Is Judge Sullivan Required To Grant Trump Motion To Dismiss Charges Against Michael Flynn? No.

Why are Democrats still attacking this innocent man that was set up by Barack Obama’s DOJ
 
Is Judge Sullivan required to grant the Trump Administration’s motion to dismiss charges against Michael Flynn? Not necessarily.




Today the new Trump appointed US Attorney Timothy Shea moved to dismiss the charges against Michael Flynn.

In an extraordinary departure from the Justice Department’s typical handling of criminal cases, the Donald Trump-appointed leadership of the Justice Department on Thursday dropped charges against Michael Flynn, the former White House national security adviser who previously pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia.
In a court filing, Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea said that even if Flynn lied about his contact with the Russian ambassador to the United States ahead of Trump’s 2017 inauguration, that Flynn’s lies were irrelevant to the FBI’s counterintelligence probe into his communications with Russia.
The government is moving to dismiss the charges per Rule 48(a).
Rule 48(a), allows the prosecutor to dismiss "with leave of the court."

Normally, where the defendant consents, this is a no-brainer. Of course, the Judge will grant the government’s motion, just like the Judge grants most motions brought by the government.

But, does the Judge have any power to deny a government motion to dismiss?

Yes. Most jurisdictions, including federal courts, recognize that under the doctrine of Separation of Powers , charging is an Executive Function and the decision to dismiss is a Judicial Function.

In California, while Chief Supreme Court Justice Ronald George was on the Los Angeles Trial Court, he famously refused to grant the District Attorney’s motion to dismiss murder charges against the Hillside Strangler and appointed the Attorney General to continue with prosecution, leading to convictions.

Under federal law, prior case-law has limited the ability of Judges to exercise this power to disagree with the prosecutor. The Judge is not required rubber stamp a Rule 48 motion to dismiss. But Judges can only deny the motion in extraordinary circumstances where the judge finds that the prosecutor abused his or her discretion, and where the judge finds that prosecutor has failed to consider factors in the public interest. The Judge may not withhold approval merely because his or her conception of public interest differs from that of prosecuting attorney.

In the government’s motion, they say that Flynn’s false statements were not “material” to the FBI’s Russia investigation. “Materiality” is an element of the crime of false statements. Were Flynn’s false statements about meetings with Kislyak and other Russians and Flynn’s false statements about lobbying for Turkey “material” to the Russian investigation? Almost certainly, but cases say Judges aren’t supposed to base a denial of a motion to dismiss on differing views of the evidence.

It would be an extraordinary move for the Judge to deny the motion. But consider Judge Sullivan’s past comments about Flynn in this case. “Arguably, you sold your country out.”

Sullivan could conceivably find extraordinary circumstances, bad faith, or disservice to the public interest and deny it. Alternatively, Sullivan could request briefing, maybe appoint an amicus, and possibly delay a decision until next year.

It’s not over.



I supposed that's technically true.

However, when both the Prosecution as well as the Defense are in agreement about prosecutorial misconduct and a miscarriage of justice, why wouldn't he? Such a move would indicate a judge gone rogue, that no one could be safe allowing them to judge them
It may also indicate a judge is unwilling to facilitate or participate in corruption.
 
Is Judge Sullivan required to grant the Trump Administration’s motion to dismiss charges against Michael Flynn? Not necessarily.




Today the new Trump appointed US Attorney Timothy Shea moved to dismiss the charges against Michael Flynn.

In an extraordinary departure from the Justice Department’s typical handling of criminal cases, the Donald Trump-appointed leadership of the Justice Department on Thursday dropped charges against Michael Flynn, the former White House national security adviser who previously pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia.
In a court filing, Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea said that even if Flynn lied about his contact with the Russian ambassador to the United States ahead of Trump’s 2017 inauguration, that Flynn’s lies were irrelevant to the FBI’s counterintelligence probe into his communications with Russia.
The government is moving to dismiss the charges per Rule 48(a).
Rule 48(a), allows the prosecutor to dismiss "with leave of the court."

Normally, where the defendant consents, this is a no-brainer. Of course, the Judge will grant the government’s motion, just like the Judge grants most motions brought by the government.

But, does the Judge have any power to deny a government motion to dismiss?

Yes. Most jurisdictions, including federal courts, recognize that under the doctrine of Separation of Powers , charging is an Executive Function and the decision to dismiss is a Judicial Function.

In California, while Chief Supreme Court Justice Ronald George was on the Los Angeles Trial Court, he famously refused to grant the District Attorney’s motion to dismiss murder charges against the Hillside Strangler and appointed the Attorney General to continue with prosecution, leading to convictions.

Under federal law, prior case-law has limited the ability of Judges to exercise this power to disagree with the prosecutor. The Judge is not required rubber stamp a Rule 48 motion to dismiss. But Judges can only deny the motion in extraordinary circumstances where the judge finds that the prosecutor abused his or her discretion, and where the judge finds that prosecutor has failed to consider factors in the public interest. The Judge may not withhold approval merely because his or her conception of public interest differs from that of prosecuting attorney.

In the government’s motion, they say that Flynn’s false statements were not “material” to the FBI’s Russia investigation. “Materiality” is an element of the crime of false statements. Were Flynn’s false statements about meetings with Kislyak and other Russians and Flynn’s false statements about lobbying for Turkey “material” to the Russian investigation? Almost certainly, but cases say Judges aren’t supposed to base a denial of a motion to dismiss on differing views of the evidence.

It would be an extraordinary move for the Judge to deny the motion. But consider Judge Sullivan’s past comments about Flynn in this case. “Arguably, you sold your country out.”

Sullivan could conceivably find extraordinary circumstances, bad faith, or disservice to the public interest and deny it. Alternatively, Sullivan could request briefing, maybe appoint an amicus, and possibly delay a decision until next year.

It’s not over.

OP is so grasping at straws.
iu
 
Why are Democrats still attacking this innocent man that was set up by Barack Obama’s DOJ
The DOD and Barr are not claiming Flynn is innocent. They are claiming a technicality prevents his lying from being relevant in his sentencing. Specifically, they are claiming that while Flynn did indeed lie to the FBI, the lies weren't relevant to the original charges.
 
Why are Democrats still attacking this innocent man that was set up by Barack Obama’s DOJ
The DOD and Barr are not claiming Flynn is innocent. They are claiming a technicality prevents his lying from being relevant in his sentencing. Specifically, they are claiming that while Flynn did indeed lie to the FBI, the lies weren't relevant to the original charges.

The judge is going to dismiss and then some... prepare yourself to hate him as well.. :itsok:
 
Why are Democrats still attacking this innocent man that was set up by Barack Obama’s DOJ
The DOD and Barr are not claiming Flynn is innocent. They are claiming a technicality prevents his lying from being relevant in his sentencing. Specifically, they are claiming that while Flynn did indeed lie to the FBI, the lies weren't relevant to the original charges.

The judge is going to dismiss and then some... prepare yourself to hate him as well.. :itsok:
Maybe you are right about the judge ruling, but that won't nullify the point of my post.
 
The OP raises a good point. The fact is a judge is not required to dismiss a criminal prosecution. Anyone who has followed criminal court proceedings have seen judges deny plea agreements that prosecutors and defense attorneys have reached. The judge will most likely not dismiss these charges without a hearing and explanation. The judge does not have to dismiss the charges. It is unlikely but it could happen.
 
Last edited:
Why are Democrats still attacking this innocent man that was set up by Barack Obama’s DOJ
The DOD and Barr are not claiming Flynn is innocent. They are claiming a technicality prevents his lying from being relevant in his sentencing. Specifically, they are claiming that while Flynn did indeed lie to the FBI, the lies weren't relevant to the original charges.
Huh he was set up For a perjury trap and his son was threatened
 
Why are Democrats still attacking this innocent man that was set up by Barack Obama’s DOJ
The DOD and Barr are not claiming Flynn is innocent. They are claiming a technicality prevents his lying from being relevant in his sentencing. Specifically, they are claiming that while Flynn did indeed lie to the FBI, the lies weren't relevant to the original charges.

The judge is going to dismiss and then some... prepare yourself to hate him as well.. :itsok:
Maybe you are right about the judge ruling, but that won't nullify the point of my post.
Will you promise not to attack the judge or Flynn’s family?
 
Why are Democrats still attacking this innocent man that was set up by Barack Obama’s DOJ
The DOD and Barr are not claiming Flynn is innocent. They are claiming a technicality prevents his lying from being relevant in his sentencing. Specifically, they are claiming that while Flynn did indeed lie to the FBI, the lies weren't relevant to the original charges.

The judge is going to dismiss and then some... prepare yourself to hate him as well.. :itsok:
Maybe you are right about the judge ruling, but that won't nullify the point of my post.
Will you promise not to attack the judge or Flynn’s family?
Attacking people for disagreements is in your and other tea bagger trumpoholic playbooks, not mine.
 
Why the hell is the Judge not speaking out. Is he self isolating?
No reason whats so ever that he has not dismissed the case yet.
 
Why are Democrats still attacking this innocent man that was set up by Barack Obama’s DOJ
The DOD and Barr are not claiming Flynn is innocent. They are claiming a technicality prevents his lying from being relevant in his sentencing. Specifically, they are claiming that while Flynn did indeed lie to the FBI, the lies weren't relevant to the original charges.

The judge is going to dismiss and then some... prepare yourself to hate him as well.. :itsok:
Maybe you are right about the judge ruling, but that won't nullify the point of my post.
Will you promise not to attack the judge or Flynn’s family?
Attacking people for disagreements is in your and other tea bagger trumpoholic playbooks, not mine.
OK Sociopath
 
Why are Democrats still attacking this innocent man that was set up by Barack Obama’s DOJ
The DOD and Barr are not claiming Flynn is innocent. They are claiming a technicality prevents his lying from being relevant in his sentencing. Specifically, they are claiming that while Flynn did indeed lie to the FBI, the lies weren't relevant to the original charges.

The judge is going to dismiss and then some... prepare yourself to hate him as well.. :itsok:
Maybe you are right about the judge ruling, but that won't nullify the point of my post.
Will you promise not to attack the judge or Flynn’s family?
Attacking people for disagreements is in your and other tea bagger trumpoholic playbooks, not mine.
OK Sociopath
Like you actually understand what a sociopath is. Stop exposing your poor education. Now go look up the word so you might prevent yourself from appearing so stupid next time.
 
Why are Democrats still attacking this innocent man that was set up by Barack Obama’s DOJ
The DOD and Barr are not claiming Flynn is innocent. They are claiming a technicality prevents his lying from being relevant in his sentencing. Specifically, they are claiming that while Flynn did indeed lie to the FBI, the lies weren't relevant to the original charges.

The judge is going to dismiss and then some... prepare yourself to hate him as well.. :itsok:
Maybe you are right about the judge ruling, but that won't nullify the point of my post.
Will you promise not to attack the judge or Flynn’s family?
Attacking people for disagreements is in your and other tea bagger trumpoholic playbooks, not mine.
OK Sociopath
Like you actually understand what a sociopath is. Stop exposing your poor education. Now go look up the word so you might prevent yourself from appearing so stupid next time.
Seems like you are well aware lol
 
Is Judge Sullivan required to grant the Trump Administration’s motion to dismiss charges against Michael Flynn? Not necessarily.




Today the new Trump appointed US Attorney Timothy Shea moved to dismiss the charges against Michael Flynn.

In an extraordinary departure from the Justice Department’s typical handling of criminal cases, the Donald Trump-appointed leadership of the Justice Department on Thursday dropped charges against Michael Flynn, the former White House national security adviser who previously pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia.
In a court filing, Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea said that even if Flynn lied about his contact with the Russian ambassador to the United States ahead of Trump’s 2017 inauguration, that Flynn’s lies were irrelevant to the FBI’s counterintelligence probe into his communications with Russia.
The government is moving to dismiss the charges per Rule 48(a).
Rule 48(a), allows the prosecutor to dismiss "with leave of the court."

Normally, where the defendant consents, this is a no-brainer. Of course, the Judge will grant the government’s motion, just like the Judge grants most motions brought by the government.

But, does the Judge have any power to deny a government motion to dismiss?

Yes. Most jurisdictions, including federal courts, recognize that under the doctrine of Separation of Powers , charging is an Executive Function and the decision to dismiss is a Judicial Function.

In California, while Chief Supreme Court Justice Ronald George was on the Los Angeles Trial Court, he famously refused to grant the District Attorney’s motion to dismiss murder charges against the Hillside Strangler and appointed the Attorney General to continue with prosecution, leading to convictions.

Under federal law, prior case-law has limited the ability of Judges to exercise this power to disagree with the prosecutor. The Judge is not required rubber stamp a Rule 48 motion to dismiss. But Judges can only deny the motion in extraordinary circumstances where the judge finds that the prosecutor abused his or her discretion, and where the judge finds that prosecutor has failed to consider factors in the public interest. The Judge may not withhold approval merely because his or her conception of public interest differs from that of prosecuting attorney.

In the government’s motion, they say that Flynn’s false statements were not “material” to the FBI’s Russia investigation. “Materiality” is an element of the crime of false statements. Were Flynn’s false statements about meetings with Kislyak and other Russians and Flynn’s false statements about lobbying for Turkey “material” to the Russian investigation? Almost certainly, but cases say Judges aren’t supposed to base a denial of a motion to dismiss on differing views of the evidence.

It would be an extraordinary move for the Judge to deny the motion. But consider Judge Sullivan’s past comments about Flynn in this case. “Arguably, you sold your country out.”

Sullivan could conceivably find extraordinary circumstances, bad faith, or disservice to the public interest and deny it. Alternatively, Sullivan could request briefing, maybe appoint an amicus, and possibly delay a decision until next year.

It’s not over.

I hope that the judge does not grant the dismissal without proof and the names of everyone who broke the law at the FBI. Why, because the FBI broke the law and if any of us did that we would see maximum consequences. Barr should have to prove Flynns innocence and in the process prove the FBI's guilt. Why should the judge accept the courts being mocked like they are
 
Why are Democrats still attacking this innocent man that was set up by Barack Obama’s DOJ
The DOD and Barr are not claiming Flynn is innocent. They are claiming a technicality prevents his lying from being relevant in his sentencing. Specifically, they are claiming that while Flynn did indeed lie to the FBI, the lies weren't relevant to the original charges.

The judge is going to dismiss and then some... prepare yourself to hate him as well.. :itsok:
Maybe you are right about the judge ruling, but that won't nullify the point of my post.

The original charges are now irrelevant, so sure.

I'm thinking the story ends there other than the persecution of Flynn by FBI officials and such.

I hope Flynn can start suing and recover his losses..
 
May Heavenly Father blessings on the President and this Great country ❤️
 
Why are Democrats still attacking this innocent man that was set up by Barack Obama’s DOJ
The DOD and Barr are not claiming Flynn is innocent. They are claiming a technicality prevents his lying from being relevant in his sentencing. Specifically, they are claiming that while Flynn did indeed lie to the FBI, the lies weren't relevant to the original charges.

The judge is going to dismiss and then some... prepare yourself to hate him as well.. :itsok:
Maybe you are right about the judge ruling, but that won't nullify the point of my post.

The original charges are now irrelevant, so sure.

I'm thinking the story ends there other than the persecution of Flynn by FBI officials and such.

I hope Flynn can start suing and recover his losses..
Will he sue himself for pleading guilty, twice.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top