Congress Criminal Referral Clinton, Comey, McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, and Page to DOJ

[BigOrangeD]

He felt that more information concerning that one source should have been included. He also said that the warrants were nonetheless proper and legal.

I deal with this issue all the time in my legal work. When someone sues contending that a search or arrest warrant was improperly obtained, due to either incorrect or incomplete information in the warrant application for the reviewing judge, the legal question is this:

If the incorrect or incomplete material was omitted from the warrant application, would there still have been probable cause for its issuance?

The is THE legal test on this issue, used by federal courts around the country in dealing with such claims. It is well established by Wray and others that even if you took out the references to Steele dossier, or given more information about the source, the warrant applications would still have contained ample information to result in the warrants being issued:



Madiwale v. Savaiko, 117 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 1997).

Not to be renewed over and over and over again. They knew there was nothing there before renewing the FISAs. Not to mention, who authorized the one in July before anyone supposedly knew anything?

 

[Sandman 423]

Depends on where you plan on going with your line of questioning? Is this just a warm up question to an actual question about law? Do you need help out of a ticket, divorce, legal dispute in Florida?

No actual question. I like to understand the people that I am having a conversation with and why they have a certain point of view.

 

[Mick]

No actual question. I like to understand the people that I am having a conversation with and why they have a certain point of view.

Just ask them why they have a certain point of view. I can easily discern why people come to believe what they believe. Most of the time is in the words they say or type. There are keywords like "hoax" and "which hunt" that can easily be traced back to Trump and the Right wing media.

 

[RockyTop85]

One would think a Brady violation would get that done.

You would think. But even assuming there has been a Brady violation, it probably does not.

https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1709&context=caselrev

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3952717222737473222&q=536+

The article is a defense of how the law is presently applied. It talks about Ruiz, which I have linked. In that case, SCOTUS held that failure to turn over some types of Brady material doesn’t invalidate a guilty plea. AFAIK, it hasn’t changed much or been significantly expanded or limited since ‘01 but that could be wrong.

That leaves some wiggle room for Flynn, but not much.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

You would think. But even assuming there has been a Brady violation, it probably does not.

https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1709&context=caselrev

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3952717222737473222&q=536+

The article is a defense of how the law is presently applied. It talks about Ruiz, which I have linked. In that case, SCOTUS held that failure to turn over some types of Brady material doesn’t invalidate a guilty plea. AFAIK, it hasn’t changed much or been significantly expanded or limited since ‘01 but that could be wrong.

That leaves some wiggle room for Flynn, but not much.

It makes sense if you wave Brady with an
"informed plea agreement".

 

[RockyTop85]

It makes sense if you wave Brady with an
"informed plea agreement".

Which he did, according to the legal definition of informed plea agreement.

Edit: to expand on this, the Court in Ruiz addresses the issue of whether the government’s failure to turn over some types of Brady material (impeachment evidence) rendered a plea involuntary and unknowing or uninformed.

Basically, unless Flynn can show his last Attorney was ineffective, or get the law changed , he loses. I suspect he doesn’t want to allege ineffective assistance because that tends to inherently waive attorney client privilege and if his attorney comes out and says “we had candid discussions and in the course of those discussions he admitted he lied” then his chance at a pardon might go away.

 

[StarRaider]

what kind of lawyer are you?

 

[Sandman 423]

Just ask them why they have a certain point of view. I can easily discern why people come to believe what they believe. Most of the time is in the words they say or type. There are keywords like "hoax" and "which hunt" that can easily be traced back to Trump and the Right wing media.

congrats on being able to do that. What would you discern about people that take a post that is not about Trump and somehow bring him up?Also, is right wing media one of those key words?

 

[ajvol01]

Basically, unless Flynn can show his last Attorney was ineffective, or get the law changed , he loses. I suspect he doesn’t want to allege ineffective assistance because that tends to inherently waive attorney client privilege and if his attorney comes out and says “we had candid discussions and in the course of those discussions he admitted he lied” then his chance at a pardon might go away.

What makes you think he can’t show this?

 

[Mick]

congrats on being able to do that. What would you discern about people that take a post that is not about Trump and somehow bring him up?Also, is right wing media one of those key words?

That is a good question so I will answer with that example. Bringing Trump up when the conversation has nothing to do with him would probably highlight a posters disdain for Trump. Do you have a specific example you would like me to use, maybe even one of my own posts since it's hard to separate politics/policy from Trump. It would have to be taken into context with other posts as well.

"Fake news" was already taken and I don't know how else to state Right leaning media outlets in fewer words than right wing media. Do you have any suggestions of a more PC way of saying it? I could easily call it alternative facts media outlets, alt right media outlets, Right wing Propaganda outlets.

 

[RockyTop85]

What makes you think he can’t show this?

Knowledge of the law, extensive experience with ineffective assistance claims, and a general familiarity with what he’s alleging.

“I wasn’t informed of a conflict of interest” when there’s a signed document saying he had been informed?

“They failed to tell me that the agents who interviewed me didn’t immediately think I’d lied?”

These are the arguments that are left when the bottom of the barrel has been thoroughly scraped.

Would I have done those things? No. Do I think they fall below the absurdly low standard to which courts hold attorneys? Highly unlikely.

This is a ploy to delay sentencing and gin up lay persons and Trump supporters, to spark an indignant outcry when he gets sentenced, and to give Trump an opportunity to receive maximum adoration from his “populist” followers when he gives special treatment to a VIP.

 

[BigOrangeD]

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

Lol, funny how that's happening.

 

[hjeagle1vol]

Coming attractions...

 

[Rickyvol77]

I’ve never seen that guy’s picture. Is he 5 feet tall or is that just an odd camera angle? He looks like a little feller.

Typical beta male

 

[VolnJC]

 

[FLVOL69]

 

[AM64]

Which he did, according to the legal definition of informed plea agreement.

Edit: to expand on this, the Court in Ruiz addresses the issue of whether the government’s failure to turn over some types of Brady material (impeachment evidence) rendered a plea involuntary and unknowing or uninformed.

Basically, unless Flynn can show his last Attorney was ineffective, or get the law changed , he loses. I suspect he doesn’t want to allege ineffective assistance because that tends to inherently waive attorney client privilege and if his attorney comes out and says “we had candid discussions and in the course of those discussions he admitted he lied” then his chance at a pardon might go away.

Don't you think that precedent one court sets can be overturned with new precedent in another court? Dueling judges? That's the problem when courts rather than legislatures make law. You don't need to reply ... I'm not naive; I've already had this discussion in a graduate level law course with the professor. I'm an engineer, so I believe in codes and standards rather than the "flexibility" that precedents give. I also have a feeling that well written and applicable codes and standards would reduce the size of law libraries immensely.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Don't you think that precedent one court sets can be overturned with new precedent in another court? Dueling judges? That's the problem when courts rather than legislatures make law. You don't need to reply ... I'm not naive; I've already had this discussion in a graduate level law course with the professor. I'm an engineer, so I believe in codes and standards rather than the "flexibility" that precedents give. I also have a feeling that well written and applicable codes and standards would reduce the size of law libraries immensely.

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

 

[RockyTop85]

Don't you think that precedent one court sets can be overturned with new precedent in another court? Dueling judges? That's the problem when courts rather than legislatures make law. You don't need to reply ... I'm not naive; I've already had this discussion in a graduate level law course with the professor. I'm an engineer, so I believe in codes and standards rather than the "flexibility" that precedents give. I also have a feeling that well written and applicable codes and standards would reduce the size of law libraries immensely.

The legislature is free to enact a law that allows people to withdraw a guilty plea at any time for whatever reason the legislature determines is acceptable. Nothing is stopping them, whatsoever.

Unless the court reads a law to be incompatible with the constitution that expresses limits on government power, the legislature can do just about whatever they want.

 

[AM64]

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

I admit it took til the second line to figure out what Dr, Ferris that would be. One of my favorite books. I've read it several times - probably due for another reading soon.

 

[AM64]

The legislature is free to enact a law that allows people to withdraw a guilty plea at any time for whatever reason the legislature determines is acceptable. Nothing is stopping them, whatsoever.

Unless the court reads a law to be incompatible with the constitution that expresses limits on government power, the legislature can do just about whatever they want.

They could, but courts could also refrain from allowing law enforcement and prosecutors to play games with entrapment as the end result. I just read (maybe a link from VN) that Flynn is now being offered parole if he's a good boy and doesn't make waves. That sounds suspiciously like the FBI and federal prosecutors trying to bribe him into not making waves because they can't take much more embarrassment.

 

[RockyTop85]

They could, but courts could also refrain from allowing law enforcement and prosecutors to play games with entrapment as the end result. I just read (maybe a link from VN) that Flynn is now being offered parole if he's a good boy and doesn't make waves. That sounds suspiciously like the FBI and federal prosecutors trying to bribe him into not making waves because they can't take much more embarrassment.

The prosecutors don’t set the penalty in federal court. There is no “offer” to do anything. The Judge sets the penalty and it’s based on how the defendant scores in some convoluted equation they have. Both sides make recommendations for how the judge should see certain variables and what result that leads to.

 

[AM64]

The prosecutors don’t set the penalty in federal court. There is no “offer” to do anything. The Judge sets the penalty and it’s based on how the defendant scores in some convoluted equation they have. Both sides make recommendations for how the judge should see certain variables and what result that leads to.

That's exactly what the article says:

While the DOJ's stance is technically the same -- it is seeking a sentence of zero-to-six months -- the department's new filing makes clear that it would not oppose a sentence imposing zero jail time if that is what the judge decides.

It was other passages like this one that had me forgetting the judge was in control; I still get the feeling they all wish Flynn would just go along and be quiet, and I hope he doesn't.

The Department of Justice backed down from seeking jail time Wednesday and made clear that prosecutors would accept mere probation in the case of former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn -- a shift that comes as Flynn moves to withdraw his guilty plea leveraging accusations of government misconduct.

 

[RockyTop85]

That's exactly what the article says:



It was other passages like this one that had me forgetting the judge was in control; I still get the feeling they all wish Flynn would just go along and be quiet, and I hope he doesn't.

I’m not sure why they made a filing saying they’ll accept what the Judge does. Seems like a waste of paper. I don’t think the government can appeal the sentence.