ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags court cases , donald trump , Michael Flynn , perjury cases , Robert Mueller , William Barr

Reply
Old 26th June 2020, 07:53 AM   #921
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This is obviously wrong. There doesn't need to be any actual violation for a government accusation of a violation to cause problems for someone. In a word where such wrong accusations could be resolved at no cost, you might be right, but that isn't the reality we live in. There can be enormous costs associated with being wrongly accused. Ergo, the conflict of interest exists regardless of whether or not there was an actual FARA violation.

Why do you even need this pointed out to you?

He seems to think that if there was no crime, there could be no conflict. It's weird. "No cost" isn't limited to money, if you are charged, you could be found guilty even if you didn't commit the crime. Unless the argument by Upchurch includes the theory that innocent people are never found guilty, then it's worse than I thought.

Last edited by TahiniBinShawarma; 26th June 2020 at 08:13 AM.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 08:49 AM   #922
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,129
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This is obviously wrong. There doesn't need to be any actual violation for a government accusation of a violation to cause problems for someone. In a word where such wrong accusations could be resolved at no cost, you might be right, but that isn't the reality we live in. There can be enormous costs associated with being wrongly accused. Ergo, the conflict of interest exists regardless of whether or not there was an actual FARA violation.

Why do you even need this pointed out to you?
Because I don't understand what the actual conflict of interest for Flynn's former law firm is.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 08:56 AM   #923
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Because I don't understand what the actual conflict of interest for Flynn's former law firm is.
You do know that an attorney can't represent someone if they are going to be called as a witness in the proceedings right? This is elementary stuff.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 08:58 AM   #924
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,129
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
You do know that an attorney can't represent someone if they are going to be called as a witness in the proceedings right? This is elementary stuff.
So is attorney-client privilege.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 09:01 AM   #925
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
So is attorney-client privilege.
There is no attorney client privilege if the allegation involves a crime between the client and attorney.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 09:05 AM   #926
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,129
Before we move the goal posts too far, let's review the argument that was given:
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Perhaps you aren't aware of the conflict of interest that his previous counsel had. That's understandable, it hasn't gotten a lot of press coverage, and Flynn himself probably didn't appreciate it at the time either.
The whole premise is that Flynn gave false information on the FARA filings, thus setting up a conflict of interest. But, if you say, that Flynn did not give false information and there was no violation because no false information was given, then what is the problem?

Also, it seems that there was no need for the law firm to testify, if Flynn was already pleading guilty for the violation, was there?

eta: Was there a hearing where the law firm testified?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

Last edited by Upchurch; 26th June 2020 at 09:07 AM.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 09:23 AM   #927
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Before we move the goal posts too far, let's review the argument that was given:

The whole premise is that Flynn gave false information on the FARA filings, thus setting up a conflict of interest. But, if you say, that Flynn did not give false information and there was no violation because no false information was given, then what is the problem?

Also, it seems that there was no need for the law firm to testify, if Flynn was already pleading guilty for the violation, was there?

eta: Was there a hearing where the law firm testified?
Flynn's position is that he did not knowingly give false information on the FARA filing, supported by Judge Anthony Trenga and the dismissal of charges against Rafiekian.

"it seems that there was no need for the law firm to testify, if Flynn was already pleading guilty for the violation, was there?"

This is exactly why there was a conflict. Tell me who advised him to plead guilty again?


"Was there a hearing where the law firm testified?"

No. Because they advised him to plead guilty. This is all easy stuff.

Last edited by TahiniBinShawarma; 26th June 2020 at 09:31 AM.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 09:51 AM   #928
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,129
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
"Was there a hearing where the law firm testified?"

No. Because they advised him to plead guilty. This is all easy stuff.
Which Flynn did of his own choice. Again, no conflict of interest.


Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
"it seems that there was no need for the law firm to testify, if Flynn was already pleading guilty for the violation, was there?"

This is exactly why there was a conflict. Tell me who advised him to plead guilty again?
If he had decided to not plea guilty, it is possible that they would not have remained Flynn's attorneys because of that conflict of interest, but Flynn did plea guilty, so we may never know.

The point is, is that the way things went down, there was no conflict of interest. Arguing that there would have been if things had been different is a self-defeating argument. "It would have been different if it were different" is both true and not very convincing.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 09:53 AM   #929
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Which Flynn did of his own choice. Again, no conflict of interest.
No, he did on the advice of his attorneys. Of course everyone has the choice, but you pay an attorney to have your interests in mind, not their own.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 09:58 AM   #930
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Which Flynn did of his own choice. Again, no conflict of interest.



If he had decided to not plea guilty, it is possible that they would not have remained Flynn's attorneys because of that conflict of interest, but Flynn did plea guilty, so we may never know.

The point is, is that the way things went down, there was no conflict of interest. Arguing that there would have been if things had been different is a self-defeating argument. "It would have been different if it were different" is both true and not very convincing.
No, again, you pay attorney's to have your interests as top priority. Covington couldn't do that given they filed the FARA in question. They could be susceptible to charges themselves, and a tainted reputation. This does not even go into if they had to testify. Your hand waving of that fact doesn't make it go away. Neither does the fact that they advised their client to plead guilty in order to avoid any consequences for themselves. THAT argument actually strengthens the conflict of interest, not weakens it.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 10:01 AM   #931
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,129
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
No, he did on the advice of his attorneys. Of course everyone has the choice, but you pay an attorney to have your interests in mind, not their own.
How do you know they didn't?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 10:03 AM   #932
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,129
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
No, again, you pay attorney's to have your interests as top priority. Covington couldn't do that given they filed the FARA in question.
Do you know what they told him and what they didn't? It is just as possible that they explained the situation to Flynn as they didn't. More likely, given their apparent reputation, from what I've heard.

You are making a lot of assumptions.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 10:04 AM   #933
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Which Flynn did of his own choice. Again, no conflict of interest.



If he had decided to not plea guilty, it is possible that they would not have remained Flynn's attorneys because of that conflict of interest, but Flynn did plea guilty, so we may never know.

The point is, is that the way things went down, there was no conflict of interest. Arguing that there would have been if things had been different is a self-defeating argument. "It would have been different if it were different" is both true and not very convincing.
Also, he did not plead guilty to a false FARA filing. It was listed in the statement of offence, but he pleaded guilty to false statements to the FBI. Everyone is conflating, including myself, in this debate. His pleading guilty to false statements made the FARA issue go away. That does not change the conflict of interest issue. Covington avoided any dust up over the FARA filing by advising their client to plead guilty to lying to the FBI.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 10:11 AM   #934
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
How do you know they didn't?
That is actually irrelevant. I could ask you "how do you know they did?"

The point is Flynn was being threatened with charges on the FARA filing that Covington had a hand in. Covington would be material witnesses to those charges. There is no way around it. You can't represent someone if you are going to be a material witness. I get that you don't like it. But the facts are the facts.


This goes without getting into potential issues outside of being a witness. Flynn could attempt to put it all on Covington as a defense. I'm sure Covington wouldn't advise him to do so.............oh another conflict.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 10:19 AM   #935
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,129
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Also, he did not plead guilty to a false FARA filing. It was listed in the statement of offence, but he pleaded guilty to false statements to the FBI. Everyone is conflating, including myself, in this debate. His pleading guilty to false statements made the FARA issue go away. That does not change the conflict of interest issue.
Why wouldn't it, if the FARA issue had gone away?


Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Covington avoided any dust up over the FARA filing by advising their client to plead guilty to lying to the FBI.
But that isn't necessarily why they advised him to plead guilty nor does it suggest that they would have continued to represent him if the FARA issue hadn't gone away. You are merely assuming that they would have.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 10:20 AM   #936
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Do you know what they told him and what they didn't? It is just as possible that they explained the situation to Flynn as they didn't. More likely, given their apparent reputation, from what I've heard.

You are making a lot of assumptions.
I don't have to make assumptions for there to be a conflict, it's inherent in the facts of the case. It's you who keeps making assumptions trying to tiptoe around the facts and relationships that create the conflict. It's called sophistry, and none of it changes that Covington filed the very FARA Flynn was being hounded by prosecutors on, while at the same time advising Flynn on potential prosecutorial matters arising from the filing.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 10:23 AM   #937
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,129
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
The point is Flynn was being threatened with charges on the FARA filing that Covington had a hand in. Covington would be material witnesses to those charges. There is no way around it. You can't represent someone if you are going to be a material witness. I get that you don't like it. But the facts are the facts.
But, they have not been a material witness in a FARA violation hearing against Flynn. That is also a fact.


Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
This goes without getting into potential issues outside of being a witness. Flynn could attempt to put it all on Covington as a defense. I'm sure Covington wouldn't advise him to do so.............oh another conflict.
And Flynn would be free to do so. In fact, when he did so, they were no longer representing Flynn, so they could not advise him on the matter either way.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 10:27 AM   #938
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,129
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
I don't have to make assumptions for there to be a conflict, it's inherent in the facts of the case. It's you who keeps making assumptions trying to tiptoe around the facts and relationships that create the conflict. It's called sophistry, and none of it changes that Covington filed the very FARA Flynn was being hounded by prosecutors on, while at the same time advising Flynn on potential prosecutorial matters arising from the filing.
I'm not making any assumptions. Perhaps there might have been a conflict of interest, if the situation had been different. We don't know whether Covington would have continued to represent Flynn, if Flynn had been brought up on charges of a FARA violation. To the best of my knowledge, Covington never has represented Flynn on a FARA violation case. Have they?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 10:29 AM   #939
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Why wouldn't it, if the FARA issue had gone away?

I can't even take the question serious at this point. Are you really asking whether Flynn pleading guilty to making false statements to the FBI on advice of counsel in order to make the FARA issue go away changes the conflict of interest of those same attorneys involvement in the FARA issue? No, it does not, and I can't believe that I have to point out why, so I wont.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 10:31 AM   #940
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,129
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
I can't even take the question serious at this point. Are you really asking whether Flynn pleading guilty to making false statements to the FBI on advice of counsel in order to make the FARA issue go away changes the conflict of interest of those same attorneys involvement in the FARA issue? No, it does not, and I can't believe that I have to point out why, so I wont.
If you can't answer the question, there is no reason to make it personal.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 10:32 AM   #941
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
But, they have not been a material witness in a FARA violation hearing against Flynn. That is also a fact.
They didn't have to be, because they got him to plead guilty to a different charge with an agreement with prosecutors that they would drop the FARA issue. It's a clear conflict of interest. Covington got out of having to deal with the FARA issue by advising their client to plead guilty to something else.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 10:32 AM   #942
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,506
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Because I don't understand what the actual conflict of interest for Flynn's former law firm is.
Attorneys who submit false paperwork on behalf of their clients are potentially on the hook for that. Covington prepared and submitted Flynn's paperwork. They are potentially at risk if the DOJ says it contains false statements.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 10:39 AM   #943
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
If you can't answer the question, there is no reason to make it personal.

It's not a serious question, and has been answered. You are engaging in sophistry. Lets deal with the facts.

Did Covington handle Flynn's FARA filing?

Would Covington be called as a witness to any action by prosecutors on the filing? Would there be a possibility of harm to reputation? Possible sanctions including prosecution over the FARA filing by Covington?

Could there be a dispute in any potential litigation over the FARA filing between Flynn and Covington?

Did Covington work out a deal with the prosecutors to avoid all or any of this by advising their client to plead guilty to something else?

They did in fact advise Flynn to plead guilty, and did in fact benefit from the FARA issue going away by that guilty pleading. No amount of sophistry changes any of those facts, and there is clearly a conflict.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 10:40 AM   #944
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,506
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Why wouldn't it, if the FARA issue had gone away?
It only "went away" because Flynn pled guilty. That's why it was in Covington's interest to get Flynn to plead guilty, regardless of whether he was or whether or not that could be proven at trial. That's where the conflict comes from.

Quote:
But that isn't necessarily why they advised him to plead guilty
Not relevant to the existence of a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest exists whether or not that conflict causes any party to act in any particular way.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 10:43 AM   #945
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,129
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Attorneys who submit false paperwork on behalf of their clients are potentially on the hook for that. Covington prepared and submitted Flynn's paperwork. They are potentially at risk if the DOJ says it contains false statements.
Did it?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 10:54 AM   #946
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Did it?
Irrelevant, you can indict a ham sandwich, and prosecutors were raising the issue of charging Flynn and his son over it. Whether there were false statements or not does not change the conflict that would arise if charges were brought. They weren't brought because on advice of counsel Flynn pleaded guilty to false statements, thereby avoiding the issue to the benefit of said counsel. Clearly a conflict.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 10:58 AM   #947
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,129
Let me rephrase the question: Did Covington have any reason to think that Flynn had made a FARA violation where they would have to testify against him?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 11:02 AM   #948
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Let me rephrase the question: Did Covington have any reason to think that Flynn had made a FARA violation where they would have to testify against him?
It doesn't matter what Covington thought about false statements. What matters is prosecutors were threatening to charge Flynn with the FARA violations to which Covington would be at minimum a witness. This was avoided by advising their client to plead guilty to false statement charges. There in lies the conflict.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 11:49 AM   #949
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,506
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Did it?
Yes.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2020, 01:18 AM   #950
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,313
https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/st...563713025?s=20

Quote:
#BREAKING: Judge Sullivan is asking the full D.C. Circuit to rehear the three-judge panel decision granting the Flynn mandamus petition:

https://utexas.box.com/s/na0lhzm43wx...t12o2tz58widj0

The D.C. Circuit has 11 active judges; a majority must vote to grant the petition for the court to rehear the case “en banc,” which means Judge Sullivan needs six votes.
Petition embedded in tweet.

https://twitter.com/ourrepublic76/st...535240197?s=20

Quote:
For those interested, this is an excellent brief. A case study for writing a request for rehearing en banc.
https://twitter.com/diakopter/status...855337984?s=20

Quote:
"But the majority did not just overread one of this Court’s decisions—it also expressly contradicted another. In Ammidown, this Court concluded that it is appropriate for judges to inquire about Rule 48 motions, even where “the defendant concurs in the dismissal.”
"
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2020, 06:29 PM   #951
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 293
More Brady material which Van Grack withheld thereby violating Sullivan's order released.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...tates-v-flynn/
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2020, 06:51 PM   #952
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 293
Latest Supplement in Support of Dismissal filing by Flynn attorney Powell regarding recent disclosed Brady violations by Mueller/Van Grack.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...tates-v-flynn/
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2020, 08:36 PM   #953
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 12,136
powell is an idiot, a TV lawyer with no real-life legal skills.
If she didn't get everything handed to her by Barr, Flynn would have gotten 1 years no parole.
__________________
ETTD
Everything Trump Touches Dies
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2020, 09:24 AM   #954
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
powell is an idiot, a TV lawyer with no real-life legal skills.
If she didn't get everything handed to her by Barr, Flynn would have gotten 1 years no parole.
If she didn't get the Brady material that Van Grack withheld despite a court order? You agree with prosecutors defying court orders?

No real life legal skills despite being an Assistant United States Attorney and Appellate Section Chief in the Western and Northern Districts of Texas. She is a past president of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers and the Bar Association of the Fifth Federal Circuit.

Ok, whatever lol.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2020, 08:54 AM   #955
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 293
Flynn Opposition to Rehearing https://www.scribd.com/document/4697...earing-en-Banc
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 01:55 PM   #956
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 431
The Flynn mandamus decision is going en banc.

Politico

The Sullivan hearing was set for July 16th. It's quite plausible that this would be over already if Sullivan's process had been allowed to play itself out.

It's also worth noting that the reporting is somewhat wrong. Politico says:

Quote:
the order asked the parties to address at the August arguments whether Flynn has ďno other adequate means to attain the reliefĒ he is seeking.
But the order infact says:

Quote:
The parties should be prepared to address whether there are ďno other adequate means to attain the reliefĒ desired.
Note that the order is not directed towards Flynn specifically. This difference is crucial as Rao granted mandamus due to the government's needs rather than Flynn's needs.
Beeyon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2020, 01:58 PM   #957
TahiniBinShawarma
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
The Flynn mandamus decision is going en banc.

Politico

The Sullivan hearing was set for July 16th. It's quite plausible that this would be over already if Sullivan's process had been allowed to play itself out.

It's also worth noting that the reporting is somewhat wrong. Politico says:



But the order infact says:



Note that the order is not directed towards Flynn specifically. This difference is crucial as Rao granted mandamus due to the government's needs rather than Flynn's needs.
I'm guessing there will be more document releases in the mean time.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:04 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.