Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sylvester80 who wrote (1228574)	5/9/2020 2:45:50 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575900

the guy who sicced gov agencies against his political enemies cares about the rule of law lolol can't make this shit up

To: sylvester80 who wrote (1228574)	5/9/2020 2:47:36 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575900

the guy who gave guns to the mexican drug cartels cares about the rule of law , right

To: sylvester80 who wrote (1228574)	5/9/2020 3:57:54 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575900

Obama Claims ‘No Precedent’ In Flynn Dismissal — There Is, And His Own AG Eric Holder Used It Comments VIRGINIA KRUTAASSOCIATE EDITOR May 09, 202012:34 PM ET FONT SIZE: Former President Barack Obama worried that there was no precedent to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — but his own Attorney General Eric Holder applied it in 2009. Impeachment witness and George Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley pointed out the disconnect in a series of tweets Saturday, beginning by noting that Obama had misrepresented the charges against Flynn. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: ‘They Did It To Me First’ — Rod Blagojevich Knew Exactly What The FBI Did To Flynn) Jonathan Turley@JonathanTurley President Obama is being quoted on Flynn, saying "There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free." It is a curious statement. First and foremost, Flynn was not charged with perjury... t.co Did The Mueller Team Violate Brady and Flynn Orders?With the release of the new material from the case of Michael Flynn, an array of experts came forward to assure the public that it was all standard procedure for investigators to conclude that ther… jonathanturley.org 11.1K 8:30 AM - May 9, 2020 Twitter Ads info and privacy 7,548 people are talking about this Flynn was not actually charged with “perjury,” as Turley pointed out, but with lying to the FBI. And recently-released documents suggest that those charges only came about as the result of a trap laid by the FBI in order to gain leverage over Flynn. But even so, the precedent denied by Obama does exist. Turley explained its use in a column posted on his own page Saturday. There is ample precedent for this motion even though, as I noted in the column calling for this action, such dismissals are rare. There is a specific rule created for this purpose. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) states the government may dismiss an indictment, information or complaint “with leave of the court.” Moreover, such dismissals are tied to other rules mandating such action when there is evidence of prosecutorial misconduct or fundamental questions about the underlying case from the view of the prosecutors. What makes Obama’s denial of this precedent so curious is the fact that his own former Attorney General Eric Holder used it 11 years ago, citing prosecutorial misconduct and failure to provide exculpatory evidence in the case against former Republican Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens. Stevens’ conviction was ultimately dismissed in April 2009 by Judge Emmet Sullivan — the same judge who presided over Flynn’s case. Jonathan Turley@JonathanTurley · 7h Replying to @JonathanTurley There is a specific rule allowing for this motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). There are specific Supreme Court cases like Rinaldi v. United States addressing the standard for such dismissals.... Jonathan Turley@JonathanTurley The Justice Department has dismissed cases in the past including the Stevens case.That was requested by President Obama's own Attorney General Eric Holder for the same reason: misconduct by prosecutors. It was done before the same judge, Judge Sullivan. How is that for precedent? 11K 8:38 AM - May 9, 2020 Twitter Ads info and privacy 6,122 people are talking about this Holder released a statement on Stevens’ case prior to Sullivan’s decision: After careful review, I have concluded that certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial. In light of this conclusion, and in consideration of the totality of the circumstances of this particular case, I have determined that it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the indictment and not proceed with a new trial. A week later, Sullivan dismissed the case — but not without first dressing down the prosecutors involved. “In nearly 25 years on the bench, I have never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct I have seen in this case,” he said. Sullivan took it a step further, ruling that the missteps were too numerous and too egregious for an internal investigation within the DOJ to suffice. An outside attorney was appointed to review the case and determine whether any of the prosecutors involved should be held in criminal contempt. Sullivan has not yet commented on Attorney General William Barr’s decision to drop the charges against Flynn.