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. Chip Bennett says:

    This should get slapped down, and hopefully with some teeth.

    Was he required to grant the government’s post-plea motion to dismiss, and reverse his findings that Mr. Flynn’s false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Russia were material, without any inquiry into the facts set forth in, and surrounding, the govenrment’s filing?

    Yes. Separation of powers. The power of prosecution lies solely with the executive branch. Courts do not “sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. They wait for cases to come to them, and when cases arise, courts normally decide only questions presented by the parties.” (Ginsberg, US v Sinening-Smith, 9-0 decision)

    Next?

    If either issue is resolved unfavorably for Mr. Flynn, he can pursue review in this Court.

    The district court does not have any authority to do anything other than to grant the government’s motion to dismiss. “With leave of court” has very narrow, precise application, designed to protect the interests of the defendant. The interests of defendant here are unquestionably best-served by granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice.

    And if such circumstances arise, this Court will be better equipped to evaluate the issues with the benefit of any determinations Judge Sullivan may make.

    “In vacating the district court order, we have no occasion to disagree (or agree) with that court’s concerns about the government’s charging decisions in this case. Rather, the fundamental point is that those determinations are for the Executive—not the courts—to make.” (US v. Fokker Services, DC Court of Appeals)

    For now, it suffices to say that the unusual developments in this case provide at least a plausible “reason to question” the “bona fides” of the government’s motion.

    “The Constitution allocates primacy in criminal charging decisions to the Executive Branch. The Executive’s charging authority embraces decisions about whether to initiate charges, whom to prosecute, which charges to bring, and whether to dismiss charges once brought. It has long been settled that the Judiciary generally lacks authority to second-guess those Executive determinations, much less to impose its own charging preferences. The courts instead take the prosecution’s charging decisions largely as a given, and assume a more active role in administering adjudication of a defendant’s guilt and determining the appropriate sentence.” (Fokker)

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Wethal says:

    I hope one of Sidney’s bright sparks has been doing a docket search of all of Sullivan’s criminal cases on PACER (the electronic filing system for federal courts) to see how many times Sullivan has allowed a defendant to withdraw a plea, and whether how many were done without any “inquiry” from the judge.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. Reserved55 says:

    Judge Sullivan vs. Flynn

    His Mouth is Full of Cursing and Deceit and Oppression

    “How is the faithful city become a prostitute! She that was full of justice, righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers.” Isaiah 1:21

    https://apelbaum.wordpress.com/tag/judge-sullivan-vs-flynn/

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Will Sullivan be running the Bureau of Prisons and the Probation Office, too, or just the bench and the prosecution?

    Liked by 11 people

  5. oldersoul says:

    I commented more thoroughly on the main daily thread about this filing.

    Suffice it to say, IMO, Sullivan’s best argument is the ripeness one. And it is a technical one. But it is illusory under the circumstances of this case.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Jeffrey Coley says:

    Judge Sullivan is going to get smacked down so hard, his ancestors and descendants for 20 generations will feel it.

    Liked by 2 people

    • mikeyboo says:

      IF there is any real justice that will be the least of the punishments in store for Sullivan.

      Liked by 2 people

      • theoldgoat says:

        Next Antifa will go into protest mode for Sullivan’s treatment because he thought he was law unto himself.

        Liked by 3 people

        • stripmallgrackle says:

          The timing of the riots is interesting, to say the least. Now that the fires are stoked, it would be no surprise, from here on through November, that every action or decision from DOJ that the left, IC, or DS doesn’t like will trigger more “peaceful” protests that just happen to spin out of control.

          The puppet masters probably know better than we do what’s coming, and when, as the RussiaHoax Saga continues.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Perhaps in your dreams. There will be no smack down. This whole affair will just whimper away until the next BIG thing. The one good thing that may come from this is Flynns right to sue for damages.

        Like

    • ncbirdnwrd says:

      So at what point do we enter the”everybody is a racist” stage. We’ve seen everything else.

      Liked by 3 people

  7. mikeyboo says:

    I don’t think Judge Sullivan was ever full of justice. However, I do believe he was/is full of chit!

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Brian Baker says:

    We know Lt General Flynn and his defense team are going to win. The only question is when.

    Liked by 1 person

    • not even remotely true. Wishful thinking at best.
      The current plan is to delay until November elections. If Biden wins, Flynn goes down.

      So, yes, the question of Time is of utmost importance here. But Flynn is far from the end of this tunnel.

      Liked by 1 person

      • oldersoul says:

        You seem to do a lot of wishful thinking yourself.

        If “ifs and buts” were candy and nuts …

        Liked by 1 person

        • TarsTarkas says:

          What sort of dirt does Lawfare & Co have on the Appeals Court judges? That is the question. I would imagine that maximum pressure is or will be applied soon to keep the clock running on the case.

          Like

          • oldersoul says:

            The key to this Petition is Judge Henderson. She’s an old timer going back to the Reagan years. And a real jurist.

            The other two are a baby Trump appointee and a young Obama appointee.

            IMO, Henderson will decide this Petition. And she has a reputation as a straight-shooter.

            No guarantees in today’s crazy world. But Flynn could have done worse on a panel draw.

            Like

      • lftpm says:

        Uh, no.

        If Biden were to win, the case is still over. The cat is out of the bag on DOJ’s framing Flynn. There is no basis for a renewal of the “Flynn lied” trope.

        Filing a Turkey-agent case is a no-go, because Flynn’s key partner was exonerated, so the DOJ can’t try to get him to turn on Flynn in exchange for a promise of reduced prion time.

        If Biden were to win, then Trump would pardon him on Jan 19, 2021, thus shutting off any possibility of new prosecution.

        Like

  9. Bill Ayers: “I may be the only radical left-winger who isn’t disappointed by Obama.

    Now you see why.

    Liked by 5 people

  10. BV Conservative says:

    Who’s paying for Judge Sullivan’s lawyer? I doubt he’s paying out of his own pocket. The answer to that question could raise some serious issues.

    Liked by 3 people

    • guest4ever says:

      BV—-Good question. Wonder how we could find out?

      Like

      • dwpender says:

        Dobbs said tonight Wilkerson is doing it pro bono. Tom Fitton pointed out that Wilkerson is providing similar pro bono assistance to Cheryl Mills in litigation with Judicial Watch.

        Like

  11. laughernyc1 says:

    Oh, I think Emmet has a kettle of fish to fry.

    He WARNED the Weissman team not to pull their usual shit on him again. He TOLD them he would throw the book at them if they withheld exculpatory evidence. And, what did they do?

    They pulled down their pants and mooned him, in front of the entire Federal bar.

    And they had Covington try to hide their documents as well. I think Emmet is PISSED.
    I think Barr has been trying to salvage the reputation of the DOJ, but Emmet ain’t playin.

    Turkey? The Rafekian case put that to bed a long time ago. The DOJ had NO EVIDENCE, and they engaged in misconduct to sway the jury. One of Sullivan’s colleagues let them have it in the teeth.

    I hope I’m not wrong, but I think Sullivan wants to spit roast the DOJ. Maybe have those attorneys who suddenly resigned and disappeared called back in to court to answer for their behavior.

    Oh, would that not be grand?

    Like

  12. gary says:

    wasn’t flynns partner aquitted of a jury conviction by a judge, over the turkey accusations, because of no evidence?

    Liked by 6 people

  13. islandpalmtrees says:

    Could it be?

    Sullivan forces the case to remain open, in order to force the DOJ to reveal what actually happen.

    If you were a judge, and a very upset judge, with the DOJ. What would you do, to hold the people responsible accountable?

    Liked by 2 people

    • guest4ever says:

      islandpalmtrees—I think I understand where you’re going with this, but, I don’t know……..

      Liked by 1 person

      • islandpalmtrees says:

        Sundance states: 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.

        Is it really, illogical – explain in detail the background corruption DOJ? Flynn is no longer at risk but the prosecutors and the FBI are. Revenge – maybe

        Liked by 1 person

        • guest4ever says:

          islandpalmtrees—Put that way, I could definitely see that. Or Sullivan’s just being told to cover everyone’s anatomy.

          Liked by 2 people

        • rayvandune says:

          Assuming that Lawfare is behind Sullivan’s manuevers, what would their motive be to expose DOJ corruption that would inevitably point to their own members? A week or more ago I postulated (elsewhere) that Sullivan was out to get revenge, but the purported involvement of Lawfare makes me question that now.

          Like

        • rayvandune says:

          Assuming that Lawfare is behind Sullivan’s manuevers, what would their motive be to expose DOJ corruption that would inevitably point to their own members? A week or more ago I postulated (elsewhere) that Sullivan was out to get revenge, but the purported involvement of Lawfare makes me question that now.

          Like

    • gary says:

      lawfare is involved. this judge couldn’t write an 8th grade term paper.

      Liked by 3 people

    • crikey9 says:

      Sullivan is NO hero….he is using a corrupt lawyer from Obama’s stable to construct this ridiculos response

      Liked by 5 people

    • Mortimer says:

      No. He was never upset with the DOJ for lying to his court, hiding evidence or refusing to turn it over.

      ONLY now is he upset with the DOJ for letting Flynn go.

      Liked by 6 people

      • islandpalmtrees says:

        Then are you saying Sullivan is a fanatic willing to destroy his own career in order to prolong Flynn’s case?

        Like

        • margarite1 says:

          I’d agree with that except the part that Sullivan is destroying his career – that’s a maybe. It’s the District of Corruption after all. I think he’s more likely to feel the pain if Flynn gets off and starts telling the world the truth.

          Liked by 3 people

        • mrsqt says:

          Yes. Yes. Yes. And um… Yes.

          Just in case you ask again…

          Yes.

          Like

          • mrsqt says:

            I was responding to islandpalmtrees asking multiple times that same question regarding Sullivan’s willingness to “destroy” his career…

            He’s not destroying anything. He’ll be handsomely rewarded and I’m sure he “feels” he’s doing the right thing so to hell with the law. Besides, Orange Man Bad, dontcha know!

            Liked by 1 person

        • doyouseemyvision says:

          Career? The guy is 72 years old ready for retirement! But Obama’s got him by the nads.

          Liked by 3 people

    • OmegaManBlue says:

      He called Flynn a traitor and his lawyer a plagiarist. He knows the prosecution hid evidence because it has now been turned over. He could have acted on that but didn’t. He is out for blood on Flynn.

      Liked by 2 people

      • johnnyfandango says:

        Doesn’t seem Sullivan is protecting the rights of the defendant, Flynn. Sullivan is prejudiced and should be removed from the case. Sullivan should be investigated.

        Like

    • WRB says:

      Sullivan forces the case to remain open, in order to force the DOJ to reveal what actually happen.

      Really? If he wanted that, he would not have denied Sidney’s motion to compel the gov’t to cough up the Brady material. But he did deny.

      There are no excuses for this radical POS, and he ain’t doing it for truth, justice and the American way.

      Like

    • regitiger says:

      IF (emphasis) that were the case, sullivan would realize there are remedies for prosecutorial misconduct that DO NOT INVOLVE HOLDING FLYNN IN A PERMANENT TWILIGHT ZONE to figure that out.

      Judge Sullivan can and should conjure up a independent investigation towards the DOJ if he really thinks there is sufficient reasons that the DOJ has gone rogue here.

      that does not involve and should not involve Flynn.

      two completely separate issues.

      that Sullivan has chosen to COMBINE the two is telling.

      He is playing the slowest game ever of pin the tail on the donkey.

      ON PURPOSE.

      He is ALSO forcing the DOJ to a political conundrum:

      either admit they are fools, criminals and corrupt to their ear balls.

      OR

      re-activate the former charges set aside earlier as part of the plea deal for the perjury rap/rape.

      the only question at this point, well there are two:

      has the DOJ already adequately covered its legal argument to about those former charges?

      will sullivan accept anything other an admission from the DOJ those former charges were ALSO based on misconduct?

      goes right to the predicate of the investigation really.

      sullivan, knows what he is doing…he is forcing the DOJ (BARR) to do something he really has no ambition to investigate much less prosecute: the criminals within the DOJ and FBI…look at what he allowed with BOYentah?

      Sullivan is angling that DOJ will fold.

      in a way, sadly, BOTH DOJ AND SULLIVAN are going to persecute Flynn, only because they are unwilling to go after the real criminal activities in this case…one of their OWN!

      “it’s one big club and you ain’t in it”

      no, and THANK GOD FLYNN NEVER WAS!

      or Powell.

      or Sundance

      or you

      or me.

      I like my own club, thank you very much.

      Like

  14. Deplore Able says:

    The issue of whether Flynn’s was working as an agent of Turkey was largely settled in the prosecution of Flynn’s partner. The judge in that case set aside a guilty verdict because the prosecutors failed to show that Bijan Rafiekian knowingly acted as a secret agent for Turkey’s government under Ankara’s direction or control, and concealed his role from U.S. authorities.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-rafiekian/us-judge-overturns-lobbying-conviction-of-former-michael-flynn-partner-idUSKBN1WA1YD

    Thus, the DOJ has plenty of reason not to pursue the alleged FARA violation against Flynn. They have already lost an identical case against Flynn’s partner. Why waste the money.

    Liked by 4 people

    • laughernyc1 says:

      I think Sullivan is playing a different game. I think he is PISSED and wants to settle a score with Weissman’s team. He WARNED them not to hide exculpatory evidence, and they gave him the Heisman. Not only that, they conspired with Covington to hide theirs.

      I may be wrong, but I think he intends to spit roast the DOJ, and not let Barr sweep this under the rug. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Van Grack and the attorneys who suddenly resigned (gee) called into court to explain their behavior.

      I mean, a FEDERAL JUDGE told the USA’s NOT TO SCREW AROUND, and they flaunted his SPECIFIC ORDER, and then the department just tried to drop it, with a “Oh, my bad!”
      Unless Sullivan wants to look like a total tool n front of the entire Federal bench and bar, he BETTER fry these guys.

      Maybe Biden’s team had a reason for dropping Weissman yesterday – cancelling his fundraiser??

      We can hope!!

      Like

    • guest4ever says:

      Deplore Able—-Because Sidney, et al are over the target. Said target (my guess not only Sullivan) is VERY, VERY NERVOUS!!!! I mean you don’t really think all these riots are spontaneous, do you? I’d be VERY surprised if they weren’t related in some way to this crap that General Flynn is being put through right now. IMHO.

      Like

    • Anon says:

      And the other one that turned to vapor as well:

      Prosecutors Drop Mueller Charges Against Russian Firm Weeks Before Trial

      https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2020/03/16/prosecutors-move-to-dismiss-mueller-charges-against-russian-firm/?slreturn=20200501180130#

      One can only imagine how bogus that would have been had Weissmann / Mueller been forced to go to trial. (sigh)

      Liked by 1 person

    • David M Kitting says:

      Why waste the money? Because they didn’t earn it. The servants have unlimited access to The People’s money. Government ‘takers’ have no concept that money has to be created/earned by the private sector before it can be expropriated by Government for misuse/redistribution.

      Like

    • Barnestormer says:

      But the government appealed the Rafiekian dIsmissal.

      Like

  15. In the Land of Poz says:

    Sullivan sayz: just because it cost Flynn 6 million dollars and 3 years doesn’t mean he shouldn’t continue paying for his own defense. Mandamus is not his only recourse, it would be perfectly reasonable to pay another million wasting a few months entertaining the arguments of amici pseudoprosecutors circumventing double jeopardy protections to satisfy Sullivan’s ego, political needs or susceptibility to carrots and sticks.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Clay More says:

    Why has it not been pointed out that Gen. Mike Flynn was never charged with lying to the court (i.e., perjury), but BHO said that he “couldn’t understand how someone charged with perjury can just get off “Scott-Free”. Then 48 hours later Sullivan says he believes Gen. Flynn was guilty of perjury. If Sullivan is not taking orders from BHO directly then there is not a Dawg in Georgia.

    Liked by 8 people

    • Wethal says:

      Obama got the original charge wrong: it was lying to investigators (not perjury because it’s not under oath).

      Sullivan’s twisted definition of perjury is that if a person pleads guilty under oath, and then moves to withdraw the plea, he lied in his original plea. The judge is then holding the person in criminal contempt for this “perjury,” for misconduct in front of the court.

      Under Sullivan’s view, anyone who ever tried to withdraw a plea would be admitting to perjury – the whole option of withdrawing a plea is gone, and the prosecutors could do anything to squeeze a plea, knowing it could not be withdrawn without penalty.

      Both are effed up.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Clay More says:

        I agree with you 1000%. My 40,000ft view is that BHO said that “this” (DOJ dropping of its case against Gen. Flynn) threatened “their basic understanding of the law”. This power grab by this judge is straight out of BHO’s Lawfare Handbook. I really want to know who tells Obama what to say/do?

        Maybe, Dopey Prince Alley-Weed, Gigi “Mao Jr.” Ping the Chi-com Captain Daddy Rabbit, Jorge Sore-ass?

        Like

  17. snarkybeach says:

    Sidney is on Lou to talk about it:

    Liked by 5 people

    • kleen says:

      I can help Sidney here with this issue.

      Dear Sidney, you are thinking the left takes anything serious and that this “judge” is really trying to make a legal case.

      I have news for you.

      This is about ONE thing ONLY:

      It’s for TV circus. Every word of his response was meant for Pravda consumption. Just like the Muller Dossier. Call this the Sullivan Dossier

      It was not meant for this court or you or Flynn. He doesn’t care about the court.

      He wants to be a celebrity, adored by the left, he wants his book deal (money laundering) so he is earning it. It’s what this is.

      Liked by 2 people

      • GB Bari says:

        I might be wrong but I think SP knows precisely what the motive is behind Sullivan’s antics. She just cannot state that as a “fact” on Lou’s show (she’s says she “has no idea”…which is a perfect avoidance), since no wise defense attorney would do that before the judge has ruled on their case. There will be time for that afterwards…

        Liked by 2 people

  18. Deborah @UnTamedInSD says:

    Barr should serve up a big ole glass of shut the Front door. #BigUgly time folks.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. truthbomb says:

    Sullivan’s “brief” is a pathetic joke that ignores and/or fails to distinguish Flynn’s case from precedent. The DC Circuit should dismiss the case itself just to embarrass this clown.

    Liked by 1 person

    • FrankieZee says:

      Just what are the next steps. Can the DC Circuit step in and dismiss the case? I said this before and I will say it again: We have out of control D RAT Governors, Mayors, Judges and rioters. Something must be done ASAP or we will spiral out of control.

      Like

      • gnome says:

        Pay attention. Flynn went to the Court of Appeal to have the judge directed to dismiss. The judge has now responded to a direction to give reasons why the Court should not. The DOJ was also invited to make a submission and has not yet done so. When the submissions are in the Court of Appeal will consider them and decide.

        Like

  20. islandpalmtrees says:

    Is Sullivan’s motivation, revenge against the DOJ?

    I will make them pay for making me look like a fool!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Wethal says:

      I’ve wondered if Sullivan was ticked off at Flynn because Sullivan made an idiot of himself when he accused Flynn of treason in open court. Sullivan is reputedly lazy as well as stupid, and hadn’t acquainted himself with the facts. Sullivan’s law clerk had to tell him that Flynn was not working as an agent for a foreign power while in the White House.

      Sullivan did come out and correct himself, but I bet it burned him. He’s likely one of those people who blow up at someone, and then say, “Look what you made me do.”

      Or Sullivan could be acting on orders from the coup plotters, who want a big scalp like the NSA.

      Liked by 3 people

    • lolli says:

      I think he is just owned.
      Motivation may be just keeping his family alive.

      Liked by 2 people

    • guest4ever says:

      islandpalmtrees—-Problem is, Sullivan is making himself look like the fool he is!!!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Wade Coody says:

      Am I the only observer who believes that *most* significant actors inside the beltway have blackmail hanging over them that Obama’s FBI and DOJ et al have *discussed* with them? John Roberts and Lindsay Graham are two that come to mind.

      Like

    • azgulch says:

      I read somewhere, that Clinton only chose judges that could be blackmailed. I think there lies your answer.

      Like

  21. Ragle Gumm says:

    I just had a thought: Is Judge Sullivan and the rest of the antifa lawyers trying to delay exoneration, that is, dismal of the case until after the elections with the hope that a new president is sworn in? In that way, they can come back around and say that the DOJ has reviewed and found troubling evidence that Flynn committed crimes, etc., etc., just like before. Flynn was reviewed by the FBI and found innocent, but, comey, mccabe and obama wanted to burn him so they sic’ed strzok on him. I betcha’ that that is the plan. They want to win the presidential election and reverse everything that Trump did including this trial.
    Trump must win and Trump must hammer the ballot stealing. He must stop the ballot fraud which is part of the left’s strategy against America.

    Like

    • Shirley U. Geste says:

      If the dems won the next election they wouldn’t need to bother with Flynn. He’s only a danger to them if there is a possibility of him being near teh seat of power.

      Like

  22. islandpalmtrees says:

    Is Sullivan’s motivation, blackmail, after all, the NSA database was used to dig up dirt on Obama’s political enemies?

    Liked by 1 person

  23. wtd says:

    This feels like a stalling tactic to prevent Flynn from some other case….is there a statute of limitations clock running on some related case?

    Liked by 1 person

  24. An says:

    DoJ response to the petition for a writ of mandamus is here:

    I’m still reading it, but so far they’re laying out the conspiracy and misconduct by the FBI in plain terms. I feel like I’m reading one of Sundance’s posts and it’s great.

    Liked by 4 people

    • hokkoda says:

      They did a great job anticipating Sullivan’s arguments. The DOJ’s brief, read in conjunction with Sullivan’s feels like a pretty good take-down. Sullivan’s reads like a litany of complaints about the prosecution dismissing the case without giving him lots and lots of good reasons for why they are doing so. The DOJ’s brief basically says, “This Court and the Supreme Court have stated many times over that we are not required to provide an exhaustive explanation for dismissing a case with prejudice where both parties agree with the dismissal. But if you want some examples of why, well, here are a bunch.”

      I was worried when the first part of the DOJ’s brief basically repeated what they wrote in their motion to dismiss. Then they take out the sledge hammer of Constitutional pain and beat Sullivan’s argument to death.

      It’ll be interesting to see what the appeals court does.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Doppler says:

      Thanks for posting, An.

      While Sullivan’s position is ridiculous, I also fault the DOJ for basing their Motion to Dismiss solely on the theory that the subject of the interview was no long “tethered” to any valid investigation, ignoring all the evidence known to date, all the additional evidence likely to exist if Durham’s investigation weren’t still secret, of the gross misbehavior by the FBI and DOJ in launching and conducting the investigation that they had just concluded had failed to produce any derogatory information.

      The truth is that that investigation was done in bad faith and for political purposes, and should be grounds for prosecuting Comey, McCabe, Mueller, Weissman, Van Grack, Brennan at others.

      Moreover, Covington’s role as FARA Counsel, and advice to Flynn to plead guilty to lying where Covington had a non-waivable conflict in the FARA/lying case, and the Government’s use of that conflict to pressure Covington to get its client to plead guitly, to “solve” their own problem at their client’s expense, AND the FBI’s threats against Flynn’s son to pressure the Dad to take the fall, are all separate grounds for the motion to dismiss. Yet, the DOJ kept their motion narrowly based, and haven’t accused anyone of the misconduct that is as plain as day and cries out for remedy.

      Durham is taking his sweet time, and his grand jury investigation is secret, but that is no basis for the DOJ pulling its punches when it moved to dismiss as against Flynn. Sullivan, and maybe a lot of people who haven’t followed the DOJ/FBI corruption, are likely to believe the dismissal is based on undue political influence from the Trump Administration, since the public that relies on the Big Lie Media have no knowledge yet of the Obama Administration FBI/DOJ corruption.

      It is taking too long for the truth about that corruption to come out, and that lack of public airing of the truth undermines our Republic.

      Like

  25. vml9000 says:

    Why didn’t the DC District Court uphold the Constitution immediately upon receipt of Sullivan’s anti-constutional distortion of “separation of powers”. The law is clear! Instead they gave Sullivan wiggle room to move his little stall game forward. Also, when the DC Circuit shunned its responsability, John “swing vote” Roberts (the boss) should have gotten up off his robe and stopped the blatant constitutional violation in its tracks. But then again, expecting anything but cowardice from John Roberts is just asking too much!

    Like

  26. hokkoda says:

    Interesting that Sullivan’s lawyer brought up the courtroom “treason” incident. Sullivan is clearly worried about this as it shows his bias towards Flynn. Also interesting: he mentioned, but does not say why, Judge Contreras was replaced by Sullivan in a random assignment. The first guilty plea, and the Appellate Court probably is well aware of this, was accepted by a judge who was recused by the Appellate Court most likely for a clear cut conflict of interest (Peter Strzok / texts about his friend “Rudy”). Very, very, interesting to me that Sullivan and his lawyer would bring both of these up. The first (the treason comments) he tries to explain away. The second (Contreras’ removal) only highlights the deep irregularities and misconduct already highlighted by DOJ in this case.

    He also states that he is a now a litigant (hence the citation of how he wound up retaining legal counsel). So, it’s not just that he is the judge, prosecutor, and jury in his own prosecution. He is now also a litigant (really, a defendant) in the same case. In some ways, this just makes it look even more like a sh** show when you toss in the “treason” issue and the issues the DC Circuit already had with Judge Contreras.

    Do I think the writ will be granted? Probably not. I’m so cynical at this point that dragging this out another 15 years sounds exactly like something a bunch of DC judges would do just because they can.

    He’s arguing that a motion to dismissed by the prosecution that is not opposed by the defense MUST be opposed by SOMEONE, and by golly that SOMEONE is Judge Sullivan.

    Notice also how he completely skips over the deliver of Brady materials…I can’t even find it mentioned. He only says that the prior prosecutors were not accused of misconduct, and they’re all gone now, and since they’re all gone now he must assume that the DOJ is lying to him.

    Weird, weird, weird…

    Liked by 1 person

    • Wethal says:

      Van Grack is still at the DOJ, but no longer assigned to this case. He’s been withdrawn from several other prosecutions, and no doubt those files are being scoured for withheld Brady material.

      Like

      • hokkoda says:

        Sullivan whines about this, but DOJ’s basic response is that they’re not required to give the judge access to all their internal deliberations.

        I was a little surprised that the DOJ did not spend more time showing the Appellate court all the new materials that were delivered to Sullivan and Flynn as a result of their 3rd party review.

        But, then I thought about it a little more, and they really didn’t need to go there.

        Like

  27. 335blues says:

    With all due respect, I would tell Sullivan and his lawyer to go to hell.
    This is America.
    Sullivan’s tactics belong in totalitarian countries.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. oldersoul says:

    I just finished reading the Government’s brief. It is excellent. It eats Ms. Wilkinson’s lunch thoroughly, speaking as a neutral practitioner who enjoys the art of legal briefery.

    It echos strongly much of the gravitas of the Fokker holding that this is effectively a non-discretionary, summary Motion, and that Sullivan has no real adjudicatory authority under Rule 48 other than to protect the interests of a defendant. None of Sullivan’s actions are consistent with that cautionary discretion.

    It is also an unexpected factual tour de force that should have James Comey and at least several former FBI employees quite concerned.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Monadnock says:

      Thanks oldersoul – stuff like this makes me think that someone somewhere…. Antifa…. has Judge Sullivan’s home address.

      Like

    • StanH says:

      Thanks for the overview. You sound encouraged, that’s good.

      Like

    • GB Bari says:

      I agree. The DOJ’s filing strongly and thoroughly counters each and every argument made by Sullivan and show both how US Code along with multiple precedent rulings and appellate court opinions why Sullivan has erred twice in his denial of government motion and his solicitation of amicus curiae.

      Like

  29. Mortimer says:

    I see several people here have accepted or claimed that Sullivans response puts forth a strong argument that the mandamus writ ism “premature” because he hasn’t even ruled on the dismissal yet.

    That is total nonsense. That silly argument would lead to a higher court NEVER granting the mandamus IF Sullivan decided to dink around and NEVER issue his ruling.

    In fact, mandamus IS the proper resolution when a ruling is unjustifiably delayed. Never has there been a case where that applied more strongly than in the Flynn case. This judge has no legal basis to delay or refuse to dismiss.

    Like

    • oldersoul says:

      Ripeness is an illusory argument, but a technically correct one. Speculating when a trial court might get around to disposing of a Motion where a right to speedy trial has been tolled is not going to be all that persuasive to an appellate court.

      The trial court’s actions on the Motion are a betrayal of the applicable standard on these Motions. And that is the dispositive issue on the Petition. And on that issue, Sullivan has a lot of problems.

      To put it all in a nutshell:

      You don’t Order a mini-trial over a rubber-stamp Motion.

      Like

      • Mortimer says:

        There is no ripeness argument once both parties file for a dismissal.

        The only recourse for Sullivan would be IF the DOJ stipulated “without prejudice” which MIGHT lead to prosecutorial abuse by re-charging any number of times. That isn’t the case here.

        Liked by 1 person

        • oldersoul says:

          There is a ripeness issue on the substance of the Motion. Sullivan has yet to rule on it.

          Like

          • Chip Bennett says:

            Sullivan has shown his hand, though. He has no agency to do anything but to grant the dismissal. There is no basis to deny leave of court. The decision is, more or less, made for him. So, I argue that the decision on the motion is ripe.

            Instead of performing the only action allowed to him, he is creating his own ad hoc court. Thus, the separation of powers question is also ripe.

            Like

            • oldersoul says:

              I concur with you that in disposing of the underlying Motion, Sullivan has no meaningful discretion in this instance. It is a near-administrative pro forma process where it is unopposed by the parties.

              I am only pointing out that his argument to the Circuit correctly points out that technically, the matter may not be ripe for their review, insofar as he has not entered a ruling yet on the underlying Motion. It is his strongest argument. But that doesn’t make it a good one, let alone a persuasive one.

              Where he has an insurmountable problem is in his subsequent minute orders on the Motion, which are per se inconsistent with the role of the trial court on such motions and telegraphs a clear predisposition against the defendant’s interest. That should do him in with a straight-shooting Circuit panel.

              As to the timing of when to dispose of these Motion, there is no binding authority or Rule that dictates the time frame within which a trial Court needs to rule on these Motions. Trial judges get a lot of discretion on when to dispose of their Motions. I have seen lazy judges sit on distasteful motions for months and months. And other than pestering them and their staff, there is not a lot you can do about it unless it threatens the outcome of the case or a collateral interest of a party. We are not talking about a preliminary injunction here.

              So the inside baseball move, if Sullivan really wanted to gum this up (or if he really knew how to), would not be to make an amicus circus out of this — but simply to have sat on it and done nothing — until the parties had to file for mandamus on the broader grounds of fundamental fairness. That would have taken a lot longer.

              By quickly appointing an amicus and telegraphing his animus, he created the issue so it could be addressed immediately. Probably because he is too consumed with personal animus to think clearly at this point.

              Liked by 2 people

            • oldersoul says:

              Just to be clear, Sullivan’s ripeness argument that he sets forth in his brief is not about whether the Motion before him was ripe (it was) — but whether the Petition to the COA seeking appellate relief was ripe, where the Motion had yet to be ruled on.

              And as I have said repeatedly, it is technically correct, but an illusory argument based against his conduct.

              Suffice it to say, Wilkinson argued it. And I brought it up once the Petition was filed as something to watch for.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Greg1 says:

                Appreciate your insight, experience, and arguments.

                Liked by 1 person

              • Padric says:

                Agreed that while the ripeness argument if Sullivan’s best argument, I think the Solicitor General did a wonderful job of ripping that apart by pointing out that A) Appellate Courts have granted Mandamus before a ruling multiple times before, B) that Sullivan ignored the dismissal motion and instead reacted to it by opening up the amicus circus and C) if he had simply done what rule and precedent demand of him then there would be no need for a Mandamus request.

                That this was his best argument is kinda like looking at a baseball team stat’s in September and realizing that someone that’s hitting .225 for the season is their best hitter. Technically true, but that ain’t saying much about the rest of the team.

                Like

      • Barnestormer says:

        How can it be illusory and technically correct? The issue is whether Sullivan has discretion to accept or reject the motion of dismissal, not whether he will exercise that discretion properly.

        Like

        • oldersoul says:

          Again, you are missing the distinction. Sullivan is not arguing ripeness on the Motion. He is arguing ripeness on the appellate review of it. His argument is that the matter is not ripe for the Circuit because he has not even ruled on the underlying Motion yet.

          How can that be technically correct, yet illusory?

          Because there is technical form, and then there is substantive applicable law and what might be called the corpus of the matter.

          De minimus technical niceties do not normally guide the adjudication of matters. The fair application of substantive law to the essential facts underlying the dispute does.

          Technically, he hasn’t ruled against Flynn on the Motion. And that’s a fact. But he has already violated the applicable standard of disposition on it, which is the substantive — and dispositive — issue on the Petition.

          I didn’t say this was a compelling argument. But it’s the one he’s making.

          Like

          • Barnestormer says:

            I’m neither missing nor making a distinction from the irrelevant ripeness of the motion. .

            When Sullivan embarked upon a series of proceedings in furtherance of a claimed discretion he did not have, appellate review of a facially unconstitutional usurpation of executive authority became ripe.

            The panel need not wait for the usurpation to compound itself into a futher unconstitutional result (e.g., imposing sentence) or a cessation of it by granting the motion.

            Like

  30. Matthew LeBlanc says:

    Flynn won’t receive justice until Barr throws Van Grack under the bus for his part.

    Like

  31. kleen says:

    The Sullivan Dossier, material for Pravda smears. That’s it!

    It’s not meant as legal document or anything else. This is showbiz. Circus

    Just like the Stele Dossier
    The Muller Dossier

    It’s meant to give Pravda talking points to run with it.

    Like

  32. NanetteDragoon says:

    The way I see it, if this judge is obviously rogue against the DOJ, Constitution, Law, etc, then Flynn and his lawyer should just say they will not participate anymore and walk away. It is beyond ludicrous what sullivan is trying to do i.e. judge, prosecutor, and jury. Simply nothing in our law permits this and there truly shouldn’t be a reason for Flynn to participate anymore with it. DOJ dropped it, done deal. Second, with these rioting fascists’, announce and remind American citizens do have the right to protect themselves and families and business’ by lethal means.

    Like

  33. FPCHmom says:

    Liked by 1 person

    • Wethal says:

      Yes. The SG usually only represents the government before SCOTUS. This is a three-judge panel in a circuit court.

      Like

    • litenmaus says:

      Excellent piece by Sean Davis at ‘The Federalist’…thanks for posting the url FPCH….

      FTA – “In a sign of how important DOJ views the underlying constitutional issues in the case, the formal brief to the appellate court wasn’t just signed by the line attorney managing the government’s case. Instead, it was signed by Noel J. Francisco, the Solicitor General of the United States who is tasked with representing the U.S. government in the most important appellate cases across the country;..”

      Like

    • MaineCoon says:

      FTA: In a sign of how important DOJ views the underlying constitutional issues in the case, the formal brief to the appellate court wasn’t just signed by the line attorney managing the government’s case. Instead, it was signed by Noel J. Francisco, the Solicitor General of the United States who is tasked with representing the U.S. government in the most important appellate cases across the country; Brian A. Benczkowski, the Assistant Attorney General and head of DOJ’s entire criminal division; Deputy Solicitors General Jeffrey B. Wall and Eric J. Feigin; assistants to the Solicitor General Frederick Liu and Vivek Suri; Michael R. Sherwin, the acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia; Kenneth C. Kohl, the acting Principal Assistant United States Attorney for D.C.; and Jocelyn S. Ballantine, the line prosecutor handling the Flynn case at trial.

      Like

  34. Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

    “No line prosecutors signed the Motion”….
    because they were the crooks hiding the court ordered evidence from the court.

    However….
    The DOJ has joined the Writ and Noel Francisco the Solicitor General SIGNED THAT ONE.

    Like

  35. Reverend Jim Ignatowski says:

    If this doesn’t end in a week or so, Flynn should just speak out. You can’t unring that bell. Any contempt sentence meted out by Sullivan will be reversed. Exigent circumstances.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. kleen says:

    He is working to earn his book deal. (money laundering) Dude will get lots of $$$$$ for his Circus show.

    It’s about the money at this point.

    He wants his millions and he want it now!!!!!!!

    Like

  37. dbobway says:

    If crap like this from, whoever Judge Sullivan is taking orders from, keeps coming across Barr’s desk,
    He will not be able to achieve his task of throwing a rug over a treasonous DOJ/FBI.
    Lawless activities, happening all over the country, have a purpose.
    Beating the system, that being our form of Government.
    The goal is to get us to act out of turn. My wife’s restaurants, she is the accountant for, in Raleigh, NC, Spartanburg SC and Charlotte, NC, are now being forced to close because of possible violence. They just opened 4 days ago. They’re already at the end of their rope. This may make them hang it up. 3,000 people with no work.
    The enemy will win, if the President drops the hammer or we have people taking the law into their own hands. Both of these would be wins for the left, as far as they’re concerned.
    It will fail.
    Next!

    Like

  38. disgusted citizen says:

    so called ‘judges’ are making decisions every day across this country based upon things other than the law… its not nice to play with peoples’ lives… karma is real _ _ _ _ _.

    Like

  39. ncedgar says:

    Sounds to me that Emett & Company want the DOJ to lay out the misconduct of the Prosecutors. Apparently, Sidney Powell has called it out, but not the DOJ.

    Like

  40. Jackson says:

    I don’t think that the DOJ has to respond to this.
    Sydney Powell has asked the Appeals court for an extraordinary relief (Writ of Mandamus).
    The Appeals Court got that request and asked the Judge in the case to explain why it should not order it. He has.

    So they have both sides in the conflict already represented. The facts of what the DOJ has recommended are not in dispute, that is dismissal.

    The only party left to speak in the Appeals Court – which has all the information then need.

    Either this judge Sullivan, who doesn’t like the prosecutors actions, can carry on prosecutions with his own hand-appointed prosecutors. Or he can not.

    I think the next artifact generated will be the from the Appeals Court, not the DOJ.

    Like

  41. kleen says:

    That’s not legal filing, it’s a Hoax Dossier so the left can have much needed material to continue their hoax. It was dying out, not a lot of new material for them to work with.
    now they have plenty. They will hang on to every word of the Sullivan Dossier and will smear Flynn for months.

    Book deal coming soon. Awards, publicity… Dude is greedy.

    Like

  42. DeWalt says:

    I hope the Courts answer to Sullivan is so harsh it will reduce his law degree to a Cracker Jack prize.

    Liked by 2 people

  43. Mortimer says:

    Sullivans (Lawfares) response indicates that Syllivan wants to dig deep into the DOJ’s motives for requesting the dismissal.

    Funny how he has no desire to dig deep into the DOJ’s lying to his court, hiding evidence the defense was entitled to receive and outright refusing to turn it over.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. History Teaches says:

    Wow! The deep state really wants to make Flynn suffer. Sadistic and vindictive. They just won’t let go. Lawfare at their finest, proud of how they can dazzle with arcane twists and turns. Style points for evasive action and delaying tactics. It’s become a chess match on an uneven playing board.

    Flynn must be a major existential threat that must be neutralized at all costs.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Wethal says:

      Flynn had all the info in the Iran deal, including the secret side deals the Senate never heard about before it voted on it. They had to get him out of the WH, but I like to think Flynn has had some backchannels to the WH, Grenelll, Ratclife….

      Liked by 1 person

    • bruzedorange says:

      I’m wondering if one reason the Deep State’s Lawfare group have made this effort to keep stringing Flynn’s case out is to have a chilling effect on DC individuals who are ready to testify or blow the whistle.

      “You can tell the truth, but we have so many people and so many ways to bleed you dry.”

      Like

  45. moosemalloy says:

    If the Appeals Court actually rules in favor of Sullivan the case would presumably move up to the Roberts-corrupted Supreme Court where a 5-4 decision for Sullivan is a forgone conclusion. Could this travesty actually go to the Supreme Court?

    Like

    • Wethal says:

      It could, if SCOTUS decided to take it. Or Sidney could ask for a rehearing enc banc (before the whole DC Circuit). It would be up to Sidney to choose. If she goes SCOTUS, she can’t go back for en banc.

      Liked by 2 people

      • moosemalloy says:

        Thanks.

        Like

      • dwpender says:

        If the panel denies Flynn’s application, the chances of a reversal in any reasonable time frame are very slim. The en banc DC Circuit and/or the Supreme Court might not agree to hear the case at all. Even if Flynn obtains further extraordinary appellate review, the proceedings would consume several weeks, if not months.

        Sullivan’s circus proceedings kick off in earnest on June 10 (Gleeson brief) and continue through a whirlwind of expensive legal activity until a hearing before Sullivan on July 16.

        Flynn deserves and needs to win this one NOW. (I cannot see the DC Circuit or the Supreme Court granting further review if the panel orders Sullivan to grant DOJ’s motion to dismiss.)

        Like

  46. Life Coach says:

    Crazy talk here, but what if Sullivan is a White hat & by doing this, he forces the DOJ to publicly lay out all the corruption by the prosecution? What if Sullivan moves forward & essentially conducts a trial, in which Sidney Powell is the only counsel in the court room? No Van Grack, no Weissman, no Covington & Burling, just Sidney Powell. Better yet, Barr has to name replacement counsel for the DOJ crooks who resigned & now there’s no one to withhold documents, or twist the truth? Maybe Sullivan also deems all the Covington & Burling documents/emails/phone calls necessary too? Imagine the discovery portion of the trial alone?

    Like

  47. 335blues says:

    Fresh off of weakening the first amendment with his opinion that freedom of religion can be overridden by a governor’s executive order in the wuhan virus over-reaction, Chief Justice Roberts is very conspicuous by his absence of opinion in Sullivan’s clear attempt to usurp executive branch power and hand it to the judiciary.
    Where is Roberts?
    Where has Roberts been all through the coup attempt abuses of the FISA court?
    Why is Roberts behaving like he was appointed by obama?

    Liked by 1 person

  48. rayvandune says:

    Wasn’t there wording in the higher court order that seemed to indicate they expected a response directly from Sullivan? Or was that just wishful speculation on our part?

    Liked by 1 person

  49. rayvandune says:

    Wasn’t there wording in the higher court order that seemed to indicate they expected a response directly from Sullivan? Or was that just wishful speculation on our part?

    Like

    • Eric C. says:

      I would assume in the “normal” course of judicial business that Judges don’t need to hire an attorney. The Court of Appeals probably assumed this too; however, you know what assuming makes you. Also, maybe this is the “new normal”.

      If Trump appointed Sullivan and Flynn was Susan Rice, then Ice Cream Nancy would hold an impeachment vote tomorrow afternoon.

      Like

    • I thought so too. But there I go again – thinking.

      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