I think that's the plan to be honest. Not Flynn's plan but the Deepstate.
Because Flynn has already been proven innocent under the letter of the law. Deepstate can't win legally. So their only tactic is optics now.
So I think their plan is to do such a miscarriage of justice, force it to the Supreme Court, where the court will of course side with the law...but this will allow the media to paint it as "Trump's handpicked judges let Flynn go, Trump is corrupt!"
As I understand it, Flynn was coerced into pleading guilty a really long time ago, and the prosecution kept asking for a delay in sentencing. They delayed for so long, that Flynn got new defense in Sidney Powell, who convinced him to try and withdraw his plea deal. At the same time, Durham uncovered evidence showing foul play in the prosecution of Flynn, and as a result, the DOJ has dropped the case against him.
However, since Flynn already pled guilty, the Judge is now saying that he has the right to keep the trial going, and that if he decides not to allow Flynn to withdraw the guilty plea, then he can sentence him for the crime he pled guilty to, regardless of the fact that it was a coerced deal, and that the DOJ has withdrawn the case, ie. no longer claim Flynn is guilty of what he pled to.
It’s sick, and it will never hold up to constitutional challenge.
A guilty plea in court is really meaningless. People always plea based on their chances of winning and the cost of winning. It has nothing to do with with if someone is guilty or innocent.
It is meaningless. It just signals to the court whether you intend to fight and whether or not the prosecution has to bother with the burden to prove a crime was committed.
But its also (illegally) used by judges to determine how much they want to punish someone, for the trouble. So if you plead not guilty but are guilty, they can hit you hard in sentencing....which is ridiculous, because it's always the burden of the prosecution to prove a crime was committed, and a person may be able to waive that for expediency, but it can't exactly be taken away entirely, otherwise that's the same as disallowing a person to have the right of being innocent until proven guilty.
The wording is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not innocent until they say they are guilty. Of course you could say that a defendants own admittance of guilt is proof, and that's fine, but if they withdraw that admittance of guilt, then that's no different than having bad evidence, which wouldn't matter, because if the prosecution has other evidence of a crime than a guilty plea, they should just prosecute as normal, because the burden is still on them to prove guilt.
In a sick way, the only reasonable purpose of how it is now, is to entrap people that the prosecution may not have the goods on to truly prove guilt, to use it to scare them into a guilty plea.
A guilty plea should be able to be withdrawn at any time with NO kind of punishment. That might lead to some extra fuckery in the courts from defendants, but if prosecution has proven their case in a court, changing a plea to not guilty won't functionally change a thing about how the judicial system operates (or rather, should operate).
Neither do we, the judge has gone completely off the rails here.
The basic answer is that he didn't like that the DoJ dropped the prosecution due to prosecutorial misconduct, so he appointed his own prosecutor under the guise of an "amicus" to take over the state's role. Said "amicus" has already publicly declared Flynn guilty in an op-ed in a major paper. The court, as well, has called Flynn a "traitor" in open court, something in no way supported by any of the accusations against him.
He should absolutely be censured for abuse of discretion when they decide on this writ, but only in a just world if we draw a just judge to review this instead of someone biased.
Sullivan is using the “phone a friend” clause of the Constitution. It’s in the addendum, so not many people read that far.
If that fails, he has one last attempt. It’s the “No Whammy’s” gambit. They bring in the board from the game show and Flynn has one attempt to get “No Whammy’s.” If he does, he has to go to jail.
Amen. The only thing that makes me sad is that Susan Rice's CYA memo came out a day too late to be included here, it only makes the setup that much more obvious.
That said, the mandamus petition was everything I wanted and expected to read. I can't see a single missing beat here. In a just world, this would end with an order censuring Sullivan and dismissing the case.
I hear you, but we'll get a harshly worded rebuke from the appellate court if we're lucky :( The bad thing will be if we draw another biased judge and this has to go to the Supreme Court... they're already trying to impeach Trump over this.
Only in clown world is exposing their misconduct a crime.
Hell yeah, get these commie bastards smacked down!
Cap’msheeecannatakeuhnomooorrr!!!!
Choo choo, motherfuckers!
brakes = 0
PREPARE SHIP FOR LUDICROUS SPEED
Fasten all seat belts! Seal all entrances and exits! Close all shops in the mall! Cancel the three ring circus! Secure all animals in the zoo!
We've gone into plaid!
TIL you can't read "cancel the three ring circus" without hearing it exactly the way it was said.
"Druish princesses are often attracted to money, and power, and I have both, and you know it."
We're coming in hot!
Keep going to SCOTUS and then to Pitchfork convention if needed
Law firm of TAR AND FEATHER
I think that's the plan to be honest. Not Flynn's plan but the Deepstate.
Because Flynn has already been proven innocent under the letter of the law. Deepstate can't win legally. So their only tactic is optics now.
So I think their plan is to do such a miscarriage of justice, force it to the Supreme Court, where the court will of course side with the law...but this will allow the media to paint it as "Trump's handpicked judges let Flynn go, Trump is corrupt!"
Exactly! Do you really care if you piss off the hornet that is already trying to sting you!?!?
And what's to stop Judge Sullivan from just ignoring that ruling if it's in favor of Flynn?
Some people will only be stopped if the door to their office gets locked and a police officer strongarms them back to their car.
An army kekistani keyboard warriors?
That's impeachment. Incredibly rare and difficult to do, but a District Judge ignoring a ruling from a Court of Appeals? Out he goes.
By a Democrat controlled House...? Never going to happen.
OUT OUT OUT
There's another possibility in the Constitution that is overlooked: good-behavior tenure.
How To Remove A Federal Judge
Here’s what is so fvcked up. The ruling Sullivan pulled is suppose to protect the defendants NOT THE F’N GOVERNMENT
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Then they also get exposed.
Sullivan needs to be walked out in handcuffs. He has zero regard for the law and acts like a little tyrant.
I like the cut of your jib.
Sopranos!
Walking is for winners. This piece of Schiff deserves to be drug out.
Yes. Bit crazy since the judge is not the one with prosecutorial digression, no?
Furthermore, the judge went out of his way to submit more testimony.
Furthermore he called in a friend to do that who JUST RECENTLY penned an OP-ed against Flynn.
Furthermore, the supreme court JUST LAST WEEK ruled that americus briefs like this cannot be used except to help the defendant.
And let's not forget the entire mess that was this case
This judge needs to hang with the rest of them.
As I understand it, Flynn was coerced into pleading guilty a really long time ago, and the prosecution kept asking for a delay in sentencing. They delayed for so long, that Flynn got new defense in Sidney Powell, who convinced him to try and withdraw his plea deal. At the same time, Durham uncovered evidence showing foul play in the prosecution of Flynn, and as a result, the DOJ has dropped the case against him.
However, since Flynn already pled guilty, the Judge is now saying that he has the right to keep the trial going, and that if he decides not to allow Flynn to withdraw the guilty plea, then he can sentence him for the crime he pled guilty to, regardless of the fact that it was a coerced deal, and that the DOJ has withdrawn the case, ie. no longer claim Flynn is guilty of what he pled to.
It’s sick, and it will never hold up to constitutional challenge.
I want that asshole, anti-America, power-abusing judge to subjected to a "Constitutional Challenge".
I want him to play the piano aerially like an Italian fascist in a Esso parking lot
A guilty plea in court is really meaningless. People always plea based on their chances of winning and the cost of winning. It has nothing to do with with if someone is guilty or innocent.
There should be a third plea, no contest.
True. We got weirdos trying to take credits for murders out there and plead guilty but doesnt mean they are or will be sentenced for it.
It is meaningless. It just signals to the court whether you intend to fight and whether or not the prosecution has to bother with the burden to prove a crime was committed.
But its also (illegally) used by judges to determine how much they want to punish someone, for the trouble. So if you plead not guilty but are guilty, they can hit you hard in sentencing....which is ridiculous, because it's always the burden of the prosecution to prove a crime was committed, and a person may be able to waive that for expediency, but it can't exactly be taken away entirely, otherwise that's the same as disallowing a person to have the right of being innocent until proven guilty.
The wording is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not innocent until they say they are guilty. Of course you could say that a defendants own admittance of guilt is proof, and that's fine, but if they withdraw that admittance of guilt, then that's no different than having bad evidence, which wouldn't matter, because if the prosecution has other evidence of a crime than a guilty plea, they should just prosecute as normal, because the burden is still on them to prove guilt.
In a sick way, the only reasonable purpose of how it is now, is to entrap people that the prosecution may not have the goods on to truly prove guilt, to use it to scare them into a guilty plea.
A guilty plea should be able to be withdrawn at any time with NO kind of punishment. That might lead to some extra fuckery in the courts from defendants, but if prosecution has proven their case in a court, changing a plea to not guilty won't functionally change a thing about how the judicial system operates (or rather, should operate).
Neither do we, the judge has gone completely off the rails here.
The basic answer is that he didn't like that the DoJ dropped the prosecution due to prosecutorial misconduct, so he appointed his own prosecutor under the guise of an "amicus" to take over the state's role. Said "amicus" has already publicly declared Flynn guilty in an op-ed in a major paper. The court, as well, has called Flynn a "traitor" in open court, something in no way supported by any of the accusations against him.
He should absolutely be censured for abuse of discretion when they decide on this writ, but only in a just world if we draw a just judge to review this instead of someone biased.
Sullivan is using the “phone a friend” clause of the Constitution. It’s in the addendum, so not many people read that far.
If that fails, he has one last attempt. It’s the “No Whammy’s” gambit. They bring in the board from the game show and Flynn has one attempt to get “No Whammy’s.” If he does, he has to go to jail.
Amen. The only thing that makes me sad is that Susan Rice's CYA memo came out a day too late to be included here, it only makes the setup that much more obvious.
That said, the mandamus petition was everything I wanted and expected to read. I can't see a single missing beat here. In a just world, this would end with an order censuring Sullivan and dismissing the case.
Censure at a minimum, but so.ething this outrageous should be disbarment.
As you said - in a just world.
I hear you, but we'll get a harshly worded rebuke from the appellate court if we're lucky :( The bad thing will be if we draw another biased judge and this has to go to the Supreme Court... they're already trying to impeach Trump over this.
Only in clown world is exposing their misconduct a crime.