- 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: More bs from judge Sullivan re Flynn
Posted on 7/9/20 at 4:09 pm to DeusVultMachina
Posted on 7/9/20 at 4:09 pm to DeusVultMachina
Well, they’re clearly not afraid of us 
Fingers crossed though.
We’re not organized, which is a major problem. In 1930s Spain, the Church was a bulwark against the communist.
We have nothing that formidable.
Fingers crossed though.
We’re not organized, which is a major problem. In 1930s Spain, the Church was a bulwark against the communist.
We have nothing that formidable.
0
Posted on 7/9/20 at 4:10 pm to GeorgeTheGreek
If DOJ motions to drop the case the minute before Flynn pleads then this is a non-issue and charges dismissed. The executive is in charge of the prosecutorial decision as the law enforcing agency. But once he plead it’s out of the hands of the executive. There’s a reason we don’t let prosecutors sentence defendants as well after prosecuting them. Prosecutors submit sentencing memorandums, not sentencing orders
This post was edited on 7/9/20 at 4:16 pm
Posted on 7/9/20 at 4:10 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
The sheer naked corruption in this Sullivan refusal to obey the panel’s clear direction screams. But no one is lifting a finger. He should be disbarred and removed from the bench for contempt. But...democrats. Media. Optics. No backbones.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 4:13 pm to JawjaTigah
Do you know how common it is to ask for an en banc panel?
Posted on 7/9/20 at 4:16 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Do you know how common it is to ask for an en banc panel?
You have a federal judge positioning himself as an interested party in a case before him. Why is that? Why is this process crime case such a big deal for Judge Sullivan? And, given his reversal on amicus briefs, his appointment of a clearly biased amicus and his drawing this out as he has, why should be anywhere near this case?
Posted on 7/9/20 at 4:20 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
You have a federal judge positioning himself as an interested party in a case before him. Why is that?
Because what the DOJ is attempting to do is unprecedented. If you know of any similar situation, please link it so I can read it.
quote:
Why is this process crime case such a big deal for Judge Sullivan?
Because Flynn stood before him, under oath, and admitted to the factual predicate Of a crime. The Court accepted the plea. Now the DOJ is not even arguing for leniency, they’re asking the judge to disregard all of what he heard from Flynn, under oath, mere months ago, and to dismiss the entire thing.
quote:
And, given his reversal on amicus briefs, his appointment of a clearly biased amicus and his drawing this out as he has, why should be anywhere near this case?
Because he’s the guy who will have to eventually put his name to this thing. He’s clearly hiding behind the robes of the higher appellate court.
This post was edited on 7/9/20 at 4:24 pm
Posted on 7/9/20 at 4:20 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
If DOJ motions to drop the case the minute before Flynn pleads then this is a non-issue and charges dismissed. The executive is in charge of the prosecutorial decision as the law enforcing agency. But once he plead it’s out of the hands of the executive.
Let’s just skip all of the legal tomfoolery here.
Sullivan knows that Flynn was railroaded by the DoJ. Is he more interested in maintaining procedure or in seeing justice done? Because right now, the two things don’t appear to line up. And if he’s more interested in the former than the latter, then we are truly fricked as a nation.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 4:22 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Now the DOJ is not even arguing for leniency, they’re asking the judge to disregard all of what he heard from Flynn, under oath, mere months ago, and to dismiss the entire thing.
And as the prosecuting party, that should be enough.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 4:22 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
I'm ok with impeaching this judge now.
In fact... I'm gonna be upset if someone doesn't at least explore the option.
In fact... I'm gonna be upset if someone doesn't at least explore the option.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 4:24 pm to Godfather1
We don’t let prosecutors decide sentences. Never have. Why should we start now?
Posted on 7/9/20 at 4:26 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
they’re asking the judge to disregard all of what he heard from Flynn, under oath, mere months ago, and to dismiss the entire thing.
The doj admitted it was a sham prosecution. You keep leaving that part out.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 4:26 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
We don’t let prosecutors decide sentences.
Or judges act as prosecutors.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 4:27 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Because Flynn stood before him, under oath, and admitted to the factual predicate Of a crime.
This idiot is arguing that actually means something and innocent people never plead guilty.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 4:29 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
We don’t let prosecutors decide sentences. Never have. Why should we start now?
Because its not about the sentence, basically this is brady material that clearly was excluded. If I remember correctly (I haven't looked at pacer), he withdrew his guilty plea... not sure where that is.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 4:29 pm to Godfather1
quote:
Let’s just skip all of the legal tomfoolery here.
Except we’re in a court of law and that’s hard to do.
quote:
Sullivan knows that Flynn was railroaded by the DoJ. Is he more interested in maintaining procedure or in seeing justice done? Because right now, the two things don’t appear to line up. And if he’s more interested in the former than the latter, then we are truly fricked as a nation
Which DOJ main should have admitted to, thrown Van Grack under the bus, and asked for the lightest sentence possible, or even no sentence. Instead they’re trying to control a process they no longer control.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 4:31 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
We don’t let prosecutors decide sentences. Never have. Why should we start now?
Prosecutors are involved in EVERY sentencing whether its a plea agreement or presenting argument at a sentencing hearing or choosing to drop charges. Judges are really only the decision makers under one of these scenarios.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 4:31 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Which DOJ main should have admitted to, thrown Van Grack under the bus, and asked for the lightest sentence possible, or even no sentence. Instead they’re trying to control a process they no longer control.
He moved the court to withdraw his guilty plea based on brady material that wasn't turned over. Not sure I see the problem.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 4:32 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Which DOJ main should have admitted to
They did
Posted on 7/9/20 at 4:33 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Which DOJ main should have admitted to, thrown Van Grack under the bus, and asked for the lightest sentence possible, or even no sentence. Instead they’re trying to control a process they no longer control.
And again, what you’re arguing here serves procedure, not justice.
You lawyers have really lost sight of what it’s all supposed to be about.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 4:34 pm to Godfather1
quote:
You lawyers have really lost sight of what it’s all supposed to be about.
Did they have sight before? Top 3 scumbag profession around
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News