Flynn Judge’s Lawyer Files Response to District Court – Says Flynn Can Defend Himself Against Independent Accusations By Court…

The hired lawyer for Judge Emmet Sullivan has filed a response to the DC District Court order in the case against Michael Flynn. [pdf available here] The DC district court ordered Sullivan to explain why he would not allow DOJ to drop charges against Flynn; the response by Sullivan’s lawyers says the DOJ position is essentially a moot issue, and Flynn can defend himself against independent accusations by the court.

The premise of Judge Sullivan to act as both prosecutor, judge and jury is ridiculous.  Additionally, Sullivan now claims Flynn must defend himself against claims of unlawful lobbying for Turkey that were never a substantive part of the original DOJ filing before the court.

Here’s the Full Filing:

.

The underlying premise behind the justification by Sullivan is fraught with twisted language to spin the prosecution.  It will be interesting to see how the DOJ response is structured.

Part of the illogical argument within Sullivan’s filing relates to his demand the DOJ explain in detail the background corruption that underpins their change in position.  Example: why did none of the original corrupt prosecutors sign-off on the change in DOJ position?

If there is one positive that might come out of this nonsense it’s that AG Barr may be forced to directly put specific details of corrupt behavior by the Mueller prosecutors in a response.   The DOJ has attempted to retreat from the Flynn case without calling out, and directly identifying, corrupt DOJ activity.  Perhaps that will change….

We shall wait and see.

This entry was posted in 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, Activist Judges, AG Bill Barr, Cold Anger, Conspiracy ?, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, FBI, media bias, Notorious Liars, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Spygate, THE BIG UGLY, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

432 Responses to Flynn Judge’s Lawyer Files Response to District Court – Says Flynn Can Defend Himself Against Independent Accusations By Court…

  1. EnoughIsEnough says:

    Imagine having your case brought before this activist judge. He has thrown his reputation, presumption of impartiality, and knowledge of the law into the crapper. How can he possibly preside over another case in the future?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. FPCHmom says:

    Good thread –

    Liked by 23 people

    • guest4ever says:

      FPCHmom—GOOD! So are all the Patriots!!!!!!!!!!

      Liked by 4 people

    • lftpm says:

      May it please the Court. We respectfully demand that this court deny mandamus. Of course we know that the DOJ’s egregious withholding of exculpatory Brady evidence, its concoction of illegal Turkey-lobbying charges were disproved by the DOJ’s and the court’s dismissal of these very charges when lodged against Flynn’s partners, the DOJ’s malicious bankrupting of Flynn and threatening to lodge bogus charges against his son, and the DOJ’s and Covington & Burling’s conspiracy to deny Mr. Flynn his constitutional rights,

      all lead to the certainty of this court’s reversing any conviction order that Judge Sullivan may issue.

      However, Judge Sullivan has not ordered a conviction. Just because he has given every sign that he intends to do so, does not mean that this court should not give him the opportunity to change his mind. The poor man has only had 2 and a half years, he deserves another 6 months.

      We demand that Judge Sullivan be allowed to drag this case into November. Judge Sullivan has followed all regular procedures in holding this case open for 2.5 years after Flynn pled guilty. We call this Speedy Justice.

      We admit that the record, including the DOJ’s very recent release of the Flynn-Kislyak transcripts proves that the FBI had absolutely no legal foundation to interview Flynn, so Flynn could have broken no law. When he lied to two FBI agents, the conversation had no legal force. We also admit that the two agents denied that Flynn lied in their 302’s, but those 302’s have disappeared, ha, ha, ha, so we demand that Lisa Page’s ersatz “302” be deemed the last word, even though she fraudulently pretended it was Joe Pientka’s.

      We respectfully demand that this court support the charade of Flynn’s original prosecution, and Judge Sullivan’s transparent stalling tactics. We admit the DOJ railroaded Flynn into pleading guilty to a crime he did not commit. But now is not the time for this court to shut down the travesty. That time can and must wait. [sarc]

      Liked by 14 people

      • Treeper 46 says:

        And that is exactly what Sullivan is trying to do. Drag this to election to continue to tie Flynn”s (and President Trump’s) hands until Nov.

        Liked by 9 people

      • Mr e man says:

        Great Amicus Bidenia.

        This travesty must stand. Until November. “Judge” Sullivan has experience in this. After participating in Ted Stevens bid for re-election, now he is helping Goofy Joe.

        Liked by 5 people

    • oldersoul says:

      This means the Executive is vigorously protecting its turf here.

      And that’s a good thing that transcends the Flynn case.

      This is a potentially bad separation of powers precedent if Sullivan gets his way.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Doc Joe says:

      Or he is scared of the sunlight on the swamp. Use the biggest broom when sweeping under the rug.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Reserved55 says:

    Liked by 10 people

    • Mr e man says:

      I saw that too. And I thought Wilkerson was pathetic in her response. How could she even write a response for him with all the things that have gone on? How could he have even explained it to her in 10 days, much less have her write a coherent response.

      Liked by 3 people

      • G. Alistar says:

        At first I thought why didn’t Wilkerson get help from the first team of corrupt lawyers like Weismann, Van Crack and the rest of the democrats on the SC Mueller team? Then it occurred to me, they are busy putting together their defense and working hard to make sure they don’t spend a sizable portion of the rest of their lives, behind bars.

        Liked by 2 people

  4. GTOGUY says:

    My prediction: In the next 48-72 hours, the Second Circuit Appeals Court will override Judge Sullivan’s order and they will dismiss the case with prejudice.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Wethal says:

      DC Circuit. DC has a federal circuit court all its own, in part because of so many regulatory cases out of the DC district courts.

      Liked by 6 people

      • Beau Geste says:

        The other part is to have a fully political court to protect any criminality and wrongdoing in congress and the executive agencies. The DC Appellate judges are specially selected and ‘reviewed’ by the senate….

        Liked by 2 people

        • WRB says:

          The DC Appellate judges are specially selected and ‘reviewed’ by the senate

          The President nominates and the Senate confirms.

          Like

    • swampfox999 says:

      I agree, but there needs to be some punishment for the clown judge beyond the self destruction of his reputation. A mere rejection of his absurd arguments isn’t sufficient to prevent such lawlessness and unConstitutional behavior from bought and paid for and/or ideological compromised judges in the future.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Austin Holdout says:

        Let’s hope the reviewing judges are not also bought and paid for and didn’t have the tracks greased for them by Sullivan even before he acted up like he did.

        Liked by 2 people

  5. berniekopell says:

    Cliff notes from DOJ brief.

    1. Suspicious Sullivan has no discretion to refuse to grant the motion (under Fokker);
    2. Separation of powers is violated by what he is attempting to do; DOJ does not have to explain itself just because Suspicious Sullivan thinks there may be some hidden motive behind the decision to drop the case; and
    3. Suspicious Sullivan has no power to investigate or prosecute for contempt (nor does Gleeson) because perjury is not enough, even if it was committed by Flynn. Flynn must be shown to have some specific intent to obstruct the case by the perjury (a “contumacious intent.”). DOJ prosecutes the contempt anyway, not Gleeson and not Suspicious Sullivan.

    DOJ focused a lot on separation of powers/constitutional problem with Suspicous Sullivan’s approach. DOJ also pointed out that the “pubic interest” exception to denying a motion to dismiss is very, very narrow. There must be really bad motives like bribery of the prosecutor or that the prosecutor was lazy and did not want to try the case for that reason.

    Suspicious Sullivan’s brief was, IMO, all about trying to get a split (2-1) decision and focused almost exclusively on portraying the judge in as good light as possible (careful; has not made up his mind; should be allowed a first crack at the decision, blah blah blah).

    I find it laughable that Wilkerson argued that because Flynn would get the last word that somehow made the process fair.

    Liked by 9 people

    • Wethal says:

      “Flynn would get the last word that somehow made the process fair”

      Translation:

      If Sullivan screws it up, Flynn can always file another appeal to the DC Circuit, and then the circuit Court can correct his mistakes. What a pathetic “argument.”

      Liked by 7 people

      • guest4ever says:

        Wethal—Pathetic is an understatement. I’m glad the word, “argument” is in quotes, because it certainly is NOT a genuine argument. Why am I thinking of a young child arguing with mom or dad?

        Liked by 5 people

    • An says:

      One other thing to note, apparently Sullivan got the “treason” nonsense from Mad Cow Maddow’s show, according to a lot of transcripts people have lined up on Twitter, so that mystery is solved.

      Anyone want to take bets on what sanction, if any, Sullivan will face?

      Liked by 5 people

    • ann says:

      Bernie, or other knowledge Treepers,

      Please forgive my clumsy language: law is not my field

      Case citations aside, I am not absorbing the brief’s argument that the court has proper cause to refuse dismissal. The brief reads as a bundle of torturous reasoning.

      Does the brief directly challenge the division of power?

      Did Sullivan and the supervisory panel decide the initial hurdle, separation of power, was immaterial?
      I understand judges have the authority to dismiiss fishy cases due to poor quality of prosecution,

      I’m unfamiliar with the reverse.
      Can judges dissatisfied with the prosecution of a case force de facto prosecution proceedings? Who is supposed to prosecute?

      Does this mean non justice dept prosecutors are given authority to rummage about or admit material leaked , that has no chain of custody?

      Is differtiation between constitutional roles no longer a barrier?

      Was this expansion of judicial power implicit or a directly ruling?

      This seems to me to be part of states disregard for public consent.
      And once it’s ruled on, that’s it,
      it has precedent, just like the top down decree imposing sanctuary city & states, ratified by judges.
      All permanently encoded, without direct public consent.

      Content specific Questions:

      Is the court asserting the investigation is inadequate because he believes Flynn’s connections with Turkey were insufficiently scrutinised?

      Or More broadly, Is Sullivan’s foundational argument based on his perception that dismissal is unjustified because the prosecution has not presented compelling evidence to justify dismissal?

      I don’t like this at all.
      Why did the supervisor even admit this? It’s fiddling about verging on inquisition .

      Ann

      Liked by 1 person

      • GenEarly says:

        Comrade, Do not bother yourself with these details of lawfare. This is JustUs at it’s finest hour. Of course Prosecuting Justices are common place I think in France for example from the days of the Guillotine. It made for efficient quick trials and equally quick efficient decapitations.
        Not to worry, when the democRats regain power it will be Viva France or USSR or Chicom trials or “whatever” as Joe Biden would say.

        Liked by 3 people

  6. scrap1ron says:

    So Emmet decides he’s a law unto himself. Says he doesn’t have to drop the case just because the prosecution does, and he will continue to investigate Flynn himself.

    Are there any adults in charge of our judiciary?

    Liked by 4 people

  7. My head is splitting in two over this BS. I’m not sure I need a stiff drink or two or a bottle of aspirin.

    Liked by 5 people

  8. namberak says:

    What a colossal load of CRAP! … Sorry for the ‘splody head.

    Liked by 3 people

  9. berniekopell says:

    DOJ brought in the big guns for this brief as well:

    NOEL J. FRANCISCO, Solicitor General; BRIAN A. BENCZKOWSKI, Assistant Attorney General
    JEFFREY B. WALL, ERIC J. FEIGIN, Deputy Solicitors General; FREDERICK LIU
    VIVEK SURI, Assistants to the Solicitor General, MICHAEL R. SHERWIN, Acting United States Attorney, KENNETH C. KOH, Acting Principal Assistant United States Attorney, and

    /s/Jocelyn Ballantine
    JOCELYN BALLANTINE
    Assistant United States Attorney
    555 Fourth Street, NW, Room 11-858
    Washington, D.C.

    Liked by 4 people

    • oldersoul says:

      If the DOJ cares about the separation of powers Clause, it had no choice.

      You have a rogue Judge looking to eat the Executive’s lunch on primacy in criminal prosecutions. Very dangerous precedent about a very big thing.

      It is so big an issue that I thought Barr should be fired on the spot if he failed to file something addressing this threat.

      It looks like he saw that threat, too, and did what was needed.

      Liked by 4 people

      • ann says:

        Not a lawyer, but that is what I see, older soul
        behind all this obscurant language and hairsplitting niceties. there is no law, it’s technocratic gobblegook. IMO

        Like

        • gda53 says:

          Analytic philosopher Daniel Dennett declared, “Postmodernism, the school of ‘thought’ that proclaimed ‘There are no truths, only interpretations’ has largely played itself out in absurdity, but it has left behind a generation of academics in the humanities disabled by their distrust of the very idea of truth and their disrespect for evidence, settling for ‘conversations’ in which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever style you can muster.”

          Not just in the humanities. Lawfare’s spew is simply the postmodernist attempt to co-opt the legal profession to it’s way of looking at things.

          The DOJ and others have (finally) taken a stand and poured scorn on their efforts.

          Liked by 1 person

          • ann says:

            Agree old soul.
            “Lawfare’s spew”. 😂

            Perhaps my optimism is unjustified, but this stance by the JD indicates a steady improvement over the low Yates, Lynch, and Holder and Bater epoch.

            Post modenism.
            At university, particularly post grad , the theory of inescapable subjectivity underlaid many models preached to young grad students.

            Deconstruction of these post truth medleys is a way to enliven debate. Lol

            I hadn’t realized the extent to which this blight of cognitive blunting had spread into law .
            Should have though, as the more cerebral the posit, the more it becomes an untestable belief system.

            Liked by 1 person

          • ann says:

            Agreed gda.

            Lawfare’s spew”. 😂

            Perhaps my optimism is unjustified, but this stance by the JD indicates a steady improvement over the low Yates, Lynch, and Holder and Bater epoch.

            Post modenism.
            At university, particularly post grad , the theory of inescapable subjectivity underlaid many models preached to young grad students.

            Deconstruction of these post truth medleys is a way to enliven debate. Lol

            I hadn’t realized the extent to which this blight of cognitive blunting had spread into law .
            Should have though, as the more cerebral the posit, the more it becomes an untestable belief system.

            Liked by 1 person

  10. Stevo says:

    ” 8 As such, the Court concludes that it must now first ask Mr. Flynn certain questions to ensure that he entered his guilty plea know-ingly, voluntarily, intelligently, and with fulsome and satisfactory advice of counsel.”

    Mr. Flynn has already answered this question with his request to withdraw his plea.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Wethal says:

      “and with fulsome and satisfactory advice of counsel”

      I wonder if Sullivan’s lawyer realized the import of this. Covington & Burling handed over 17,000 pages of file material it had “forgotten” to send to Sidney. She may have found a few surprises for Sullivan in there.

      Liked by 4 people

    • guest4ever says:

      Stevo—-Yeah. DUH!!!! Is he stupid? I know; I know!!

      Liked by 2 people

  11. berniekopell says:

    Liked by 1 person

  12. “Judge Idiot G. Sullivan”

    Liked by 7 people

  13. Judiciary says:

    Let’s give Ric Grenell the job Wray has yet to do.

    Liked by 4 people

  14. truthbomb says:

    BTW who convinced Pence that Flynn lied?

    Liked by 6 people

    • senda72 says:

      Was it not Sally Yates and Mary McCord that went over to the President’s office to tell them about Flynn’s call?

      Liked by 2 people

      • ann says:

        Yes, both trotted over during the transition, with malicious intent, to subtly threaten, then choose how to interpret, and impugn while withholding critical context.

        And leak.

        Like

    • Linda K. says:

      No one convinced Pence Flynn lied. Pence convinced Trump to fire Flynn and said, “Blame it on me.”
      It was an excuse to fire Flynn without accusing him of something worse. Trump did not want to lose Flynn.

      Like

  15. John55 says:

    Next thing you know this ‘supposed “judge’ will appoint a prosecutor to investigate Barr and Trump!

    I agree that Team Mueller and the Flynn prosecutors deserve to be prosecuted themselves … but the harsh political reality is that Mueller, Weismann, Van Grack etc had the 100% support of virtually the entire Congress of the US, both parties. Plus the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.. That fact complicates Barr’s job considerably. If he prosecutes Comey, Comey is likely to turn around and say that he did what he did with the knowledge and approval and encouragement of the Gang of Eight.

    Then what? If you arrested everyone who supported this plot you’d have to arrest the great majority of people in DC, Republicans as well as Democrats. You’d have to arrest a great many federal judges, including the majority of those in the DC Circuit. And you’d have to try all these people before a jury of their peers …. which is to say, before a jury equally as corrupt.

    Ultimately it’s up to the voters to clean up this mess by removing many of these corrupt people from office.

    Liked by 4 people

    • guest4ever says:

      John55—-This is why, IMHO, this is why things are taking so long. I know folks are plenty impatient. So am I, but this abscess is MASSIVE, and it’s been a long time developing, to say the least. IMHO.

      Liked by 3 people

    • To quote the king in the movie Shreck when offering a quest to save a princess and acknowledging that many might die.: “That is a risk I’m willing to take.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • John55 says:

        It’s not a question of “risk”. It’s a question of how does a mouse physically swallow a whale. Bar, and Trump, hold their positions only as long as Congress says they may have them. They can be ejected from office at any time, and they would be if they attempted to arrest the entire Congress and assorted federal judges.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Dan Knowles says:

          What if some members of congress openly defied their oaths and sided with and supported domestic enemies of the constitution?

          Like

    • WSB says:

      That would be a start..”

      Like

  16. Impeachment alert!
    Impeachment alert!

    Remove the judge.

    Liked by 3 people

  17. Rose says:

    I’m no expert but it sounds like the judge is going to force Flynn to answer questions about allegations against him which he was never charged, I suspect the judge is hoping to nail him for perjury via testimony on questions that aren’t related to the charges against him. So I ask this, when did a judge become judge, jury and persecutor? When did judges become investigators for the Just us department?

    Liked by 3 people

    • G. Alistar says:

      Easy solution, fifth amendment privilege….even Sullivan would not force Flynn. If so, then he would be seriously at risk of impeachment. Perhaps all Sullivan wants here is to be a martyr?

      Like

  18. Galahad says:

    Judge sullivan takes is orders from Obama. A corrupt racist to the core. The are all rotten from the inside out. God dont like ugly! Believe me he really dont like ugly.

    Liked by 3 people

    • czarowniczy says:

      Sullivan and Obama are black, they can’t be racist as only whites can be racist. My professors in undergrad school told me that. In 1969.

      Liked by 1 person

  19. MACAULAY says:

    Andrew MCCarthy says he found it interesting that “Joscelyn Ballantine, one of the prosecutors on the case …” was one of the signatory parties on the Government’s Brief.

    This tells me that, maybe, the DOJ Lawyers on the case were NOT aware of the Excuplatory Evidence and that it was with-held from them by the FBI.

    OR, that Van Grack knew about the exculpatory evidence, and didn’t tell the other lawyers on the case.

    A ANY RATE that this lawyer, Ballentine did NOT know about the Exculpatory Evidence…and now that she does, she agrees the prosecution should be dropped.

    Liked by 7 people

    • dwpender says:

      Excellent catch!

      Liked by 1 person

    • litenmaus says:

      May 13, 2020 – NYT
      “Department officials reviewing the Flynn case interviewed Bill Priestap, the former head of F.B.I. counterintelligence, two days before making their extraordinary request to drop the case to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. They did not tell Judge Sullivan about Mr. Priestap’s interview. A Justice Department official said that they were in the process of writing up a report on the interview and that it would soon be filed with the court.
      Mr. Jensen and Ms. BALLANTINE herself a veteran prosecutor, INTERVIEWED Mr. PRIESTAP along with another prosecutor, Sayler Fleming, and an F.B.I. agent from St. Louis who was there to memorialize the encounter.
      Mr. Jensen and officials in Mr. Shea’s office pushed to give Mr. Flynn’s lawyers copies of the notes and other documents they had recently found. Mr. Van Grack and Dana Boente, the F.B.I. general counsel, argued against disclosing them.

      Liked by 1 person

    • WRB says:

      Ballentine did NOT know about the Exculpatory Evidence

      That is possible. It also possible she just wants to keep her job.

      Liked by 2 people

  20. Bogeyfree says:

    Leverage is a Powerful Tool in DC to get what you want and when you spend 8 years gathering dirt on millions of people this is why IMO DC is so very broken.

    Could be easily exposed if Barr would invite Dennis Montgomery to testify under oath publicly to everything they did using the Hammer Program.

    The American people will be aghast when they hear all the people who were surveilled from 2009-2012.

    One live testimony and this corrupt group of perpetrators all go to jail IMO.

    Back in 2009-2012 there was only 1-2 layers so IMO very easy to expose the core perpetrators.

    From there it is an easy transition to 2012-2016 and all the NSA Contractor Spying Done on Americans.

    Much much cleaner and easier for Americans to understand vs Russia Collusion and the hundreds Upon hundreds of various players.

    Liked by 3 people

  21. If the Republicans can retake the House, Day 1 they should impeach (1) Rudolph Contreras, (2) Amy Berman Jackson, and (3) Emmett Sullivan. Take out the trash.

    Liked by 3 people

  22. Jimmy R says:

    Like

  23. Elwood says:

    Fighting a rear guard action to delay, to keep Flynn out of the breach. He (Flynn) knows where the bodies are buried.

    Liked by 2 people

  24. Stevo says:

    “Indeed, the dicta make no sense as a practical matter, because even if a district court were to deny an unopposed motion to dismiss with prejudice, it would have no effective mechanism to force the Executive to put on a case at trial against its will.”

    My favorite part of the DOJ’s reply.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. jf86 says:

    From the governments response, “…According to the final FD-302, when the agents…” Bet they had fun trying to address version control of the Flynn 302.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Spryte says:

    So much freakin’ hubris, jeez

    Liked by 3 people

  27. czarowniczy says:

    Gettin’ to that point where Sullivan’s going to be down to yelling: “LOOK! Over there, TRUMP RACISM!”

    Liked by 1 person

  28. unfolder says:

    Sullivan is now judge, jury, prosecutor, defendant AND accuser?

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Cthemfly says:

    I have read some comments regarding Sullivan’s argument that his decision has not ripened for appellate review. Sullivan maintains that the appellate court should allow him to reach a decision which may moot the need for appellate review. This argument by Sullivan’s counsel is silly…it misses the point entirely.

    The Circuit Court has ordered Sullivan to give the reasons (Sullivans underlying orders are devoid of substantive support) to support his actions. It is the actions of Sullivan which are being questioned by the Circuit Court regardless of whether Sullivan implausibly should find for Flynn. The DOJ has addressed what should be the ultimate concerns of the circuit court by defending the exclusive domain of the DOJ to exercise its constitution prerogatives. Sullivan, simply stated, is out of line by the actions he has taken. Ripeness has nothing to do with Sullivan’s injudicious conduct.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ann says:

      Thank you. I tried to Unravel Sullivan’s reasoning, Still do not understand the supervisory panel (?) decision to provide Sullivan standing .

      If separation of powers is still respected, to offer him a platform seems to put the “matter under the judiciary’s authority to either affirm or deny a foundational principal based on a politically tainted case.

      I feel like we , our political will. Is being toyed with, tested by Resist to gauge our solidarity.

      Actually, more accurate to say I feel like the DNC, Resist and Rhinos are bashing America like a piñata . 🖤

      Like

  30. Mortimer says:

    What was the likely range of penalty for Flynn if Sullivan had gone ahead and sentenced him months ago?

    Like

  31. hawkins6 says:

    Despite multiple pages of carefully scripted legalese being presented by Ms. Wilkinson et al; it is just more of the same old, malicious BS that the corrupt Weissmann–Mueller team concocted to unjustly persecute and prosecute an innocent man. Only a disturbed person would seek to prolong this travesty.

    IMO, the “Brief” is a steaming heap of shameless and merciless legal tripe and the Judge is a callous disgrace to his profession.

    Like

  32. republicanvet91 says:

    “independent accusations by the court.”

    How disgusting that the swamp rat Sullivan in making “independent accusations” against Gen. Flynn after everything that has been thrown at him and his family by this kangaroo court already.

    Why the need for independent accusations anyway? Was their something the corrupt DOJ or the Lawfare crowd missed?

    Sullivan is worse than swampy given he is bastardizing his court and our judicial system for his personal agenda.

    Like

  33. Bryan Alexander says:

    I’m not a lawyer, just watched a bunch of episodes of Law and Order. I plain terms, this is what I have gleaned from this:

    Without saying it outright, Sullivan is attempting to argue that the irregularities in the prosecution of this case demand that he investigate whether the President or Attorney General sabotaged the case to let Flynn off. He is couching it it opaque, blathery terms, but that is the nub of his argument. He is trying to fix the prosecutions case to retain the guilty plea.

    IMO, one of his most fatal flaws (well, what should be a fatal flaw) is that he is trying to argue the validity of the prosecutor’s case, and the preparation and execution of the facts of the prosecution. What he has completely ignored is anything is the process of prosecuting the case. He has not mentioned any errors in the process of prosecuting the case. Of course, that would indict HIM for not catching it and correcting it.

    Defense Counsel Sidney Powell has presented multiple motions showing misconduct and bad faith by the prosecution. He is completely ignoring this. The purpose of the trial judge is to make sure that the rules are followed in the trial of the defendant. Sullivan is ignoring the multiple instances of rule breaking by the prosecution and feebly trying to draw attention to the management of the prosecutors as a reason to maintain a guilty plea.

    He has COMPLETELY abandoned the defendant and placed himself in a position as an adversary to the defendant. Worse, his actions as the trial judge put him DIRECTLY in the position of being part of the original prosecuting team. He has abandoned the defendant.

    Just my two dollars and fifty-seven cents.

    Like

  34. arsumbris says:

    Sullivan wants to prosecute Flynn for being an agent of Turkey?

    The Rafiekian case (Flynn’s partner) was dismissed for COMPLETE lack of evidence that Flynn’s consulting firm, or any of their clients, acted at the directed of ANY foreign government (including Turkey), or received money from any foreign government. They didn’t need to register under FISA, they were not foreign agents.

    Like

  35. J says:

    Not a lawyer here, but is there any chance in the world that Sullivan is a white hat in all of this? Could he want the case to go forward to expose to the world just how flimsy the DOJ/FBI’s case was against Flynn? Letting the DOJ/FBI just drop it seems all too convenient for those who really don’t want us to see what they’ve been up to.

    I’m all for Flynn being exonerated but I think it’s equally important the bad actors at the DOJ and FBI to be exposed and prosecuted for their crimes.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mortimer says:

      No. There’s no way Lawfare is going to help Sullivan expose crooked FBI and DOJ hacks who were out to get Flynn and Trump.

      Sullivan had every opportu8nity to go after Van Grack for lying to his court and hiding documents.

      Only NOW that the DOJ is letting Flynn go …. does Sullivan have a problem with the DOJ.

      Like

  36. PMadison says:

    Interesting that “Judge” Sullivan mentioned Turkey. As soon as I saw him trying to act as judge, jury, and prosecutor I was reminded of the Turkish court in the movie Midnight Express.

    Like

  37. Former AG Edwin Meese’s amicus brief is a winner.

    Click to access Flynn+Meese+Amicus+Brief.pdf

    The final footnote, gutting an argument of one of the opposing amici:

    “The amicus brief of the former district court jurists argues that the government’s change of position has resulted in “an unusual lack of adversity here.” Amicus Brief of Former Jurists at 4. There are many times that the parties before a federal court are in agreement, such as occurs in every
    settlement of a civil case, or an agreement as to sentence in a criminal case. Indeed, the Fourth and Fifth Circuits found no problem in Smith and Hamm, even though the government supported the appeals of the defendants in those cases, and the courts of appeals saw no need to appoint amicus to argue against the defendants and the government. Indeed, it is the lack of adversity which ends the “case” or “controversy” before it, and which divests the district court
    jurisdiction.”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s