Multiple judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit suggested Tuesday that the “integrity” of the judicial branch was at stake in the dispute between Michael Flynn and the judge presiding over Flynn’s case.
It’s easier to go down a slippery slope than up.
”The Justice Department insisted that Flynn’s judge had virtually no choice but to dismiss the prosecution — and the DOJ held firm to that line even in the face of hypotheticals posed by judges in which courts would have clear evidence that prosecutors had been bribed into dropping criminal cases.”
“Hypothetical”?
I was there for the entire four hours, and I don’t know where you go that title from.
Looks like click-bait to me. Because it isn’t at all representative of your OWN REPORTERS’ comments during the proceeding.
WTF?
“Appellate Judges To DOJ: Is Court’s ‘Integrity’ At Stake In Flynn Dispute?”
The way I see it is that the DOJ’s integrity is already shot. The question now is will the judiciary be willing accomplices to the executive’s perfidy, sullying what’s left of the judiciary’s integrity (which is badly eroded by the Republicans politicization of the judiciary)
So the DOJ basically wants the judges to accept Benadick Donnie and Barf Barr as the Borg. The judicial branch power will be assimilated and resistance is futile.
Interesting to see if the courts agree.
Damn good question. Rule of Law? or Rule of Autocrat?
Not sure what you are getting at.
Title: Appellate Judges To DOJ: Is Court’s ‘Integrity’ At Stake In Flynn Dispute?
Article:
“The integrity and the independence of the courts is also encroached here,” Judge Cornelia Pillard told DOJ attorney Jeffrey Wall at Tuesday’s hearing
…“The court wants to protect the integrity of the court and not grant the motion,” she said, as that would make the court “privy and party to closing the” bribery deal the hypothetical laid out.
Seems to me the title is entirely consistent with the contents of the article and the hearing.
A prediction: the full D.C. Circuit will allow Judge Sullivan to take additional evidence on (the obviously improper) DOJ request to dismiss with prejudice Michael Flynn’s case. This will drag on until after the election. Assuming Trump loses, Flynn will get pardoned by his co-conspirator Trump. In this circumstance, Flynn will be subpoenaed by the new AG to testify on the conspiracy of the Trump campaign and Russia. Flynn will have no 5th Amendment protection. He will then have a choice: perjure himself/refuse to testify and face jail or turn on Trump.
I think Michael Flynn is screwed.
Now Trump is attempting to force jurist on this court to aid and abet his unethical behavior.
I hope you are right. He will learn the true meaning of “lock her up”
I think the hypotheticals make it clear where this court’s majority decision is going. There’s no way that they are going to rule that a sitting federal judge has to look the other way when they think the prosecution is acting improperly, whether that’s to railroad a criminal defendant or give the defendant special favorable treatment when there’s obvious and open political influence from POTUS.
Normally, when the prosecutor comes forward after a defendant is convicted (and Flynn pleaded guilty TWICE to this judge which carries with it a guilty verdict), and wants the judge to throw out the verdict (or plea) and dismiss the charges, they have a VERY good defensible reason for it, using incontrovertible new evidence. In this case, however, the DOJ hasn’t given a good reason for their motion and also refuses to offer any explanation for it beyond vague assertions of someone else’s improper actions. And the prosecution isn’t even interested in pursuing other charges against Flynn for unrelated crimes he admitted to under the plea agreement!
The judge smells a rat and wants to get to the bottom of it. Trump & DOJ is the rats and they don’t want any investigation into it. These appellate judges also smell a rat and aren’t going to stop the judge from at least looking into it before forcing him to let the rats eat their free meal.
I got your hypothetical right here:
He is eligible for a pardon, too, since he admitted guilt…unlike Fucking Roger Stone.
Unless it’s a ramp.
O/T but so worth a read.
"Douthat’s main critique of Stevens and the rest of the Lincoln Project crew is spot-on.
…
We can certainly say the same thing with equal accuracy about Steve Schmidt, Rick Wilson, George Conway, and the other ex-Republican strategists who dominate the Never Trump movement. Even when they ostensibly cop to having some responsibility for creating the monster that devoured the country, they do very little explaining about how they were so blinded for so long. They’re all like King Oedipus, clawing their eyes out when they realize that they’re the cause of the plague. But Oedipus could not have known he was killing his father or bedding his mother, while these political mercenaries were well aware that they were exploiting and stoking the religious conservatism and racial bigotry of a segment of Americans for the political benefit of rich people.
The thing about mercenaries is that you only hire them when you need them. They’re inherently unreliable because they’re always for sale. Right now, they’re acting as volunteer soldiers against Trump, and perhaps there’s a genuine desire for atonement involved here. Still, even if they’re not expecting the Democratic Party or its candidates to pay them, they’re still trying to sell books and make a buck.
Douthat is actually fairly successful in exposing their game, despite his idiosyncratic take on the subject. I won’t reject their help as long as it’s free, but I don’t recommend handing them your money."
TPM’s own reporting, 12:06PM:
Millett makes clear she is talking about actions that would have “sullied the reputation of the court” by making it party to a bribery deal that was “clear as rain.”
This shibboleth again. TPM really should do a pardon-splainer.
After being pardoned you still may have 5th amendment protections for state criminal liability for the crime you were pardoned for. You have liability for other, related crimes, for which you were not pardoned, including crimes you “just remembered”. You have ongoing liability for the perjury trap the line of questioning represents.
The other pardon myth. You think Richard Nixon admitted guilt? How bout senator-for-sale Rod Blagojevich? Joe Arpaio?