- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Flynn hearing live audio stream (9:30 am EST)
Posted on 8/11/20 at 9:47 am to boosiebadazz
Posted on 8/11/20 at 9:47 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Barr has even come out and said there were no Brady violations
yeah notes from investigator saying "how can we set up defendant" would be a good start
1
Posted on 8/11/20 at 9:48 am to GumboPot
If Susan Rice plead guilty to a crime and then Obama’s DOJ tried to dismiss the prosecution afterwards I doubt you all would be reacting the same way 
Posted on 8/11/20 at 9:49 am to GumboPot
yep.
Posted on 8/11/20 at 9:49 am to Strannix
Then Barr needs to admit there were Brady violations, throw Van Grack under the bus, and move on.
Posted on 8/11/20 at 9:49 am to cajunangelle
This court is more lib than 9th circuit at this point
Posted on 8/11/20 at 9:52 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
If Susan Rice plead guilty to a crime and then Obama’s DOJ tried to dismiss the prosecution afterwards I doubt you all would be reacting the same way
Actually no. It's a separation of powers issue. Once the prosecution decides not to go forward--whether bribed, corrupt, etc.--it is over.
At some point, someone has to prosecute. Who? This is separation of powers. The executive branch prosecutes. No one else gets to. The judge doesn't get to appoint someone else to prosecute. It is ONLY the DOJ who decides when and how to prosecute.
Posted on 8/11/20 at 9:52 am to boosiebadazz
Garland just did a reclaiming my time
Posted on 8/11/20 at 9:53 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
If Susan Rice plead guilty to a crime and then Obama’s DOJ tried to dismiss the prosecution afterwards I doubt you all would be reacting the same way
You may be correct however the media would be helping to expose the prosecutorial threats against Rice's son for not pleading guilty.
The bottom line, once that was revealed with the Brady material the case would have been dismissed way early in the process and "our side" would not have had much of an argument.
Posted on 8/11/20 at 9:53 am to cajunangelle
Garland is salty because Cocaine Mitch teabagged him
Posted on 8/11/20 at 9:55 am to Ex-Popcorn
quote:
Actually no. It's a separation of powers issue. Once the prosecution decides not to go forward--whether bribed, corrupt, etc.--it is over.
At some point, someone has to prosecute. Who? This is separation of powers. The executive branch prosecutes. No one else gets to. The judge doesn't get to appoint someone else to prosecute. It is ONLY the DOJ who decides when and how to prosecute.
You are exactly right. Except the prosecution is over when the Court accepts the defendant’s plea. That happened here. Prosecution over- DOJ prosecuted to guilty plea.
Flynn is then a ward of the Article III Court. What happened here is DOJ and Flynn tried to pull Flynn back from Article III jurisdiction back into Article I prosecutorial discretion.
There’s a reason Rule 48 has that part about “with leave of court”.
But you’re exactly right- this is a separation of powers issue- just not in the way you’re thinking.
This post was edited on 8/11/20 at 9:57 am
Posted on 8/11/20 at 9:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Aside from lack of predicate which was obscured by Brady breaches, Flynn's plea was contingent on a prosecutorial agreement. The prosecution reneged.
Flynn has already pled
Posted on 8/11/20 at 9:56 am to Strannix
Oof. Some of the reasons for dismissal are public. Some are not.
Barr knows more.
Barr knows more.
This post was edited on 8/11/20 at 9:56 am
Posted on 8/11/20 at 9:56 am to cajunangelle
Boom. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Barr knows everything.
Posted on 8/11/20 at 9:58 am to BobBoucher
quote:
Oof. Some of the reasons for dismissal are public. Some are not.
Was that not offered as a hypothetical?
Posted on 8/11/20 at 9:58 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
There’s a reason Rule 48 has that part about “with leave of court”.
lol did you go to Southern?
Posted on 8/11/20 at 9:59 am to YankeeBama
Miss Powell has a very narrow view--- who is this Judge?
Posted on 8/11/20 at 9:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
MOAR hypotheticals
he pulled this shite last time
Posted on 8/11/20 at 10:00 am to cajunangelle
quote:
Miss Powell has a very narrow view--- who is this Judge?
Yeah, Miss Powell will not consider CCP law.
Posted on 8/11/20 at 10:00 am to Strannix
Telling response from a guy who admitted he was clueless to what’s going on a page prior
This post was edited on 8/11/20 at 10:07 am
Posted on 8/11/20 at 10:00 am to BobBoucher
quote:So why are we playing the cat & mouse games? The courts can see the full Brady material so why are we here? Other than a stall tactic?
Oof. Some of the reasons for dismissal are public. Some are not.
Barr knows more.
Page 6 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News