Friday, June 12, 2020

Flynn OA day

You can listen here at 9:30am. 

Also, check out SDNY Judge Nathan's order in a case where the Government obtained a conviction at trial and then moved to dismiss post-trial because of all of the Brady violations.  Judge Nathan says not so fast... you need to explain yourself first via a response to the defense motion for new trial, as the defense has requested and then dismiss with prejudice. This is a  big difference from Flynn where the parties have agreed.  Judge Nathan is doing the right thing.


Anonymous said...

Exactly right. Libs on this blog, including you DOM, have gone out of their way to ignore/downplay the brady issues in the flynn case. DOM you have been a crusader against pros misconduct, but wont specifically denounce the former prosecutors in the flynn case (although you are in favor of dismissal). Mr. Sloman recently posted that the brady violations were an "artificial issue." Sullivan is well known for taking the gov to task in stevens, but saves his vitriol only for flynn. Gleeson of course ignores the brady issues and says the only conclusion is barr sought dismissal to help trump.

This is crazy.

Judge Nathan actually cares about brady violations. This is how a real judge acts.

Apparently sullivans standing order requires relevant exculpatory material the gov believes is not material (and therefore not brady) be submitted to sullivan for in camera review. My question: was this procedure used back in 2017 by the former line prosecutor? Was is used recently, which led to the last round of disclosures? If not, where is the order to show cause why the former prosecutor should not be in contempt?

Anonymous said...

Like nothing I've ever heard before. Both sides are arguing for dismissal. If anyone is politically driven here, it is the judiciary.

Anonymous said...

At the peak, 27k people were logged into youtube to listen in.

Addressing 9:12 question:
Brandon van Grak and the SCO are probably well within Sullivan’s line in the sand for Brady Contempt since the failed post Dismissal action in Stevens. But thats not where Sullivan wants to go.. even though the DoJ has already exposed the SCO shortcomings, the Judge wants his old case back to run home with.

Rinaldi explains where “leave of court” applies (defendant harassment) but declines to rule because that wasnt the issue before them.

Wilkinson argues simply for regular order, that the july 16 hearing might well wrap this up anyway.. but doesnt observe that even for a defendant out on bail, at some point resolution is warranted.

Looks like the Mandamus will be denied, hopefully with clear language that it would be granted if the lower court doesnt dismiss.

Anonymous said...

The request for mandamus will be denied 2 (wilkins, Henderson) to 1 (rao).

Wilkins is strongly in favor of the Sullivan circus and a strong role of the district judge in reviewing a dismissal motion. He is skeptical of the reasons provided by doj for dismissal, and wants doj to disclose *all* reasons to seek dismissal. I think he may be alluding to a confession of brady violations, but its not clear. If that is what he was alluding to, then good for him.

Henderson thinks the gleeson brief is looney but thinks mandamus is premature because perhaps Sullivan might grant the motion to dismiss on the day of the scheduled hearing. This is very naive, or perhaps just setting up changing her vote for mandamus on a subsequent petition if Sullivan goes beyond the date of the hearing without dismissal. Look for a concurring opinion warning sullivan to stop acting crazy and pointing out there is no evidence of any improper DOJ motives, only speculation of partisans based on trump tweets.

Rao is as usual above the facts and focused on the Constitutional implications. Look for her to dissent, saying 48a must be construed to require granting dismissal of unopposed motions to dismiss with prejudice, in light of the separation of powers and the take care clause.

Flynn atty and beth w were very weak. The doj atty mopped the floor with everybody.

We know the end of this story is clearly dismissal, but the circus continues!

Anonymous said...

Soon to be Judge Rosy Aponte is filing a friends of the court brief. She says it's not a high crime and wouldn't it not be better to use an ankle bracelet so he can me monitored by a colored probation officer and also go to work. She also praises Judge Sullivan as being a very articulate colored man of whom she- as a colored woman with Megan Markle- is very proud of their race and racial minority achievements. See Rumpole's blog for more on this fascinating woman.

Anonymous said...

114 LOL

Anonymous said...

That this is what you are choosing to discuss, at this time, is pathetic.

Every person needs to take 30 minutes and watch 8:46:

Anonymous said...

Don't you see the inconsistency in saying Nathan is doing the right thing and Sullivan is not? They both want more information before dismissing. You can't say on the one hand DOJ should be able to sweep its dirty laundry under the rug, but on the other, good for the judge for refusing to let DOJ sweep its dirty laundry under the rug.

Anonymous said...


Don't be a tool. Calling DOM or anyone else "pathetic" because they recognize that there is more than one thing going on at a time shows your true colors. You are a prisoner of the moment and/or are so self important that you cannot tolerate anyone finding importance in things that you ignore. Get over yourself.

I will watch the video link you sent. And then I will talk about whatever I feel like talking about without worrying about whether you think it is the right topic "at this time."

Anonymous said...


I see ur point. But perhaps we differ on what the dirty laundery is here. There is ***actual evidence*** of dirty laundry in the initial stages of the prosecution in the form of recent brady disclosures as shown by supporting documents that have been turned over and filed. These docs by ct order should have been turned over in 2017. They alone justify dismissal. There is no **actual evidence** barr sought dismissal here to help trump. This is partisan speculation, supported by nothing. So the judge is supposed to be neutral, yet he cares not at all about the recent disclosures, and wont ***even ask*** why the docs werent turned over in 2017. He asks instead should flynn be held in contempt, but ignores the other side.

Having a hearing to flesh all this out isnt outrageous. But all indications are the judge only cares about taking positions against flynn. Accuses him of being a traitor and suggests he could be prosecuted for treason. Then suggests he should be held in contempt for seeking to withdraw a plea that wasnt knowing and intellegent at a minimum. Where is the neutrality?

Doesnt he care about flynns Constitutional rights?

Maybe im wrong...lets see how the hearing goes. Maybe it will be truth finding. One can only hope. But i doubt it will go down like that.

Anonymous said...

3:23 - If forced to choose between prisoner of the moment or too self-important, I will choose the second one.

But being self-important doesn't mean that I am not right. I am. There is a righteous cry for justice that is ongoing, and it isn't coming from Flynn or the NACDL.

The attack isn't on DOM - it is on you, and me, and everybody else who consciously or unconsciously aids in distracting from THE issue of this time, and the time preceding right back to 1619. You my friend, are jumping on the wrong band wagon.

Complaining that Flynn has to wait a few weeks or months to learn whether or not the judge is going to dismiss his case makes important, something that really is not (in the scheme of things).

So yeah, SIA (I added asshole to the moniker you have bestowed upon me) here cares more about the grandest injustice that has been going on in this country for over 400 years, than poor 'lock her up' Flynn and the horrible injustice he is suffering by being protected by the President of the United States (who is only further sullying the justice department so that he doesn't have to pardon Flynn himself).