DOJ dropping criminal case against Gen Flynn (UPDATE: DC Cir. dismisses case) (2 Viewers)

[BobE]

 

[FullMonte]

What is this?

"Flynn's nuclear deal involving the Saudis and other nations in the Middle East. "

I don't believe this for a NY minute. The Saudis have been interested in Nuclear Desalination for 20 years. Its a Two-Fer.. They get desalinated water and lots and lots of cheap electricity.

I do believe that Flynn is a grifter, but having fired him for lying why is Trump so keep to get him off the hook?

The Flynn backed nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia was covered significantly in the media about a year ago.

michael flynn saudi arabia nuclear - Google Search

www.google.com

 

[surada]

The Flynn backed nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia was covered significantly in the media about a year ago.

michael flynn saudi arabia nuclear - Google Search

www.google.com

There is nothing "shady" about nuclear tech for KSA. Flynn may have insinuated himself into possibility.. I do think he was greedy and finagling for a big score. The Saudis provided the money and the technology for Pakistan's nuclear development years and years ago in 1972. The SAG can buy a nuclear reactor from the French. Their interest is in a nuclear desalination plant with a caveat that they will be forced to get nuclear weapons if Iran does. But, it's good to remember that the Saudis have staunchly opposed all nuclear weapons in the ME for over 60 years.

 

[Lapaz]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-judge-hires-high-powered-dc-attorney-to-defend-his-actions-in-flynn-case/2020/05/23/9cae4d5e-9d0c-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html

So Sullivan has hired a lawyer to defend his actions to the appeal court? He's a judge; can someone explain why he'd need someone else to represent him on his own decision?

Sullivan appointed ex-judge John Gleeson to write the amicus, because of the ridiculous actions of the DoJ, since there wasn't opposition to the dismissal. Both the defendant and prosecution were on the same side, yet Flynn had clearly committed crimes in front of the court. Sullivan rightly requested an impartial opinion from someone not under the thumb of Trump.

 

[Lapaz]

Stop with the strawman already. I listed the evidence multiple times. You can write a lengthy article, but then you act like you can't look at a Twitter thread that contains screenshots of official documents with links or use Google.

Yes, innocent people do plead guilty. We know that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn didn't think he was purposely lying. Flynn's prior lawyers at Covington, who prepared the FARA filing, were informed that the Special Counsel was focusing on the FARA issues. They didn't inform Flynn of this development for weeks and not until after his proffer sessions started with team Mueller.

Flynn's prior lawyers did not inform him, before the plea was signed, that both FBI Agents "did not believe he was lying" and "saw no indication of deception."

According to emails from Flynn's former lawyers,they didn't think the false FARA statements in the plea deal were actually false.

"Several of the 'false statements' are contradicted by the caveats or qualifications in the filing."

Try to delineate the evidence, and Taylor and the rest of us won't have to search through incoherent posts to surmise your evidence. Innocent people do plead when they have no recourse and poor representation. You spend an exhorbitant amount of time on the FARA issues, but the charges that went forward were due to lying, not FARA filings. The FARA filings were not charged because he agreed to cooperate with Mueller. Those Mueller discussions were all about Flynn's illegal cooperation with Russia, so his lies about the sanctions are very material. You never explained what "false statements" are contradicted by the caveats or qualifications in the filing.

Its a weak argument that Flynn was guilty of other crimes. The Obama administration should have prosecuted Flynn on the supposed FARA charges because they were obligated to by the DOJ’s own rules that say the most serious, readily provable offense should be charged by prosecutors.

9-27.000 - Principles of Federal Prosecution

www.justice.gov

Flynn is most likely guilty of lying about negotiating election interference sanctions with Russia, secretly representing Turkey's Erdogan regime, and lying about influencing United Nations votes on Israeli settlement sanctions. FARA was not charged in exchange for the cooperation with Mueller on the Russia investigation. I suppose the Israeli issue was not worth pursuing. On the other hand, Flynn's conversations with Russia are probably recorded by the NSA, so that is also easy to prove, so the principles of federal prosecution on prosecuting the easiest relevant.

Flynn did register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act(LDA) instead of FARA originally, in Sep 2016. FARA prosecutions are so rare that had he been prosecuted, he might have been the first ever LDA registrant hit for not filing under FARA instead. The DOJ did prosecute Flynn’s business partner under FARA, and even had Flynn’s initial full cooperation on that case, and the Judge completely threw it out.

It's one thing to file as a regular lobbyist under LDA vs secretly being paid to represent an authoritarian foreign regime like Turkey. The partner was prosecuted by DoJ because he couldn't trade his prosecution for valuable information, such as on the Russian election interference.

Here you go again with your fake reading comprehension problems. You know I listed the lies in this thread.

There is confirmation(Per Comey testimony provided in DOJ motion to dismiss) that the original Flynn 302 was drafted immediately after the interview on the same day.

This isn't consistent with this statement to the Court by Van Grack: The government has produced "all versions in the government's possession of the FBI report of the January 24, 2017 interview" of Flynn.

Van Grack told Judge Sullivan that the Flynn “lies” "impeded" and "had a material impact on" the Trump/Russia investigation. Van Grack also told Judge Sullivan that he had provided all Brady evidence – and all “information that could reasonably be construed as favorable and material to sentencing.” Van Grack also told Judge Sullivan that the government has provided all Brady Evidence and that the government has not "suppressed evidence."

All this turned out to be false.

Wow, so the lies are that Van Grack didn't produce all of the Brady evidence with the agent's notes! Those notes don't change anything. It doesn't make anyone lie, whether the FBI wants you to lie or not. What evidence do you have that Flynn's lies didn't affect the Russian investigation?

Based on these misrepresentations, Judge Sullivan concluded that the Flynn interview was based on Trump/Russia (it wasn't) and thus his "lies" were material.

New evidence shows Sullivan's conclusion was incorrect. Relying on Van Grack’s claims, Judge Sullivan wrongly held that FBI and DOJ communications “are not favorable and material to sentencing.” New evidence shows that the FBI/DOJ conspired to use the Logan Act against Flynn. The evidence is material and favorable.

Judge Sullivan also wrongly found, based on promises from Van Grack, that the government had already provided Flynn with favorable/material info on "pre-interview discussions." This was not the case as discovered when the government provided the Strzok messages and Priestap notes.

Van Grack influences Sullivan into another faulty conclusion. Sullivan: Flynn’s argument that his statements “were not related to the investigation into Russia’s efforts to interfere in the election – is unavailing.” Sullivan: “Mr. Flynn’s false statements to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian Ambassador were relevant to the FBI’s [Russian interference] inquiry.” The evidence now shows this to be false. It was a Logan Act inquiry led by FBI leadership.

Continued...

Flynn agreed to discuss violations of the Logan Act with Mueller on election interference in exchange for not being prosecuted for violating FARA on the sanctions due to that election interference. Regardless, whether he lied about conversations with Kysliak about russian interference, about the sanctions, or about the weather, it is a federal offense to lie. He should've said he had the conversations, and then justified them.

 

[surada]

Try to delineate the evidence, and Taylor and the rest of us won't have to search through incoherent posts to surmise your evidence. Innocent people do plead when they have no recourse and poor representation. You spend an exhorbitant amount of time on the FARA issues, but the charges that went forward were due to lying, not FARA filings. The FARA filings were not charged because he agreed to cooperate with Mueller. Those Mueller discussions were all about Flynn's illegal cooperation with Russia, so his lies about the sanctions are very material. You never explained what "false statements" are contradicted by the caveats or qualifications in the filing.



Flynn is most likely guilty of lying about negotiating election interference sanctions with Russia, secretly representing Turkey's Erdogan regime, and lying about influencing United Nations votes on Israeli settlement sanctions. FARA was not charged in exchange for the cooperation with Mueller on the Russia investigation. I suppose the Israeli issue was not worth pursuing. On the other hand, Flynn's conversations with Russia are probably recorded by the NSA, so that is also easy to prove, so the principles of federal prosecution on prosecuting the easiest relevant.



It's one thing to file as a regular lobbyist under LDA vs secretly being paid to represent an authoritarian foreign regime like Turkey. The partner was prosecuted by DoJ because he couldn't trade his prosecution for valuable information, such as on the Russian election interference.



Wow, so the lies are that Van Grack didn't produce all of the Brady evidence with the agent's notes! Those notes don't change anything. It doesn't make anyone lie, whether the FBI wants you to lie or not. What evidence do you have that Flynn's lies didn't affect the Russian investigation?


Flynn agreed to discuss violations of the Logan Act with Mueller on election interference in exchange for not being prosecuted for violating FARA on the sanctions due to that election interference. Regardless, whether he lied about conversations with Kysliak about russian interference, about the sanctions, or about the weather, it is a federal offense to lie. He should've said he had the conversations, and then justified them.

Obama fired Flynn in 2014...

 

[surada]

In June 2013, Michael Flynn became the first U.S. officer to be allowed inside the Russian military intelligence (GRU) headquarters in Moscow, where he arrived at the invitation of the GRU chief Gen Igor Sergun.
Michael Flynn - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_T._Flynn

 

[Savage]

This is a really interesting breakdown regarding Sullivan's actions and where things stand.. can't wait to see how it unfolds. Looks like he has to personally respond which is interesting given that he recently lawyered up.

 

[TaylorB]

On January 4th the FBI was about to close the Flynn investigation and on the same day FBI agent Strzok intervened to keep it open. On January 5th, Obama held a meeting with high ranking officials to discuss Flynn and Comey brought up The Logan Act. Then someone illegally leaks Flynn's name to Washington Post. On January 6th Comey briefed Trump on the Steele dossier allegations so CNN could then report on it. On January 12th, the Washington Post mentions the Logan Act against Flynn and reveals his calls. On January 24th the FBI notes suggest they want to get Flynn to lie to prosecute him or "get him fired." NPR : "It also apparently avoided prospective charges for Flynn's son. Flynn and his attorneys considered the deal to be the least bad way out of the jam."

The Logan Act was passed in 1799 and not a single American has every been convicted under the law. The Obama Justice Department abandoned a Logan charge as too "difficult to prosecute", the FBI never opened a criminal investigation based on the Logan basis, and Mueller dropped his pursuit of the Logan Act. Even Strzok discussed the issues with trying to use the Logan Act on Flynn in an email to his lover Page.

It's funny how Van Grack withheld the information that contradicted his case until Barr assigned the US Attorney Jensen to review the case. As soon as Jensen was assigned to review the case Van Grack magically produced all the information that he withheld from Flynn's defense team.

I still chuckle at your repeated statements about Flynn talking to the Russian ambassador during the transition as something illegal or wrong. Do you honestly believe the incoming National Security Advisor isn't allowed to talk to any foreign officials? He asked Russia not to escalate after the Obama sanctions. Should he have told the nuclear armed Russia to escalate? I don't know how someone can defend the FBI strategizing about getting Flynn to lie to they can get him fired or prosecuted. Why would they be trying to get him fired or prosecuted?

Judge Sullivan is violating his own order that he gave December 20, 2017 and his prior denial of amicus briefing.

"The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal cases."

The DC Appeals court is now forcing Judge Sullivan to personally respond to the mandamus filled by Flynn's lawyers. What does Sullivan do in response? He hires a lawyer instead of responding himself to the appeals court.

As far as the amicus briefing that Sullivan is allowing, Gleeson and O'Neil are in the same law firm. O'Neil represents Yates who faces serious allegations of misconduct against Flynn. Gleeson and O'Neil asked the Court to exceed its authority and sentence Flynn. Gleeson got appointed amicus. Seems fishy to me.


The intelligence community and Mueller were both relying on the Crowdstrike assessment of the hacking because the DNC refused to hand over their server to the FBI. Crowdstrike was already being paid by the DNC so they are hardly a neutral party. Schiff had the under oath testimony of the Crowdstrike guy saying that he had no evidence of Russia stealing the emails for 2 years, but he kept it hidden until Grenell said he would release it. Schiff also hid the under oath testimonies of Obama administration officials admitting that they saw zero evidence of any conspiracy or collusion with Russia from the Trump campaign although they were saying the exact opposite on CNN and MSNBC. The examples of the Russia case crumbling keep coming.

It's quite ironic that as more evidence comes out as to how weak and flimsy the evidence was to start and continue the investigation that you and most on the left are still clinging to the idea that this was all legitimate and done above board. It's not surprising that you and many on the left were all for multiple investigations, but all of the sudden it's considered destructive to the rule of law for the DOJ to examine the investigations to make sure they were done according to the law.

I do not agree with your legal assessments of Flynn. The fact that you think an incoming National Security Advisor talking to the Russian ambassador about not escalating in response to sanctions as something illegal is hard to take as a serious argument. You seem to stretch and exaggerate things to fit your odd criteria even after new evidence has come out recently that puts more holes in the Russia investigation.

The nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia and the lobbying campaign for Turkey are both questionable actions, but I don't believe they are illegal correct? They have nothing to do with the Russian investigation though.

The problem isn't that the Russia or Flynn investigations started. The problem is that those investigations should have quickly ended due to lack of evidence, but they found ways to game the FISA court, lie, withhold evidence that contradicted their claims, falsify documents, leaked information that turned out not to be true, etc.

These two articles document the various issues with the Russia and Flynn investigations in very detailed ways.

Democrats Have Abandoned Civil Liberties

The Blue Party’s Trump-era Embrace of Authoritarianism Isn’t Just Wrong, it’s a Fatal Political Mistake

taibbi.substack.com

Can be viewed in incognito or private mode:

The Railroading of Michael Flynn

In their final encounter during the transition following the 2016 election, Donald Trump’s incoming national-security adviser surprised Barack Obama’s outgoing national-security adviser. Susan Rice writes in her memoir that the

www.commentarymagazine.com

The fact is that there remained an active counterintelligence investigation into whether Flynn was coordinating activities with Russia at the time the IC learned of a call between Flynn and Kislyak that he subsequently lied about to his superiors. Any lies Flynn told the FBI about that call would have been material to an investigation that was believed by the parties involved to be legitimate until a Trump installed AG -- whose application for the job was a memo he wrote about how the investigation into the President was illegitimate -- said that it wasn't.

The FBI did not need to gin up Logan Act charges to ask Flynn questions about what he discussed with Kislyak in that call. The fact that they considered charging him under the Logan Act could have related to his initial lies to superiors in his own administration in which he claimed not to have discussed foreign policy that he did, in fact, discuss with Russia (that be extremely problematic, particularly if it were contrary to the incoming admin's official policy). It is revisionist history to suggest that the FBI needed the Logan Act to make the lies "material." There was an open CI investigation which the contents of the Kislyak-Flynn call fell squarely into.

I had a reasonable exchange with JimEverett in this thread in which we analyzed some of Sullivan's potential considerations. He did not berate my reading comprehension or suggest I was being disingenuous, and I think our discussion about what's likely to happen in court was more productive than shouting talking points past each other. The suggestions you've made about Van Grack's supposed brazen lies, if you're correct, would result in his disbarrment or suspension. I don't think that, or anything close to it, is going to happen. It is conceivable to me that Sullivan, or more likely a DC appeals panel with majority R appointees, determines dismissal is warranted either based on (1) not wanting to disrupt the balance of Article II or III power regarding prosecutions or (2) some analysis of the facts stating that the investigation was not warranted.

I do not think Sullivan will dismiss the case because in addition to him likely agreeing that Barr's motion consists of political fodder as opposed to legal analysis, I think the case law shows it to be within Sullivan's jurisdiction, and not the executive's, to continue to sentence Flynn. Having seen some of their recent rulings, I could see DC appeals judges Rao and Henderson adopting Barr's talking points and trying to dismiss the case, which would result in a procedural mess if Sullivan then wanted Article III interests to be represented in an en banc appeal (en banc is when an appeals court panel is made up of the entire court, instead of a 3-judge panel; it would be highly unusual for an appeal relating to a criminal conviction to be brought by anyone other than a convicted person, because (1) convicts do not appeal their own dismissals, and (2) it is rare that the executive and judiciary do not agree on a dismissal). My guess as to why Sullivan hired counsel relates to the unusual posture this case is in with competing balances of Article II and III power, but I don't know for sure. This does not prove that he's partisan or biased.

I am not ruling out the possibility that one of those pieces of evidence (particularly the Priestap notes) is determined to be significant, but that would more likely be by one of the GOP-appointed appeals court judges than by Sullivan (or anyone else). I don't think any of the "new" evidence changes materiality or is probative of Flynn's guilt or innocence, and thus is not Brady material anyway. But apart from the Priestap notes and the Logan Act discussion -- both which in my opinion are red herrings -- the vast majority of evidence you're citing consists of things Flynn already knew both times he pled guilty.

 

[TaylorB]

The fact is that there remained an active counterintelligence investigation into whether Flynn was coordinating activities with Russia at the time the IC learned of a call between Flynn and Kislyak that he subsequently lied about to his superiors. Any lies Flynn told the FBI about that call would have been material to an investigation that was believed by the parties involved to be legitimate until a Trump installed AG -- whose application for the job was a memo he wrote about how the investigation into the President was illegitimate -- said that it wasn't.

The FBI did not need to gin up Logan Act charges to ask Flynn questions about what he discussed with Kislyak in that call. The fact that they considered charging him under the Logan Act could have related to his initial lies to superiors in his own administration in which he claimed not to have discussed foreign policy that he did, in fact, discuss with Russia (that be extremely problematic, particularly if it were contrary to the incoming admin's official policy). It is revisionist history to suggest that the FBI needed the Logan Act to make the lies "material." There was an open CI investigation which the contents of the Kislyak-Flynn call fell squarely into.

I had a reasonable exchange with JimEverett in this thread in which we analyzed some of Sullivan's potential considerations. He did not berate my reading comprehension or suggest I was being disingenuous, and I think our discussion about what's likely to happen in court was more productive than shouting talking points past each other. The suggestions you've made about Van Grack's supposed brazen lies, if you're correct, would result in his disbarrment or suspension. I don't think that, or anything close to it, is going to happen. It is conceivable to me that Sullivan, or more likely a DC appeals panel with majority R appointees, determines dismissal is warranted either based on (1) not wanting to disrupt the balance of Article II or III power regarding prosecutions or (2) some analysis of the facts stating that the investigation was not warranted.

I do not think Sullivan will dismiss the case because in addition to him likely agreeing that Barr's motion consists of political fodder as opposed to legal analysis, I think the case law shows it to be within Sullivan's jurisdiction, and not the executive's, to continue to sentence Flynn. Having seen some of their recent rulings, I could see DC appeals judges Rao and Henderson adopting Barr's talking points and trying to dismiss the case, which would result in a procedural mess if Sullivan then wanted Article III interests to be represented in an en banc appeal (en banc is when an appeals court panel is made up of the entire court, instead of a 3-judge panel; it would be highly unusual for an appeal relating to a criminal conviction to be brought by anyone other than a convicted person, because (1) convicts do not appeal their own dismissals, and (2) it is rare that the executive and judiciary do not agree on a dismissal). My guess as to why Sullivan hired counsel relates to the unusual posture this case is in with competing balances of Article II and III power, but I don't know for sure. This does not prove that he's partisan or biased.

I am not ruling out the possibility that one of those pieces of evidence (particularly the Priestap notes) is determined to be significant, but that would more likely be by one of the GOP-appointed appeals court judges than by Sullivan (or anyone else). I don't think any of the "new" evidence changes materiality or is probative of Flynn's guilt or innocence, and thus is not Brady material anyway. But apart from the Priestap notes and the Logan Act discussion -- both which in my opinion are red herrings -- the vast majority of evidence you're citing consists of things Flynn already knew both times he pled guilty.

On Flynn's work for Turkey: he was writing op-eds praising Erdogan and plotting to covertly extradite Fethullah Gulen to Turkey due to his involvement in a coup against Erdogan. Flynn tried to hide the fact that the work was being done on behalf of Turkish government.

Mueller gives new details on Flynn’s secretive work for Turkey

Prosecutors for special counsel Robert Mueller say that Flynn’s lies "impeded the ability of the public" to know the extent of Turkey's efforts to influence public opinion.

www.nbcnews.com

This was part of a pattern of Flynn not disclosing his foreign contacts in lobbying disclosures and security clearance application filings:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michael-flynns-role-in-middle-eastern-nuclear-project-could-compound-legal-issues/2017/11/26/51ce7ec8-ce18-11e7-81bc-c55a220c8cbe_story.html

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article157014574.html

These links suggest that Flynn concealed pre-election personal business contacts not only with Turkey, but also with Russia, Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Some of these appear related to the nuclear deal he was pursuing in cooperation with Russia -- the one he said was "good to go" in a text to an associate 11 minutes after Trump's inauguration. SFL, you admit the nuclear deal was "questionable" -- I agree. The feds thought so, too.

 

[TaylorB]

I don’t normally like to post other peoples’ analysis on topics like this, but I found this to be a helpful analysis on the Flynn situation from someone with experience as a prosecutor in the realm of national security. This thread has touched on nearly all the topics she addresses at one point or another, but this ties the case together pretty neatly and hits on a number of points that had never occurred to me:

Eli Lake’s Omissions and Misleading Facts in Defense of Michael Flynn

Lake's essay has been called “the best summary of the pro-Flynn argument you'll ever read,” but former US Attorney and Professor Barbara McQuade finds Lake's analysis omits and mischaracterizes key parts of the record.

www.justsecurity.org

 

[JimEverett]

Sullivan rightly requested an impartial opinion from someone not under the thumb of Trump.

Is that an opinion or do you have an authority to back up the "rightness" of the Juge's actions?

 

[JimEverett]

I do not think Sullivan will dismiss the case because in addition to him likely agreeing that Barr's motion consists of political fodder as opposed to legal analysis, I think the case law shows it to be within Sullivan's jurisdiction, and not the executive's, to continue to sentence Flynn. Having seen some of their recent rulings, I could see DC appeals judges Rao and Henderson adopting Barr's talking points and trying to dismiss the case, which would result in a procedural mess if Sullivan then wanted Article III interests to be represented in an en banc appeal (en banc is when an appeals court panel is made up of the entire court, instead of a 3-judge panel; it would be highly unusual for an appeal relating to a criminal conviction to be brought by anyone other than a convicted person, because (1) convicts do not appeal their own dismissals, and (2) it is rare that the executive and judiciary do not agree on a dismissal). My guess as to why Sullivan hired counsel relates to the unusual posture this case is in with competing balances of Article II and III power, but I don't know for sure. This does not prove that he's partisan or biased.

I think we agree that Sullivan is well within his power to rule against Fynn's motion to withdraw the guilty plea and to sentence Flynn.
I think he can do that separately from ruling on DOJ's motion to drop the charges. Although I am not sure how such a ruling would hold up on appeal, I think the Judge has the power to deny it.

I do not understand how the Judge has the power to appoint amicus curie to essentially stand-in for the State, nor do I understand the reasoning for even wanting to do it. Either he has the power to rule against DOJ or he does not - why the need for amicus curie?

 

[TaylorB]

I think we agree that Sullivan is well within his power to rule against Fynn's motion to withdraw the guilty plea and to sentence Flynn.
I think he can do that separately from ruling on DOJ's motion to drop the charges. Although I am not sure how such a ruling would hold up on appeal, I think the Judge has the power to deny it.

I do not understand how the Judge has the power to appoint amicus curie to essentially stand-in for the State, nor do I understand the reasoning for even wanting to do it. Either he has the power to rule against DOJ or he does not - why the need for amicus curie?

I thought his legal authority for appointing amicus appeared pretty solid under the Jin case I cited in our prior exchange. As for why he felt the need to do it, I can only offer speculation. I agree with you that it seems unnecessary, particularly if he subscribes to the notion that the decision to dismiss is his after accepting the plea. I am hoping there’s more clarity on this down the road.

 

[JimEverett]

I thought his legal authority for appointing amicus appeared pretty solid under the Jin case I cited in our prior exchange. As for why he felt the need to do it, I can only offer speculation. I agree with you that it seems unnecessary, particularly if he subscribes to the notion that the decision to dismiss is his after accepting the plea. I am hoping there’s more clarity on this down the road.

I may have missed it, but wasn't Jin a civil case? How would that give the Juge legal authority to appoint in a criminal case?

If you addressed that earlier, just let me know and I will go back and find it. No need to rewrite it.

 

[FullMonte]

There is nothing "shady" about nuclear tech for KSA. Flynn may have insinuated himself into possibility.. I do think he was greedy and finagling for a big score. The Saudis provided the money and the technology for Pakistan's nuclear development years and years ago in 1972. The SAG can buy a nuclear reactor from the French. Their interest is in a nuclear desalination plant with a caveat that they will be forced to get nuclear weapons if Iran does. But, it's good to remember that the Saudis have staunchly opposed all nuclear weapons in the ME for over 60 years.

Well..yeah, there is something shady about it. The law REQUIRES any transfer of US nuclear technology to any other country be reviewed by congress. Flynn was informed of this (according to multiple whistleblowers), and continued to work towards closing the deal without notifying congress.

 

[surada]

Well..yeah, there is something shady about it. The law REQUIRES any transfer of US nuclear technology to any other country be reviewed by congress. Flynn was informed of this (according to multiple whistleblowers), and continued to work towards closing the deal without notifying congress.

That's on Flynn, not the Saudis.

 

[TaylorB]

I may have missed it, but wasn't Jin a civil case? How would that give the Juge legal authority to appoint in a criminal case?

If you addressed that earlier, just let me know and I will go back and find it. No need to rewrite it.

Jin was a civil case, but there was a citation in the opinion supporting the Article III judge’s inherent authority to appoint amicus that didn’t seem to draw a distinction between civil and criminal cases. I found this law review article discussing the ~54 times amicus has been appointed, and some of these are criminal or quasi criminal cases:

http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2011/04/Goldman-63_Stan._L._Rev._907.pdf

So for example, SCOTUS appears to have appointed amicus in Bond v. U.S. in 2010 when the Solicitor General changed course on whether a criminal defendant had standing to raise a 10th amendment challenge to a federal statute she was convicted under. There’s a case in the article where John Roberts was appointed amicus in a double-jeopardy case as well (not necessarily on point here, but interesting).

The article is questioning the prudence of appointing amicus in certain circumstances, and to be clear I don't feel strongly one way or another about whether Sullivan should have done it. But there does seem to be precedent for doing so in a criminal case when the government’s changing course “orphans” a prior argument, and in this case, the argument left “orphaned” by the DOJ has already been adopted by the trial judge in accepting the guilty plea.

 

[Lapaz]

Is that an opinion or do you have an authority to back up the "rightness" of the Juge's actions?

I'm not a lawyer, so it was an opinion based on what I've read and heard about the case, and I think Taylor provided the authority for the "rightness". Had Sullivan continued to sentencing, there would've been cries of bias, even if you believe he was right, because many others would not agree. It makes sense that he would seek a 3rd party analysis to reinforce his actions. It isn't a foregone conclusion that the amicus will recommend refusing to dismiss and proceeding to sentencing, but I believe it will. The amicus should help it hold up on appeal.