Reply to Barr Installs Outside Prosecutor to Review Case Against Michael Flynn, Ex-Trump Adviser

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Barr Installs Outside Prosecutor to Review Case Against Michael Flynn, Ex-Trump Adviser"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Interesting analysis that won't help DOJ or Flynn

[twitter]https://twitter.com/CBHessick/status/1261817322018353152[/twitter][/quote]

And...a different perspective...one that takes into account the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of Rule 48(a), as well as the SCOTUS interpretation.[/quote]

And...a different perspective...one that takes into account the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of Rule 48(a), as well as the SCOTUS interpretation:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-department-wants-drop-flynns-case-can-judge-say-no[/quote]

There is much documentation that the prosecution acted improperly.  Starting with the missing 302, exchanges with the first lawyers that show Flynn had no intention of pleading until the "leak" about prosecuting his son, and other exculpatory documentation.  (Please note: documentation)
It is clear that the 302 was not handled properly, and, in fact, was possibly handled criminally.  Go read the request for dismissal.  The documentation is there.

So, because someone has sympathy with the White House, does not mean he should not get a fair hearing.  Justice applies to all.  The judge is acting improperly.[/quote]

PP.  Agreed.  The D.C. Circuit makes it clear that the purpose of Rule 48(a) is to protect against prosecutorial misconduct.  From the article:

"As an example of this mode of interpretation, the court pointed to Rule 48(a). Although the language requiring leave of the court could “conceivably” be read broadly, the D.C. Circuit stated, decisions to dismiss pending criminal charges fall within the prosecutorial discretion of the executive branch, and Rinaldi stands for the proposition that Rule 48(a) does not confer “any substantial role” for courts in determining whether charges should be dismissed. Instead, the role of the courts is quite narrow—to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment through repeated efforts to file and then dismiss charges. The D.C. Circuit then explicitly rejected the idea that “leave of the court” allows a judge to deny a motion to dismiss based on its belief that the defendant should stand trial or that any remaining charges fail to adequately address the gravity of his alleged conduct."[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics