYNN made materially false statements and omissions

The two FBI lies he plead guilty to were, again quoting from the statement of offense which you yourself linked to:
One:

During the interview, falsely stated that he did not ask Russia?s Ambassador to the United States (“Russian Ambassador”) to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia.

Two:

During the January 24 voluntary interview, made additional false statements about calls he made to Russia and several other countries regarding a resolution submitted by Egypt to the United Nations Security Council on December 21, 2016.

I’m sure you also failed to notice the following:

Your client understands that by pleading guilty in this case your client agrees to waive
certain rights afforded by the Constitution of the United States and/or by statute or rule. Your
client agrees to forgo the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already
provided at the time of the entry of your client’s guilty plea. Your client also agrees to waive,
among other rights, the right to be indicted by a Grand Jury, the right to plead not guilty, and the
right to a jury trial…
In the event of such a breach [of the plea agreement]: the Government will be free from its obligations under this Agreement; your client will not have the right to withdraw the guilty plea; your client will be fully subject to criminal prosecution for any other crimes, including perjury and obstruction of justice

Which obviously torpedoes your entire “there should have been more disclosures” argument.

 

[josie_L]

No, they are not. They broke with FBI protocol. James Comey even admitted as much in an interview. It was disgusting.

Note: The DOJ is doing something NOW.

 

[Ender]

I guess you didn’t bother to read your own link, or forgot that I started off by indicating I had already read the actual court filings:

The link I provided listed one charge of making two false statements. There was nothing about Turkey in it.

Your client agrees to forgo the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of your client’s guilty plea.

What he didn’t waive was his right to the documents that the DOJ was already legally bound to deliver but never did. Given the dishonesty on the part of the government it would seem they undermined their own position.

In the event of such a breach [of the plea agreement]: the Government will be free from its obligations under this Agreement; your client will not have the right to withdraw the guilty plea;…

But the plea was withdrawn, so apparently this snippet doesn’t mean quite what you think it does.

Which obviously torpedoes your entire “there should have been more disclosures” argument.

Documents were clearly withheld to which Flynn had a legal right before the plea was made. His plea was made under a false presentation by the DOJ; their malfeasance cannot cost him his legal rights.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The link I provided listed one charge of making two false statements.

There was nothing about Turkey in it.​

Your link pointed to three documents, including this document, which I quoted directly. I invite everyone to look for themselves. You can find the quote on page 5.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/4318156/Flynn-Statement-of-Offense.pdf

On March 7, 2017, FLYNN filed multiple documents with the Department of Justice pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act pertaining to a project performed by him and his company, the Flynn Intel Group, Inc. for the principal benefit of the Republic of Turkey (“Turkey project”).
In the filings, FLYNN made materially false statements and omissions

Here is a screenshot of me reading the relevant section on the lawfareblog link you posted:​

[Album] imgur.com

 

[JapaneseKappa]

But the plea was withdrawn, so apparently this snippet doesn’t mean quite what you think it does.

Once again, you should probably read the documents before telling people what they say:

Your client acknowledges discussing with you Rule 11(t) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which ordinarily limit the admissibility of statements made by a defendant in the course of plea discussions or plea proceedings if a guilty plea is later withdrawn. Your client knowingly and voluntarily waives the rights that arise under these rules in the event your client withdraws your client?s guilty plea or withdraws from this Agreement after signing it.

What he didn’t waive was his right to the documents that the DOJ was already legally bound to deliver but never did. Given the dishonesty on the part of the government it would seem they undermined their own position.

So then the DOJ should make that case in their motion to dismiss. Why didn’t they? Why did they ignore the Turkey issue entirely?

Why not follow the ordinary procedure when there is prosecutorial misconduct and ask the judge to declare a mistrial? (I’ll give you a hint: would Flynn consent if the prosecution asked for a mistrial?)

 

[Ender]

Your link pointed to three documents, including this document, which I quoted directly. I invite everyone to look for themselves. You can find the quote on page 5.

The Charging document I cited was barely two pages. It contained one charge with two counts. You are referring to the Statement of Offense document which contained offenses, including a FARA violation with regard to Turkey, for which he was not charged. “Dropping the charges” refers solely to the one thing he was actually charged with.

Ender:

But the plea was withdrawn, so apparently this snippet doesn’t mean quite what you think it does.

Once again, you should probably read the documents before telling people what they say:

Flynn petitioned to withdraw his guilty plea; that much is obvious. If he was legally prohibited from doing so the rejection from the judge would have been immediate and clear, but that didn’t happen. Whatever is going on from a legal standpoint it is apparent that there is a lot more involved than “Well he can’t do that”…because he did.

Why did they ignore the Turkey issue entirely?

Probably because the DOJ never had any intention of trying to prove a FARA violation, and was using that charge to bolster the threat of going after his son for the same offense.

Why not follow the ordinary procedure when there is prosecutorial misconduct and ask the judge to declare a mistrial?

The misconduct involved charges for “crimes” that were never committed. Declaring a mistrial leaves the threat hanging for future prosecution; dropping the charges with prejudice ends the charade.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Probably because the DOJ never had any intention of trying to prove a FARA violation, and was using that charge to bolster the threat of going after his son for the same offense.

Prosecutors: We know you did these things. Plead guilty and cooperate, then we will only charge you with one of the less serious things.

Flynn: Ok. Judge, I am guilty of all those things.

Prosecutors: So judge, he’s gonna cooperate, so we’re only going to charge him with one of the less serious offenses.

Judge: Flynn, you sure you guilty?

Flynn: Yes

Judge: Ok. I accept that you are guilty, but see you are willing to help out. Prosecutors only bringing the less serious offense is reasonable.

Flynn: I’m not actually guilty and want out of the agreement.

Prosecutors: Haha that’s nice, also we don’t think we can prove the one less serious offense even though the Judge already found you guilty.

Judge: Wait a minute. What about all that other stuff I accepted you were guilty of, but weren’t charged with because of the deal with prosecutors that is now off the table?

 

[Ender]

Prosecutors : We know you did these things. Plead guilty and cooperate, then we will only charge you with one of the less serious things.

You are free to speculate, but that’s the difference between your posts and mine. I’m simply repeating what has actually occurred.

• There was no basis for the interview.
• There was no valid investigation.
• Even had Flynn lied the lies could not have been material (because there was no valid investigation), therefore there could not have been a crime.
• The prosecution withheld exculpatory documents in violation of the Brady order given by Judge Sullivan.
• The prosecution did not disclose the side deal regarding Flynn’s son as required by law.

I don’t need to invent a scenario. The actual events are damning enough.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You are free to speculate, but that’s the difference between your posts and mine. I’m simply repeating what has actually occurred.

I’m not speculating, it is right there in the agreement Flynn signed:

1. Additional Charges
   In consideration of your client’s guilty plea to the above offense, your client will not be further prosecuted criminally by this Offce for the conduct set forth in the attached Statement of Offense.

 

[Ender]

I’m not speculating, it is right there in the agreement Flynn signed:

Well there you go: he was not charged with a FARA violation with regard to his work with Turkey, so dismissing what he was charged with doesn’t need to account for that.

 

[qui_est_ce]

JapaneseKappa:

I’m not speculating, it is right there in the agreement Flynn signed:

Well there you go: he was not charged with a FARA violation with regard to his work with Turkey, so dismissing what he was charged with doesn’t need to account for that.

I thought defendants had the right to withdraw guilty pleas under certain circumstances, like
for misconduct by the defendant’s lawyer or failing to introduce exonerating evidence. I also read that a judge must set aside a guilty plea if the defendant is innocent whether or not the defendant asks to withdraw the plea.

Is that not the case here?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I also read that a judge must set aside a guilty plea if the defendant is innocent whether or not the defendant asks to withdraw the plea.

The judge has already accepted the guilty plea. He is awaiting sentencing. The judge postponed sentencing in late 2018 and again in early 2020. That is why the DOJ’s move is so bizarre, they are literally saying “we don’t think we can prove to the court he is guilty” when their only remaining job is to tell the judge what they think the sentence should be.

failing to introduce exonerating evidence.

The DOJ itself says they did not improperly withhold documents:

While those documents, along with other recently available information, see, e.g., Doc. 198-6, are relevant to the government’s discretionary decision to dismiss this case, the government’s motion is not based on defendant Flynn’s broad allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. Flynn’s allegations are unfounded and provide no basis for impugning the prosecutors from the D.C. United States Attorney’s Office.

(Page 28, https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.227.0_10.pdf)

misconduct by the defendant’s lawyer

if Flynn’s lawyers were chefs in restaurants, they would be working in a Michelin star kitchen. At no point was Flynn represented by some sketchy food truck in an empty parking lot. Obviously anyone can make mistakes, but it is going to be a huge bar to clear to prove his lawyers were deficient in any meaningful way.

 

[Ender]

The DOJ itself says they did not improperly withhold documents:

No, that isn’t what was said. What the DOJ asserted is that the motion to dismiss was not based on “broad” allegations of misconduct. That doesn’t say there wasn’t misconduct, only that - whether it was there or not - that isn’t why they requested dismissal.

 

[Ender]

It’s not a long sentence (2 1/2 years), but it shows that leaking classified material comes with actual risk, at least to low-level employees. We’ll see if the upper echelons are similarly treated. Leaking is so endemic among bureaucrats in Washington this must come as an unwelcome surprise.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Glad someone is held responsible, but I have absolutely zero faith that such standards will be applied to senior people like Comey, or Clinton.

 

[Ender]

For an administration to punish some of its own is unlikely; that was surely the case previously, but that’s not the situation now. Crimes were committed, and I see little likelihood that they will be glossed over as a favor to those who committed them. I don’t think there is any question that people will be prosecuted in most instances where any kind of reasonable case can be made.

 

[Ender]

Update on Flynn: his writ of mandamus has been approved (at least in part) by the DC Court of Appeals. Specifically:

ORDERED that Flynn’s petition for a writ of mandamus be granted in part; the District Court is directed to grant the governments Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss; and the District Court’s order appointing an amicus is hereby vacated as moot, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date

It appears that Sullivan may finally end what should never have been begun.

Even now there are documents slowly being released that expose and uncover those responsible. The latest being hand written notes from Peter Strzok regarding the meeting with Obama, Comey, Yates, Biden and Susan Rice. From those notes:

Biden: “Logan Act”

Obama: “Have the right people on” Flynn case.

Comey: The Flynn/Kislyak calls “appear legit.”

Amazing comment from Comey, and, inasmuch as Biden publicly claimed on an MSNBC interview…

“I was never a part or had any knowledge of any criminal investigation into Flynn while I was in office, period. Not one single time.”

… it is significant that he was the one to bring up the Logan Act in the first place. Every day the list of those involved with this travesty gets longer.

Peter Strzok Notes from January 2017 Meeting with Obama, Comey, Biden Released; Further Exonerate Flynn

redstate.com