Retired General Flynn Files Petition to Drop Case

| May 21, 2020

The Department of Justice requested that Retired General Flynn’s case be dropped. Unfortunately, an anti-Trump judge overlooking his case refuses to take that recommendation. The Flynn petition requests that the case gets dropped and that a new judge gets assigned to address Retired General Flynn’s case.

The FBI had no real basis to interview General Flynn. Hence, the general’s lying charge didn’t really matter. In addition to opposing the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the case, Judge Emmet Sullivan appointed a retired judge to look at the potential for contempt and perjury charges.

From Newsmax:

The filing by Gen. Flynn attorney Sidney Powell states, “Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court order the district court immediately to (1) grant the Justice Department’s Motion to Dismiss; (2) vacate its order appointing amicus curiae; and (3) reassign the case to another district judge as to any further proceedings.”

Judge Emmet Sullivan was overseeing the case, opposing the DOJ dismissal of Flynn’s case, and had appointed retired federal Judge John Gleeson to weigh possible contempt and perjury charges.

“Neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, nor the district court’s local rules authorize amicus participation in criminal cases,” Powell wrote in Tuesday’s filing. “Prior to issuance of its extraordinary May 12, 2020, order, the district judge adhered scrupulously to the district court’s rules, denying some two dozen attempts by third parties to intervene or file amicus briefs in this very case.”

Powell’s filing cited legal precedent supporting the appeal and acknowledge exculpatory evidence that justified the withdrawing of Flynn’s guilty plea on one count of lying to a federal agent on the matter related to a Trump transition contact with a Russian Amb. Sergey Kislyak.

“Now additional facts have established he was not interviewed for a legitimate purpose, and therefore any statements he made were not ‘material’ under 18 U.S.C. §1001, the government justly believes that he is not guilty of any crime,” Powell wrote.

Handwritten notes declassified by the DOJ revealed alleged actions by FBI agents to either get Gen. Flynn to admit violating the Logan Act, pin him down for a “lie,” or get him fired as Trump’s first national security adviser early in January 2017 before President Trump’s inauguration.

You could read the rest of this Newsmax article here.

Tags: ,

Category: "Teh Stoopid", Politics

Comments (24)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Sapper3307 says:

    Death by a thousand paper cuts is a two (2) way street.

    • rgr769 says:

      Not when Uncle Sam has unlimited reams of paper and he has bankrupted you with about ten million dollars in legal fees.

  2. 26Limabeans says:

    Why is it illegal to lie to the FBI?
    If not under oath, there is no perjury.
    I would not even consider lying to the FBI because
    I would never talk to them in the first place.

    I would not be surprised if Flynn was playing them
    like a fiddle all along and they know it.

    • The Other Whitey says:

      The FBI is one of several federal agencies who seem to encourage an “I AM the law!” mentality amongst their personnel. Which explains a lot concerning their rampant corruption and abuses of power.

    • SFC(R) Blizzard says:

      Up until this incident, the FBI had the reputation of always being completely honest. They were who you went to when state and local law enforcement was doing bad things. What happened is exactly why there were so many against establishing a federal law enforcement arm. The FBI has violated the public trust. I don’t think some people realize how bad this is/was for our country. This is the biggest scandal in our nations history.

      • Cameron says:

        Trust, it takes time to truly build up and only seconds to completely destroy. I’ll say that the silver lining to all this is that the government as a whole is in dire need of some major downsizing. This is something that should have happened years ago. Well, better late than never.

      • Mason says:

        The FBI has never had much of a reputation of honesty. Waco, Ruby Ridge, everything Hoover did for almost five decades.

        The FBI just has some amazing PR skills.

      • 26Limabeans says:

        “Up until this incident”

        The Whitey Bulger case in Boston ruined any
        percieved honesty. Conolley went to jail
        over it. Steve Flemi wants out over Corona.
        Yeah, they might have had a good reputation
        on the television show but in real life
        they are worse than Hoover’s henchmen.

    • rgr769 says:

      It is a crime to lie to any federal law enforcement agency conducting an investigation, but the false statement has to materially impede the investigation. Since there was no legitimate investigation of Flynn when he was interviewed, his purported false statements are immaterial. Thus, the government could not prove this essential element of the crime.

      Now, the trial court judge is embarked on a Prog mission to charge and convict Flynn of criminal contempt of court for making a false guilty plea under oath, if his pet retired judge can’t figure out a justification to deny the dismissal motion and sentence Flynn to some serious prison time.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        If Flynn committed perjury by falsely pleading guilty, and did so at the behest of the FBI and of counsel, do they get charged with suborning perjury?

        My understanding is that encouraging someone to perjure is itself unlawful.

        And if so, “oops”.

        • rgr769 says:

          I have watched, heard and read literally hundreds of false statements under oath under penalty of perjury. The Prosecutors could care less about anyone lying under oath (especially another LEO), unless it is some witness or defendant they want to take down. Usually, it is reserved for testimony they believe caused one of their trials to fail to convict the defendant. The same applies to subornation of perjury. Prosecutors frequently get witnesses to lie; and I have personally watched false testimony suborned by opposing civil attorneys. In a couple of my trials, I knew my opponent had done so because I had interviewed the witness before he had, and the guy’s story was the 180 degree opposite of what my opponent elicited in front of the jury. But if you try to do anything about something like that, the DA’s will laugh out the door of their offices. Judges also see perjured testimony on a regular basis, rarely do they do anything about it.

          The FBI and the DOJ prosecutors love that false statement crap when they can’t get a viable charge against someone. That is what they convicted Scooter Libby of committing. Patrick Fitzgerald charged Libby with violating Section 1001 because he denied remembering details of a phone conversation he had about Valery Plame many months earlier. What is worse is that Fitzgerald already knew who leaked her name as a CIA employee to the reporter and it wasn’t Scooter Libby; it was D.C. Swamprat Richard Armitage of the State Department, who was never charged with anything.

  3. Ex-PH2 says:

    Sp if the Feebies made him lie to get what they wanted, and they are blatantly lying all the while, anyway, just to get him to lie, isn’t it time he named names?

    I didn’t know the Feebies had turned into the Gestapo. I almost feel like calling them up and asking them if they keep score on how many times they lie per hour. That way, I could keep score.

    • 26Limabeans says:

      I called the State Police years ago about an
      issue and they told me to call the FBI.
      So I dropped the matter, which is probably
      what the dispatcher meant anyway.

      Never call the FBI for anything, even just to
      say hello.

  4. 5th/77th FA says:

    More evidence of the corruption of the deep state and domestic enemies of our Republic. All of the crap that the American Patriot has had to put up with because the skrunt, dasHitlerbeast, THE Bitch of Benghazi, didn’t get her turn and Trump slowed down the intents her and her minions had to maintain their grip on power. How much more obvious must it be made before these people are charged with treason, sedition, and all of the other crimes that they are guilty of?

    I blame the swamp rats of BOTH parties.

  5. Twist says:

    The funny thing is that even the FBI agents who interviewed him didn’t believe that he lied.

    Of course Lars is going to sweep in here with his laundry list of Flynn’s supposed wrongdoings even though the FBI had to really reach in order to charge him with something and yet they didn’t charge him with anything on Lars’ list.

  6. FuzeVT says:

    So if the prosecution drops their case, a judge can pick up the baton a play the part of DA, too? This judge needs a serious (and hopefully permanent) Constitutional slap down from the Supreme Court.

    • Mason says:

      Maybe one of the resident legal eagles can chime in, but it’s my understanding that because a guilty plea was entered and accepted by the court the court has to agree to drop the case. It moved a step past prosecutorial discretion.

      • Rgr769 says:

        The court has no discretion to deny the dismissal. It is a ministerial act when the prosecution shows it is justified. Now there is no pending case or controversy between Flynn and the government, a constitutional requirement for the federal court’s jurisdiction. At some point, this case will be dismissed. This judge is deranged and drunk on his perceived power.

  7. Charles says:

    Mason’s right.

    Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure cover it:

    (d) Withdrawing a Guilty or Nolo Contendere Plea. A defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere:

    (1) before the court accepts the plea, for any reason or no reason; or

    (2) after the court accepts the plea, but before it imposes sentence if:

    (A) the court rejects a plea agreement under 11(c)(5); or

    (B) the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.

    (e) Finality of a Guilty or Nolo Contendere Plea. After the court imposes sentence, the defendant may not withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and the plea may be set aside only on direct appeal or collateral attack.

    Some states have a different standard, Here in Tennessee a defendant may withdraw a plea:

    – before sentence is imposed =
    “for good cause shown.”
    – after sentence is imposed =
    “to prevent a manifest injustice.”

    Technically, here in Tennessee where I practice law, there is no “plea of guilty before it has been accepted by the court.” Unless and until the plea is accepted by the court, there is no plea. Before that it’s just discussion, negotiations and colloquy.

    The intent is any case is to prevent the Defendant from pleading guilty, waiting to see what sentence is ordered by the court, and if it is more than the defendant thinks is fair, taking a second bite at the apple by withdrawing his plea. The federal standard is much more rigid.

    The federals

  8. Skippy says:

    Didn’t the Supreme Court just rule on a case like this
    In there ruling they smacked down a judge who wouldn’t
    take the prosecutors dismissal request
    And tried to pull this exact same shit ?????

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      You may have noticed. In the last four months, even the fig leaf of appearing to follow the law and the Constitution has been cast away, replaced by “orders” that amount to “because I said so”.