Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Law and Crime)   Low Barr had a secret reason to try to dismiss the case after Flynn withdrew his guilty plea   (lawandcrime.com) divider line
    More: News, Separation of powers, President of the United States, Judiciary, United States Department of Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, active judges, Judge, Lawyer  
•       •       •

5313 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Aug 2020 at 3:47 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



49 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-08-11 1:47:50 PM  
"Wall said Barr was directly involved with the case and had secret reasons for seeking the case's dismissal. Wall argued that the judiciary cannot probe the government's reasons to seek the dismissal of the Flynn case; he even wildly argued (in response to a hypothetical) that the judiciary would be forced under the law to dismiss a case where direct evidence proved a prosecutor had been bribed by a defendant to seek the case's dismissal."

lol, there's no way the court will go along with that. Wall would have been better off if he just said nothing.
 
2020-08-11 1:56:28 PM  
Barr: I have a reason to dismiss the case
Court: So, show us that reason
Barr: No

FU!!
 
2020-08-11 2:04:44 PM  

thorpe: "Wall said Barr was directly involved with the case and had secret reasons for seeking the case's dismissal. Wall argued that the judiciary cannot probe the government's reasons to seek the dismissal of the Flynn case; he even wildly argued (in response to a hypothetical) that the judiciary would be forced under the law to dismiss a case where direct evidence proved a prosecutor had been bribed by a defendant to seek the case's dismissal."

lol, there's no way the court will go along with that. Wall would have been better off if he just said nothing.


I'm starting to think it's physically impossible for them to resist.

"We did nothing wrong.  But even if we did, it's perfectly right."  They can never let it go with that first sentence.
 
2020-08-11 2:20:32 PM  
This is "I'm a king, STFU" level argument.

The Supreme Court JUST rejected that as a basis for refusing a subpoena. But they're going to run that play over and over until they score one.

All because Trump doesn't want to sign the pardon? It's weird.
 
2020-08-11 2:41:33 PM  
If only there was a information limiting forum where in one could give one's secret reasons. Like a court case...with some sort of gag order.

/ Of course, you'd have to show the judge why you want that
 
2020-08-11 3:34:17 PM  
So Flynn is on double secret probation? That clears up all of that.
 
2020-08-11 3:38:11 PM  
They're just playing out the clock at this point. All defense, no offense. Well, it's plenty offensive but not in that way.
 
2020-08-11 3:50:25 PM  
"We're all traitors and we're not going to openly admit it", said Barr, kind of.
 
2020-08-11 3:50:27 PM  
Even more reason to stick with sentencing. Make it obvious, you desperate dipshiat.
 
2020-08-11 3:53:33 PM  
I bet Barr was the kid in grade school with a girlfriend who goes to a different school in a different state. And her phone sometimes weird so he can't call her right now.
 
2020-08-11 3:54:39 PM  
They're not even trying anymore, are they?
 
2020-08-11 3:55:41 PM  
His secret reasons aren't so secret.
 
2020-08-11 3:55:42 PM  
This is right on par with Trump's "my DNA would exonerate me but I still won't give you any" bullshiat.
 
2020-08-11 3:58:38 PM  
From trump* to his administration to his voters, conservatives are antiAmerican filth and need to pay for their treason.
 
2020-08-11 3:58:52 PM  

thorpe: "Wall said Barr was directly involved with the case and had secret reasons for seeking the case's dismissal. Wall argued that the judiciary cannot probe the government's reasons to seek the dismissal of the Flynn case; he even wildly argued (in response to a hypothetical) that the judiciary would be forced under the law to dismiss a case where direct evidence proved a prosecutor had been bribed by a defendant to seek the case's dismissal."

lol, there's no way the court will go along with that. Wall would have been better off if he just said nothing.


The shiat they are trying to pull is just so hilariously, obviously corrupt it beggars belief.  Why didn't they just send Keely McEnema to argue before the court?  She's great at lawyer'n like that.
 
2020-08-11 4:02:12 PM  

Ray_Finkle: I bet Barr was the kid in grade school with a girlfriend who goes to a different school in a different state. And her phone sometimes weird so he can't call her right now.


Seeing as he has been married to the same girl for 47 years, i would bet you are wrong.
 
2020-08-11 4:02:15 PM  

thorpe: "Wall said Barr was directly involved with the case and had secret reasons for seeking the case's dismissal. Wall argued that the judiciary cannot probe the government's reasons to seek the dismissal of the Flynn case; he even wildly argued (in response to a hypothetical) that the judiciary would be forced under the law to dismiss a case where direct evidence proved a prosecutor had been bribed by a defendant to seek the case's dismissal."

lol, there's no way the court will go along with that. Wall would have been better off if he just said nothing.


Yeah, that's a line crossing you'd better be able to back up. We had something similar happen when I was younger, and the County DA was pissed at the Local DA. The County DA inferred similar things (off the record) about a couple cases. Let's just say a judge nearly frog marched that farker to a table privately and said he'd better be able to back that shiat up, or he was going to be in the shiat, unless he immediately apologized for inferring something like that, even off the record / off the cuff.

The County guy apologized really, really, really quickly. Of course that particular judge was a known hard-a$$ who didn't take shiat from anyone.
 
2020-08-11 4:02:52 PM  
Bill Barr is a fat piece of shiat and his stand-up act has really gone downhill in recent years.
 
2020-08-11 4:03:03 PM  

thorpe: "Wall said Barr was directly involved with the case and had secret reasons for seeking the case's dismissal. Wall argued that the judiciary cannot probe the government's reasons to seek the dismissal of the Flynn case; he even wildly argued (in response to a hypothetical) that the judiciary would be forced under the law to dismiss a case where direct evidence proved a prosecutor had been bribed by a defendant to seek the case's dismissal."

lol, there's no way the court will go along with that. Wall would have been better off if he just said nothing.


If he admits that even a tiny minority of motions to dismiss charges could be rightly denied by a judge, then hearings on such motions would always be warranted. Since he is trying to claim that such hearings are *never* warranted, he has no choice but to argue that judges have zero discretion under any circumstance to question the motion. The hypothetical was designed to make him either admit that hearings are appropriate or have him highlight how legally absurd his position is.
 
2020-08-11 4:03:40 PM  

desertratt: Ray_Finkle: I bet Barr was the kid in grade school with a girlfriend who goes to a different school in a different state. And her phone sometimes weird so he can't call her right now.

Seeing as he has been married to the same girl for 47 years, i would bet you are wrong.


You had a Canadian girlfriend too, huh?
 
2020-08-11 4:03:45 PM  

desertratt: Ray_Finkle: I bet Barr was the kid in grade school with a girlfriend who goes to a different school in a different state. And her phone sometimes weird so he can't call her right now.

Seeing as he has been married to the same girl for 47 years, i would bet you are wrong.


She's a coont farker.
 
2020-08-11 4:05:19 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-11 4:06:09 PM  
Just wait until he compels Maxwell to lie.
 
2020-08-11 4:08:07 PM  
JEFF WALL: IT WOULD CAUSE ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR IRREPARABLE HARM IF HE HAD TO REVEAL HIS SECRET REASON HE MOVED TO DISMISS FLYNN'S PROSECUTION

A third possibility is that DOJ has been ordered by the President to make sure none of the people who protected him do prison time. Secret reason. Can't be shared with judges. Checks out!
 
2020-08-11 4:10:03 PM  
I know it's a farking law journal, but can we get a farking NSFW warning when it contains a photo of Barr?
 
2020-08-11 4:10:42 PM  

thorpe: "Wall said Barr was directly involved with the case and had secret reasons for seeking the case's dismissal. Wall argued that the judiciary cannot probe the government's reasons to seek the dismissal of the Flynn case; he even wildly argued (in response to a hypothetical) that the judiciary would be forced under the law to dismiss a case where direct evidence proved a prosecutor had been bribed by a defendant to seek the case's dismissal."

lol, there's no way the court will go along with that. Wall would have been better off if he just said nothing.


Fark user imageView Full Size


By the end he was conceding that he didn't expect to prevail but made sure to make the maximal case that the Seperation of Powers means that judges are required to treat everything a prosecutor tells them as accurate and rule accordingly.
 
2020-08-11 4:14:13 PM  
I am just left with the feeling that signing the pardon would be an act of obvious treason and Donnie really just has a least one penny of sense to not do that after he was told by a dozen people he would fark himself.
 
2020-08-11 4:14:35 PM  
The branches are coequal until Congress tries to exercise oversight or the Judiciary and then it's fark you.
 
2020-08-11 4:14:37 PM  

thorpe: "Wall said Barr was directly involved with the case and had secret reasons for seeking the case's dismissal. Wall argued that the judiciary cannot probe the government's reasons to seek the dismissal of the Flynn case; he even wildly argued (in response to a hypothetical) that the judiciary would be forced under the law to dismiss a case where direct evidence proved a prosecutor had been bribed by a defendant to seek the case's dismissal."

lol, there's no way the court will go along with that. Wall would have been better off if he just said nothing.


So, am I reading this right? If you can bribe an official, then your crimes aren't able to be prosecuted? The law and order presidency indeed.

"Wall recapped the government's stated reasons for dismissing the case . . . First, newly discovered evidence of misconduct resulted in a decision by the government that it could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Flynn's lies to the authorities were material. "

This is a tricky one. If the government finds that it committed misconduct, it should be able to withdraw charges, even if there was a guilty plea. It is well known that defendants sometimes plea down to avoid the full weight of the government. This is not to say that the courts should not evaluate the reasoning, but that it should be possible.


"Second, the interests of justice were no longer served, in the government's view, by continuing to prosecute Flynn."

Oh my. While this probably should be the standard, I'm sure the collective memory of Fark can come up with quite a few instances where the the interests of justice were never an issue in he first place. It raises concern about when, in the government's view, is justice served.
 
2020-08-11 4:20:40 PM  

northgrave: thorpe: "Wall said Barr was directly involved with the case and had secret reasons for seeking the case's dismissal. Wall argued that the judiciary cannot probe the government's reasons to seek the dismissal of the Flynn case; he even wildly argued (in response to a hypothetical) that the judiciary would be forced under the law to dismiss a case where direct evidence proved a prosecutor had been bribed by a defendant to seek the case's dismissal."

lol, there's no way the court will go along with that. Wall would have been better off if he just said nothing.

So, am I reading this right? If you can bribe an official, then your crimes aren't able to be prosecuted? The law and order presidency indeed.

"Wall recapped the government's stated reasons for dismissing the case . . . First, newly discovered evidence of misconduct resulted in a decision by the government that it could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Flynn's lies to the authorities were material. "

This is a tricky one. If the government finds that it committed misconduct, it should be able to withdraw charges, even if there was a guilty plea. It is well known that defendants sometimes plea down to avoid the full weight of the government. This is not to say that the courts should not evaluate the reasoning, but that it should be possible.


"Second, the interests of justice were no longer served, in the government's view, by continuing to prosecute Flynn."

Oh my. While this probably should be the standard, I'm sure the collective memory of Fark can come up with quite a few instances where the the interests of justice were never an issue in he first place. It raises concern about when, in the government's view, is justice served.


His argument is that yes, if you watched someone hand a prosecutor a large cartoon bag of money before they walked in the door to announce they are dropping their case you are within your rights as a judge to question the prosecutor, but if the prosecutor says they have unrelated reasons to the money thing to drop the case you cannot deny their motion as refusing to accept that answer is a violation of the seperation of powers doctrine.
 
2020-08-11 4:21:32 PM  

DoctorFarkGood: They're not even trying anymore, are they?


They never were. Trump fired the FBI director for investigating his allies, and then admitted it on national TV, 5 months into his term and nothing happened.
 
2020-08-11 4:23:35 PM  

Ray_Finkle: I bet Barr was the kid in grade school with a girlfriend who goes to a different school in a different state. And her phone sometimes weird so he can't call her right now.


Maybe, but he was definitely the kid in college that roused a bunch of conservative jocks to bear the shiat out of Vietnam War protesters... That's on record.

He grew up an authoritarian and went from wanting to be in the CIA to wanting to be an attorney because his dear leader Nixon got shiat canned and he swore he would never let that happen to another strong leader again.
 
2020-08-11 4:26:27 PM  

Grungehamster: northgrave: thorpe: "Wall said Barr was directly involved with the case and had secret reasons for seeking the case's dismissal. Wall argued that the judiciary cannot probe the government's reasons to seek the dismissal of the Flynn case; he even wildly argued (in response to a hypothetical) that the judiciary would be forced under the law to dismiss a case where direct evidence proved a prosecutor had been bribed by a defendant to seek the case's dismissal."

lol, there's no way the court will go along with that. Wall would have been better off if he just said nothing.

So, am I reading this right? If you can bribe an official, then your crimes aren't able to be prosecuted? The law and order presidency indeed.

"Wall recapped the government's stated reasons for dismissing the case . . . First, newly discovered evidence of misconduct resulted in a decision by the government that it could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Flynn's lies to the authorities were material. "

This is a tricky one. If the government finds that it committed misconduct, it should be able to withdraw charges, even if there was a guilty plea. It is well known that defendants sometimes plea down to avoid the full weight of the government. This is not to say that the courts should not evaluate the reasoning, but that it should be possible.


"Second, the interests of justice were no longer served, in the government's view, by continuing to prosecute Flynn."

Oh my. While this probably should be the standard, I'm sure the collective memory of Fark can come up with quite a few instances where the the interests of justice were never an issue in he first place. It raises concern about when, in the government's view, is justice served.

His argument is that yes, if you watched someone hand a prosecutor a large cartoon bag of money before they walked in the door to announce they are dropping their case you are within your rights as a judge to question the prosecutor, but if the prosecutor says ...


I wish I had a large cartoon bad of (real) money.

I am open to bribes. Anyone?
 
2020-08-11 4:26:43 PM  
BAG!
 
2020-08-11 4:33:27 PM  
the judiciary would be forced under the law to dismiss a case where direct evidence proved a prosecutor had been bribed by a defendant to seek the case's dismissal

Wait ... what?
Am I parsing that right?

If I bribe the prosecutor to dismiss my case, then the court has to dismiss my case!?

I guess I'm not seeing the downside to bribing the prosecutor.  I mean, if they try to bring me up on bribery charges, then I'll just bribe that prosecutor too.
 
2020-08-11 4:39:43 PM  
I farking hate that I have to sit here in crushing anxiety, because there is a distinct possibility that he will get away with that shiat.
 
2020-08-11 4:45:28 PM  

iheartscotch: If only there was a information limiting forum where in one could give one's secret reasons. Like a court case...with some sort of gag order.

/ Of course, you'd have to show the judge why you want that

Some kind of breath play cosplay? Well, there's plenty of gimps in this administration so that's not a problem
 
2020-08-11 4:53:26 PM  

Brat E. Pants: I farking hate that I have to sit here in crushing anxiety, because there is a distinct possibility that he will get away with that shiat.


For real.

The Polyanna-ish side of me is like, "Hooray, we got 'em!" but the Year 2020 adult in me is saying I should get my mask and order some more booze for curbside pickup.
 
2020-08-11 5:00:41 PM  

desertratt: Ray_Finkle: I bet Barr was the kid in grade school with a girlfriend who goes to a different school in a different state. And her phone sometimes weird so he can't call her right now.

Seeing as he has been married to the same girl for 47 years, i would bet you are wrong.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-11 5:09:07 PM  

northgrave: I wish I had a large cartoon bad of (real) money.

It's not bad money, it's just drawn that way
 
2020-08-11 5:38:23 PM  

Count Bakula: [Fark user image image 425x633]


vignette.wikia.nocookie.netView Full Size
 
2020-08-11 5:50:04 PM  

Grungehamster: thorpe: "Wall said Barr was directly involved with the case and had secret reasons for seeking the case's dismissal. Wall argued that the judiciary cannot probe the government's reasons to seek the dismissal of the Flynn case; he even wildly argued (in response to a hypothetical) that the judiciary would be forced under the law to dismiss a case where direct evidence proved a prosecutor had been bribed by a defendant to seek the case's dismissal."

lol, there's no way the court will go along with that. Wall would have been better off if he just said nothing.

[Fark user image 425x388]

By the end he was conceding that he didn't expect to prevail but made sure to make the maximal case that the Seperation of Powers means that judges are required to treat everything a prosecutor tells them as accurate and rule accordingly.


If their position is that the case has to be dismissed but you can sanction the attorneys, the judge would still have to have some kind of hearing to determine wtf is actually going on.
 
2020-08-11 6:29:35 PM  

shut_it_down: Grungehamster: thorpe: "Wall said Barr was directly involved with the case and had secret reasons for seeking the case's dismissal. Wall argued that the judiciary cannot probe the government's reasons to seek the dismissal of the Flynn case; he even wildly argued (in response to a hypothetical) that the judiciary would be forced under the law to dismiss a case where direct evidence proved a prosecutor had been bribed by a defendant to seek the case's dismissal."

lol, there's no way the court will go along with that. Wall would have been better off if he just said nothing.

[Fark user image 425x388]

By the end he was conceding that he didn't expect to prevail but made sure to make the maximal case that the Seperation of Powers means that judges are required to treat everything a prosecutor tells them as accurate and rule accordingly.

If their position is that the case has to be dismissed but you can sanction the attorneys, the judge would still have to have some kind of hearing to determine wtf is actually going on.


They don't care about later: they want the judge to rule that Flynn is not guilty NOW so he can go campaign for Trump as a man vindicated that he was framed (which he wasn't; he was just too dumb to keep his mouth shut and ask for an attorney when they had evidence he had a conversation that the Vice President said publicly he had been assured never happened.)
 
2020-08-11 7:44:32 PM  

Halfabee64: The branches are coequal until Congress tries to exercise oversight or the Judiciary and then it's fark you.


By that I assume you meant that Legislative tries to exercise oversight on Judiciary.

But isn't the role of Judiciary to exercise oversight on Legislative? The courts determine if a law is constitutional or not.

To claim that any branch of the government is free of oversight by the other two would invite disaster.

What galls me is the DOJ's claim that there's no point in going after Flynn anymore. Did he like to investigators? He admitted doing so of his own free will in open court. That alone is enough reason to go after him.

Failure to hold people accountable for their actions sets a VERY bad precedent, and Flynn's actions were about as despicable as you can get. Who knows, a few more weeks and that Turkish cleric would have been sent back to Turkey and executed.
 
2020-08-11 8:53:53 PM  
So does anyone still feel this justice system is legit? I mean we're still destroying peoples lives over weed fighting nixons culture war.
 
2020-08-11 10:45:06 PM  

Grungehamster: shut_it_down: Grungehamster: thorpe: "Wall said Barr was directly involved with the case and had secret reasons for seeking the case's dismissal. Wall argued that the judiciary cannot probe the government's reasons to seek the dismissal of the Flynn case; he even wildly argued (in response to a hypothetical) that the judiciary would be forced under the law to dismiss a case where direct evidence proved a prosecutor had been bribed by a defendant to seek the case's dismissal."

lol, there's no way the court will go along with that. Wall would have been better off if he just said nothing.

[Fark user image 425x388]

By the end he was conceding that he didn't expect to prevail but made sure to make the maximal case that the Seperation of Powers means that judges are required to treat everything a prosecutor tells them as accurate and rule accordingly.

If their position is that the case has to be dismissed but you can sanction the attorneys, the judge would still have to have some kind of hearing to determine wtf is actually going on.

They don't care about later: they want the judge to rule that Flynn is not guilty NOW so he can go campaign for Trump as a man vindicated that he was framed (which he wasn't; he was just too dumb to keep his mouth shut and ask for an attorney when they had evidence he had a conversation that the Vice President said publicly he had been assured never happened.)


Yeah, that's kind of my point. Their proposal can't possibly work because they're trying to prevent a hearing, but you'd still need a hearing to sanction the prosecutors. The whole argument is bad faith.
 
2020-08-11 11:22:03 PM  

almandot: His secret reasons aren't so secret.


No wait, what if they are?  What if Flynn was a part of the Trump/Barr chomo parties hosted by Jeffrey Epstein?
 
2020-08-11 11:49:06 PM  

Phaedrus the Vague: northgrave: I wish I had a large cartoon bad of (real) money.
It's not bad money, it's just drawn that way


This wonderfully subtle reference just dawned on me.
 
2020-08-12 12:38:28 AM  

northgrave: Phaedrus the Vague: northgrave: I wish I had a large cartoon bad of (real) money.
It's not bad money, it's just drawn that way

This wonderfully subtle reference just dawned on me.


I'm not accepting any bag unless it has a large $ sign on it...You can't fool me...
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.