Judge Changes His Mind About Flynn Transcripts

[DonViejo]

Source: PoliticalWire


June 5, 2019 at 7:06 am EDT By Taegan Goddard

“A federal judge reversed course on Tuesday and absolved the Justice Department of a demand to make public transcripts of recorded phone calls between former national security adviser Michael Flynn and a Russian official,” Politico reports.

“U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan said he accepted the argument recently made from federal prosecutors who defied his earlier request to release any recordings from December 2016 between Flynn and Sergey Kislyak, who at the time was the Russian ambassador to the U.S.”

###

Read more: https://politicalwire.com/2019/06/05/judge-changes-his-mind-about-flynn-transcripts/

[ananda]

1. ???

Somebody got to him ???

[jberryhill]

4. No, stupid reporting

Reporters either don't understand, or assume their readers are too stupid to understand, legal proceedings. So, their reporting on legal proceedings is geared to whatever level of ignorance is assumed to exist among their readers.

You don't need to rely on reporters and their filters, since this reporting is about events entirely in written English:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/united-states-v-flynn/

This trial is in the sentencing phase. The judge wants the public record to reflect all material relevant to sentencing, and ordered...

---------
May 16, 2019

MINUTE ORDER as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN. The government is hereby ORDERED to file on the public docket in this case the transcript of the "voicemail recording" referenced in the 75 Addendum to Government's Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing and the transcripts of any other audio recordings of Mr. Flynn, including, but not limited to, audio recordings of Mr. Flynn's conversations with Russian officials, by no later than May 31, 2019. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the government shall submit to Chambers audio versions of the recordings on a DVD by no later than May 31, 2019. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 5/16/2019. (lcegs3)
--------

Now, contrary to the way that most of DU thinks courts work, when a judge orders you to do something you can (a) do it, or (b) explain to the judge why you believe you don't have to do it. DU thinks you get thrown into the brig if you do not comply with an order.

The prosecution chose to explain why the material ordered to be on the public docket is not actually relevant to the sentencing, and filed this:

------
May 31, 2019

RESPONSE by USA as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN re Order,, Order,, (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1)(Van Grack, Brandon) (Entered: 05/31/2019)

Main Doc­ument

Response to (non-motion) Document

Attach­ment 1

Attachment 1
-----------

If you are an adult capable of reading English, you can consider the prosecution's argument in detail:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.80.0_8.pdf

"With respect the “voicemail recording” referenced in the Addendum, the government has attached a transcript of that recording. See Attachment 1. The government also clarifies that the “voicemail recording” is the same recording excerpted in Volume II of the Report—that is, a message left by the President’s personal counsel for the defendant’s attorneys. See Report, Volume II, p. 121. The defendant provided the recording to the government pursuant to his plea agreement. Simultaneously, the government is furnishing the Court’s chambers with the audio version of the “ voicemail recording.” The government further represents that it is not relying on any other recordings, of any person, for purposes of establishing the defendant’s guilt or determining his sentence, nor are there any other recordings that are part of the sentencing record."

In other words, in relation to the Judge's order:

...to file on the public docket in this case the transcript of the "voicemail recording" referenced in the 75 Addendum to Government's Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing....

that transcript was already in the record, unredacted. The judge basically fucked up, and the prosecution pointed that out.

Continuing with the order in relation to:

...and the transcripts of any other audio recordings of Mr. Flynn, including, but not limited to, audio recordings of Mr. Flynn's conversations with Russian officials

the prosecution points out that it wasn't relying on any other recordings of Flynn to establish guilt for sentencing on the counts to which the recording was relevant.

The bottom line is that the judge wasn't paying attention when the order was issued, the prosecution pointed that out, and the judge withdrew the order.

[hlthe2b]

2. Again, several of the better legal pundits with DOJ experience believe he was provided it under seal

This means it won't go public though.

DOJ did likely have an argument about revealing methods and sources, given this all was from phone surveillance. Even Laurence Tribe questioned whether the order by Sullivan might have gone beyond what would be expected.

Of course, I'm disappointed too and who can NOT be skeptical, but Sullivan has shown he is more than capable of playing hardball with DOJ and especially the Trumpistas.

[MFGsunny]

3. I trust Sullivan on this one. n/t

[Nevermypresident]

5. Thanks to all for the clarification.

[moniss]

6. Not buying this hook, line and sinker

by any means. The judge may consider elements as he chooses. If one of the parties feels it was in error they can appeal. As an example let's say I am found guilty or plead guilty to breaking into a jewelry store during which a clerk is seriously injured. Before sentencing the judge becomes aware that I had made extensive written plans and had conversations about those plans with others and that the prosecution has those plans in their possession although they only made passing reference to them at trial. The judge says he wants to see the notes. The prosecution says it's not relevant since they didn't rely upon the notes at trial? BS. The judge has every right to consider mitigating or aggravating circumstances to arrive at a sentence and in those plans I may have spoken about my intent with respect to what I would do if a clerk caught me. In the case of Flynn it is certainly possible that he may have expressed to Kislyak an open desire and willingness to cause damage to the country for example. That would certainly be an aggravating factor and it is beyond argument. They are bagging this away from the American people and the people need to demand the transcript. The words themselves on a piece of paper are not going to reveal sources and methods and can easily have any such information redacted.

[onenote]

7. I suggest you read (or re-read) post number 4.

[moniss]

8. I read it completely and I'm disagreeing with this idea

that the judge is portraying or being portrayed as somehow being screwed up. I have no argument about whether the original referenced transcript of one phone call was already in the record. If it was it was and I'm not talking about that. I am talking about these other phone calls and whether the judge can request the transcripts. Furthermore I didn't mention it initially but since you felt a need for discussion I'll go further with disagreeing with #4. This assertion that if a judge orders something that you just tell him no that you don't want to do it and state your reason is laughable. Tell that to the many who have sat in jail for contempt for defying a judges order even though they gave a reason why they shouldn't have to. The judge heard arguments on the matter from both sides before issuing his order. You don't get to come to court after the order and say "Judge I still don't think I have to do it". Unless of course there is something nefarious going on and that is my point. Why would this judge put up with this? It has nothing to do with someone pointing out that he overlooked something in a portion of the order. That happens all the time across the country and is nothing new. But apparently if you believe #4 whole hog then the next time anybody goes to court and a judge issues an order they should just be able to give a reason why they shouldn't have to comply and then it's all good. Go ahead and try that. Please go ahead and try that.