Althouse: "A federal judge on Tuesday postponed the sentencing for Michael Flynn after he lambasted President Trump’s former national security adviser for trying to undermine his own country..."

December 18, 2018

"A federal judge on Tuesday postponed the sentencing for Michael Flynn after he lambasted President Trump’s former national security adviser for trying to undermine his own country..."

"... and said he could not guarantee he would spare Flynn from prison. The stunning development means that Flynn will have to be sentenced at a later date, when he can possibly convince a judge more thoroughly of how his cooperation has benefited law enforcement.... After reviewing some of the allegations against Flynn, including that he worked to advance the interests of the Turkish government in the United States during the 2016 presidential campaign, [U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan] pointed to an American flag behind him in the courtroom and said heatedly, 'Arguably, that undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably you sold your country out. The court’s going to consider that... I cannot assure you, if you proceed today, you will not receive a sentence of incarceration.' Sullivan also asked a prosecutor with the special counsel’s office whether Flynn could be charged with 'treason.'"

WaPo reports.

223 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 223 of 223

narciso said...: Well if they succeed other tactics like the deplatforming of conservatives the mass ingress of ex cons into the voter rolls will preclude any further reoccurremces.; 12/18/18, 8:45 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Wow, Chuck, you can't possibly be this stupid.

Sullivan could have sentenced Flynn to a prison sentence today if he was upset with Flynn's hedging in the filings. Delaying the sentence has only one purpose here- to give Flynn a chance to withdraw it at some point. Sullivan would not have done this for any other reason- this is especially so because Mueller wanted this done today, too.

Look at what he did to Flynn- basically told Flynn that if the pleading was correct and Flynn admits to it, Flynn was a traitor who sold out his country. He was prodding the defendant to consider how it all looks considering how he is getting to skate on the FARA charges.

This was also a message to Mueller today- I think it quite possible that Mueller withdraws the offer and makes a new one on the FARA charges- an offer that carries some prison time. This is what Mueller should have done at the start- but Mueller wanted the "Russian" connection, even though Flynn's actions in those phone calls were perfectly legal, understandable, and with precedent with nearly every single administration elect.

It was a miscarriage of justice to have Flynn make the plea he did- it should have been on the FARA violations, and nothing else.; 12/18/18, 9:21 PM
Ken B said...: I read the judge has “walked back” his charges. If he made false charges in this manner no walk-in back is sufficient. He should be impeached for bad behavior.; 12/18/18, 9:29 PM
Narayanan said...: I'm seeing repeat mention that Gen Flynn plead to the deal for sake of protecting his son.
I don't get how that's possible ... hAs It been set out in the deal before this judge?, what assurance can Flynn depend on Making it stick?
How does it pass as legit in civilized country?; 12/18/18, 9:32 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “I don't get how that's possible ...”

It isn’t.

“.. hAs It been set out in the deal before this judge?”

Probably not because it doesn’t exist.

“...what assurance can Flynn depend on Making it stick?”

No assurances needed because it’s baloney.; 12/18/18, 9:58 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "Rather, the Judge was pushing back against the statements made on Flynn's behalf that Flynn wasn't so much guilty of the crime of lying to the FBI, as he was a victim of unfair actions by FBI agents."

-- Why? Flynn's lawyers aren't wrong. The FBI DID act in bad faith. They destroyed records and withheld potentially exculpatory evidence. How would any other court react if the police interviewed someone of some crime, all the officers interviewing him wrote a report saying: "This guy is trustworthy and did nothing wrong," then later, other cops with a known bias against the man and his employer, came in, destroyed that report without letting anyone know (remember -- it is a fluke we know about that other 302 on Flynn, we ONLY know about it because of Stzork/Page's affair) -- and wrote a completely new one that disagreed with the original.

The FBI destroyed evidence and fabricated new evidence, and then charged a guy with a crime based on the fabricated new report. The guy is saying: "Yeah, I guess I did lie, but, hey, look what you did to get here!"

Sure, if Flynn lied, let him face the music. But, we should be striking up the band for a few other folks too.; 12/18/18, 10:33 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: “Yes the false statement charge is a Russian related crime. Flynn was telling about his conversation with the RUSSIANambassador.

That conversation led to Flynn’s firing and a meeting between Comey and Trump prior to Trump firing Comey.”

And it was Flynn’s job to be making that call. New Administration and Flynn was one of the only people in the Trump WH with any relationship with the ambassador to the other country in the world with a lot of nukes. Yes, the NSA or FBI routinely wiretaps anything that the Russian Amassador does, as has done so pretty constantly since FISA was enacted in the 1970s. But the place where the FBI crossed the line was in unmasking the call. And, then Mueller relay’s a highly classified conversation between the incoming US NSA and a Russian Amnassador to a WaPo reporter. McCabe, Strzok, etc, shouldn’t legally have had access to a conversation between a US Person and the Russian Ambassador, and, in particular, they shouldn’t legally have known that it was Flynn on the call. It was very likely a 4th Amdt violation. They had no warrant and the only way around FISA was with showing a crime on the part of Flynn. But, the only crime envisioned at that time was a Logan Act violation.

The other thing to remember is that since the FBI had illegal access to the Flynn conversation with the Russian Ambassador, there was no reason for the two agents to go to the WH to meet with Flynn, whatsoever, except for the perjury trap. None. They weren’t trying to figure out what was said, because they knew. They knew better than Flynn did, who had been on the call, because they had a transcript of the call, and all he had was his memory. And, of course, DD McCabe all but admitted that was why he set up the meeting at the WH. Think about that for a minute - the FBI went to the Trump WH for the sole purpose of taking out Trump’s US NSA through a perjury trap sprung on him in the WH. The FBI who legally derives its entire power and legitimacy under our Constitution from the President that these FBI people were trying to destroy, starting, here, with his NSA.; 12/18/18, 10:37 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "But the place where the FBI crossed the line was in unmasking the call."

-- I thought this was one of the unmaskings done by someone claiming to be Samantha Powers, who by the way, says she never ordered the hundreds of unmaskings, and the Mueller team and others have studiously ignored finding out who successfully faked hundreds of orders at the highest level of our government that greatly harmed national security.; 12/18/18, 10:39 PM
Matt Sablan said...: I assume that the real reason they went there wasn't for the perjury trap, but because all the evidence they had was obtained through shady or illegal means (or at least, means that they didn't want to expose in court), they wanted to try and find a legitimate source for their evidence so the various wiretap shenanigans never came to light.

But, like almost everything else they tried to do (like fabricating a new 302 and hiding the existence of the original), they bungled it.; 12/18/18, 10:41 PM
Matt Sablan said...: The biggest reason I don't think Flynn should have copped a plea is that Stzork, who wrote the original (and hidden/destroyed 302) thought he was on the up-and-up, and Stzork, by his own admission, was hunting for ANYTHING to weaken or discredit Trump. Stzork's bias is so blatant and damning, that Mueller destroyed his phone's records rather than have them exposed or preserved for evidence.

This is like if the racist cop says: "Eh, I'm pretty sure the black guy is innocent guys."; 12/18/18, 10:44 PM
Narayanan said...: Does it work if sequence is flipped...
FBI *interviews* Flynn, can they legally access NSA recording to verify his statement? Etc; 12/18/18, 10:56 PM
Narayanan said...: When is the write-up of the interview officially, legally 302?; 12/18/18, 11:01 PM
Narayanan said...: FBI and anything intelligently forensically legit seems to be totally disconnected.; 12/18/18, 11:05 PM
Narayanan said...: Thanks Inga-all-knowing for confident reassure response.; 12/18/18, 11:10 PM
mccullough said...: I’d say Flynn, like Petraeus, Comey, and Mueller is a swamp rat. A person who rose through the ranks based on ass-kissing and back-stabbing skills. The Best and the Brightest either don’t join government or leave it.

I like this Judge. He seems to have a low opinion of Mueller and Flynn. So do I. Fuck both these guys.; 12/18/18, 11:50 PM
hombre said...: “I like this Judge. He seems to have a low opinion of Mueller and Flynn. So do I. Fuck both these guys.”
12/18/18, 11:50 PM

Me too. If he agrees with me, who cares if he is an unethical schmuck who violated the code of judicial ethics. /Sarc.; 12/19/18, 12:01 AM
Ajnal said...: Good morning InfoWars!

Still at it I see...what time does Alex Jones make an appearance?; 12/19/18, 5:53 AM
Jaq said...: So Anjil, Hillary Clinton didn't get 150 million dollars from Putin cronies? What were they buying?; 12/19/18, 6:18 AM
Jaq said...: She didn't destroy records of meetings with foreigners and emails from a time when she was collecting hundreds of millions of dollars from them?; 12/19/18, 6:20 AM
Jaq said...: She didn't lie in her campaign reporting about the nature of a couple of million dollars she gave to a foreign spy to work Putin spies for dirt on Trump?

This is a great opportunity for you to drop the hammer of truth here!; 12/19/18, 6:23 AM
Jason said...: Inga:
"How do you know it was baseless? Do you know what Judge Sullivan knows?"

Well, I know what "treason" means, for one thing.; 12/19/18, 9:39 AM
Kirk Parker said...: bagoh20

"Despite what you claim there is still no proof of a Trump - Russian conspiracy."

Oh, it's worse than that: there isn't even any evidence, while the evidence we do have of the actual ACTIONS of the Administration are uniformly favorable to US interests and unfavorable to Russian ones.

As I keep repeating, if Trump really somehow is Putin's puppet, he's in the running for Worst Puppet Ever.

Chuck,

"Flynn has pleaded guilty... Why are you ... not calling him a 'rat'?"

Because I want to nullify that law. Lying to an FBI investigator should NOT be a crime--and as a potential juror I would lie myself during voir dire for the chance to nullify such a charge--until such time as it's equally a felony for the FBI investigator to lie to you, AND we've seen a few convictions of such so that we know that side of the law is going to actually be enforced.

Complete reciprocity of felony risk here, or else we're just subjects and the FBI is part of the army of occupation the founders were worried about.

MikeR,

"Apparently the judge has now apologized for suggesting that Flynn committed treason, noting that his work for Turkey ended before the administration began."

Good if he did apologize, but what-the-heck does the ending date of his work for Turkey have to do with the question? How about noting that given Turkey's status as a NATO ally, treason is not possible?; 12/19/18, 2:03 PM
pfbonney said...: "The rot at the FBI and at Justice has leaked into the judiciary." - Blogger iowan2.

Obviously, you still haven't read Licensed to Lie, by Sidney Powell. The rot has flooded catastrophically into the judiciary, right on up into the appellate courts. Only the US Supreme Court seems to be relatively uncorrupted. Even the system they have in place to identify and rectify corruption has been corrupted and rendered impotent.

And, actually, Judge Sullivan was mentioned in that book. He is the judge that fixed the wrongful conviction of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) (by overturning this conviction), who by that time had been already been voted out of office, giving majority control of the US Congress to the Democrats just when Obama became president.; 1/16/19, 2:49 PM