Flynn’s Attorney, Sidney Powell, Responds to Latest Brief by Judge Emmet Sullivan…

Michael Flynn’s defense attorney Sidney Powell calls-in to FBN with Lou Dobbs to discuss the latest filings in the case against her client.   WATCH/LISTEN:

This entry was posted in 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, Activist Judges, AG Bill Barr, Big Stupid Government, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, FBI, media bias, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Spygate, Spying, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

128 Responses to Flynn’s Attorney, Sidney Powell, Responds to Latest Brief by Judge Emmet Sullivan…

  1. Skidroe says:

    I would get sick in my stomach when I saw Lanny Davis representing Flynn. He is another one that needs to go to jail.

    Liked by 34 people

    • Bill Durham says:

      WTH???? Lanny Davis represented Flynn???
      I thought he represented Michael Cohen.

      Liked by 6 people

      • Spooky says:

        You would be correct. The slimy sack of corruption in a suit that goes by the name Lanny Davis represented Cohen as a sort of PR agent/shyster lawyer/partisan hack.

        Liked by 8 people

        • republicanvet91 says:

          Lanny Davis has been a Clinton snake for many years. I would not be surprised in the slightest if at some point in the future, it was found Lanny was taking money from the Clinton’s to “represent” Cohen. Get in, try to draw some blood from POTUS using any means necessary while trying to find out whether Cohen knows anything that could be used against POTUS.

          And if Cohen loses? No big deal. Lanny still gets paid.

          Liked by 9 people

          • lgstarr says:

            LD’s biggest crime was f*cking Hillary Clinton (or, at the very least, wanting to). They met in college, I believe, and he’s been licking her S&M boots ever since–her boots were made fer walkin’ alright, right over Lanny’s fannie.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Rj says:

              Well we know for a fact that Chelsea is the daughter of Webb Hubble and a picture of him confirms it. So Killary slept around just as much as slick Willy and Vince foster had killary along with many others.

              Liked by 2 people

    • MJJ says:

      If this continues the DOJ-FBI will have No Choice but Produce the Evidence of the FBI Illegal Leaks in the Media and that means Judges will be Appointed that can Hold the Press in Contempt until they Name their FBI Sources that Promoted this False Arrest on Flynn and the Arrest of the Press in Contempt will bring the House of Representative Cards Down! President Obama held most in Contempt than all other Presidents Combined? Wonder if President Trump may want to Break that Obama Record?
      Link To Think About Press Past Arrests:
      Federal cases involving unauthorized disclosures to the news media, 1778 to the present
      Post categories. The chart below visualizes the increase in the number of Espionage Act cases against media sources, or “leakers,” and how punishments have increased dramatically over time. It is based on the Reporters Committee’s comprehensive chronological resource of investigations and prosecutions and the subsequent outcomes.
      https://www.rcfp.org/resources/leak-investigations-chart/

      Liked by 4 people

      • geoffroicc says:

        Long ago, it was claimed (hoped?) that Flynn made the Guilty Plea so that this very thing would come out over the course of his case; that he is willing to pay extraordinary prices to see the rats extracted that he could see from his post in the Obama Administration.

        Liked by 5 people

    • MelH says:

      How did that happen? Did Gen Flynn CHOOSE Lanny Davis?

      Liked by 1 person

  2. trumpthepress says:

    This case has to be dropped. It’s crystal clear.

    My hope is this gets the ball rolling on the criminality part of things…when it is….finally!

    Our side needs lots of positives from now until November. I have confidence in our great President.

    Liked by 18 people

    • What if we don’t get “lots of positives from now until November”?
      I have lots of confidence in our President and Patriots too, but deep state has lots and lots tricks up their sleeves…we are watching it now. I live in Houston and tomorrow is funeral…somehow I think, that Antifa is going to use this event to hurt us and our president with their violence, that is what they are planning with their shadow president Obamination.
      Our President needs our support even if we don’t get LOTS of positives from now until November…

      Liked by 10 people

      • trumpthepress says:

        I could have stated it as it would be great if we got lots of positives. Feeling so upset about the riots. The covid lockdown farce after the first couple of weeks already had me so frustrated like many millions.

        Now this rioting garbage has put me over the edge…

        I pray our President can put the hammer down on all of these evil people and soon.

        Some clear wins would be great now. We need Ginsberg to go away and a huge win in November!

        Liked by 5 people

    • fangdog says:

      Voters will not vote out Trump. The only chance for the otherside is by hook and crook. They know it to be the case and it is why you see so much “hook and crook” coming out of the Communist Democrats……actually from before day-one.

      Liked by 9 people

      • littleanniesfannie says:

        It’s the hook and crook (aka mail-in voting) that worries me!

        Liked by 2 people

        • fangdog says:

          Me too. People have to pay a steep price if they voter fraud. So far rhew lack of indictments has gone a long way in supporting the overall turmoil we are having today. Law has to mean something other than breaking the law pays.

          Liked by 2 people

    • MJJ says:

      If it is a matter of urgency or the contempt was done in front of a judge, that person can be punished immediately. Punishment can range from the person being imprisoned for a period of less than five years or until the person complies with the order or fine.

      The maximum sentence for contempt of court is two years in prison, but it can also be punished with an unlimited fine. The law is set out in the 1981 Contempt of Court Act. Contempt includes publishing anything that creates a substantial risk of seriously prejudicing “active” criminal proceedings.

      Defending a contempt motion. If you have not obeyed the Court’s orders yourself, the other party may respond to your contempt motion by filing their own contempt motion against you. Or they may argue that your violation of the order prevents them from obeying it.

      Depending on the jurisdiction and the case, the same judge who decided to charge a person with contempt may end up presiding over the contempt proceedings. Criminal contempt can bring punishment including jail time and/or a fine.

      Example:
      2005, Judith Miller, Washington, D.C. — A journalist for the New York Times was jailed for refusing to testify against her sources in an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative’s name by White House officials. She spent 85 days in jail and was released when she agreed to provide limited testimony to a grand jury regarding conversations with vice presidential aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby without revealing her other sources. The Reporters Committee released a statement in support of Miller, affirming that the “work of journalists must be independent and free from government control if they are to effectively serve as government watchdogs.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • pap says:

        flynns changed his plea and that’s contempt or the prosecutor dropped the charges and that’s contempt. Nope neither one is contempt, sullivan say’s there is contempt. yeah there is contempt and his name is sullivan. maybe he should be thrown in jail. .

        Liked by 5 people

  3. osugagal says:

    Sidney sounds confident. I hope she is right. Of course she is right in what she says. I just hope that the district court sees it that way and upholds the law.

    Liked by 14 people

    • Mark L. says:

      If this is allowed to continue, there is no need for an Executive Branch.

      Liked by 1 person

    • PS says:

      And I was confident that the Supreme Court would uphold “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; … or the right of the people peaceably to assemble …”.

      Yet here we are, with “participation limits” on how many people are allowed to go to Church at a time.

      Until we “bang the hammer” I wouldn’t put it past any of these folks to bend the law.

      Liked by 4 people

  4. fred5678 says:

    I watched. I listened. I’m more pissed than ever at Sullivan and his Lawfare cronies.

    Liked by 24 people

    • Realist says:

      This is all about dragging this case out until November to prevent Flynn from testifying against OBAMA/BIDEN corruption. I hope that Sullivan is being forensically investigated to find out just why he is being so moronically obstinate and who is pulling his strings

      Liked by 6 people

  5. FreyFelipe says:

    Briefly, my brief is very brief. Sullivan belongs in a mental hospital.

    Although, on the other hand, some would say he should be Dementia Joe’s VP running mate.

    Liked by 10 people

  6. Deplorable_Infidel says:

    “the latest filings in the case against her client.”

    It appears that it consists mearly of sound bite fodder (*) for the commentators over at CNN, etc. that has no real basis in the actual practice of law. Repeating lies, as well as making new ones, for those sheeple afflicted with TDS.

    (*) To be used in fake news attacks when the case finally arrives at it’s inevitable conclusion.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Jase says:

      It sounds like it was written by a team from Fiction GPS on a three-hour conference call with a CNN producer, then sent over to Benjamin Wittes for a bit of legalese to be sprinkled over it.

      Liked by 5 people

  7. oldersoul says:

    In essence, what Ms. Powell just told Lou about the Sullivan filing:

    Liked by 9 people

  8. General Flynn is a soldier. In his world, there is not a lot of time for litigation, when justice must be served.
    His blood must boil.

    Liked by 12 people

    • Wisc says:

      I consider Flynn a brave warrior who is serving the country in a battle of sorts, even now.
      He is a tremendous example of perseverance through adversity. First off, he stood by his convictions, for which Obama fired him. Then he signed on to the challenge of helping the new Trump Administration, and in no time was framed. Now for years he’s suffered cruel and agonizing tests of patience and stamina without giving up. His courage should inspire us all to stay the course.

      Liked by 12 people

      • regitiger says:

        THAT IS EXACTLY the leadership message !

        precisely

        win or lose, integrity and honor are not for sale to this court or any other circumstance.

        win or lose….God is always watching.

        GOD WILL NEVER ABANDON THOSE THAT CALL ON HIS NAME IN RIGHTEOUS PRAYER.

        TODAY, TOMORROW AND THE NEXT I PRAY I CAN UPHOLD THE RIGHTEOUS DIGNITY OF MY OWN CONVICTION.

        FLYNN is a decorated combat military officer. Who continues to display the kind of character and endurance that is exemplary; a type that is truly magnificent.

        there is no defeat in this man. NOT ONE BIT

        and why he and THIS CASE are ever so important to those that are looking for inspiration and the confidence that good will always overcome the evil in this world.

        you know how you fly with eagles…?

        you conduct your life that honors God.

        Powell ran to this case because the message is so important in an age where honor, code, and principled integrity have become satire.

        We need more General Flynn’s in this world.

        Become Flynn!

        make what ought to be
        what is

        God Bless America!

        Liked by 7 people

        • jumpinjarhead says:

          Great post. I call it “virtue.” Our Founders warned us that if the citizenry is not virtuous” America cannot survive.

          Sadly, as I look around America today, with ever-increasing atheism, hedonism and perversion, I fear we may have pretty much already lost our virtue as a people.

          Liked by 4 people

      • Phil Free says:

        Born a Patriot

        Liked by 1 person

  9. Impossible says:

    Dishonesty, if brought to light is masked by Illogic; illogic exposed breeds irrationality, then irrationality descends into anger, madness… desperation. The mind swims to see such deception cursing out from high places. Something deeply hidden fears exposure. The criminals only hope is to run out the clock or find their way back into the shadows where, festering, it can regroup and attack anew.

    Liked by 13 people

  10. Chris P Bacon says:

    Sullivan has to know what he is doing is wrong. My understanding is his kid is a dirtbag and his crimes have been covered up by daddy. There might be some blackmail happening. When I was following the Stevens case there were some case filings and police reports regarding his son which have since disappeared. This is the tip of the iceberg, the corruption runs deep. Hopefully the President and a few white hats can bring these dirtbags down

    Liked by 19 people

    • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

      He absolutely does.
      Something happened to Sullivan post Dec 2018 hearing.
      I don’t think it’s dementia or TDS…..this smells more like he is compromised.

      There was a very interesting snippet in this interview with Sidney:

      At the Dec 2018 hearing Sullivan said:
      “At some point, it probably won’t surprise you, I had many, many, many more questions”…
      specifically:
      “what part of the government’s investigation was impeded and what was the materially impact of the criminality?”

      The judge NEVER got an answer from Van Grack (possible reversible error right there) but
      DID get the answer from Barr’s Motion to Dismiss:
      “Your honor……no investigation was impeded AT ALL because technically there wasn’t one aside from a proposed ridiculous Logan Act investigation that was NEVER OPENED at the time because it was so ridiculous. The interview had no “proper predicate” and shouldn’t have happened at all.”
      Consequently there was NO IMPACT either.”

      The only reason there even IS a case before the court is because
      RR authorized a $40 Million dollar SC to HOPEFULLY and FINALLY successfully prosecute a Logan Act violation (or at least a “lie” about one)
      after 200+ years.
      Gotta hand it Rod…..
      If you’re gonna do something this ridiculous you might as well.
      Go BIG or Go HOME.

      Maybe Lindsey will ask Rod all about his “victory” over that dusty Logan Act today.
      But I doubt Rod’s gonna brag about it……or say anything at all.

      Liked by 2 people

      • TwoLaine says:

        This was to get the conversation about “obstruction of justice” into the record, which was what Mueller & Team has long insinuated against President TRUMP. That he and everyone else was obstructing their FAKE Russian Collusion > case.

        That is the excuse that Nitwit Tehran Nan’s team of DIMs is using to try to get all of the unsealed Mueller docs and DJT’s tax returns. When the Flynn case dies, they ALL lose that case which is currently at the Supremes.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Please says:

      Here is a threadreader from Johnheretohelp on twitter:

      https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1261480070683688967.html

      Pretty much goes over his corruption and why evildoers have Sullivan under blackmail

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Chip Doctor says:

    There is a frightening amount of hubris being displayed by everyone from Sullivan to Rice and Obama. Just when I think it can’t get more insane….it does. It seems like we are getting run over right now. I have confidence in PT, but if our country is to survive, it will take divine intervention along with the help of patriots like Powell, Sundance and others.

    Liked by 20 people

  12. The way Sullivan is being mentored & apparently led in this thing reminds me of the way democrats are known to escort certain needy people into the voting booth to “help” them cast their vote.

    Liked by 12 people

  13. Burnt Toast says:

    If Sullivan was directed to respond personally, shouldn’t he have at least signed it (even if others wrote it)? If he didn’t sign it wouldn’t that be reason enough to say he was non-responsive?
    Actually not ‘say’ just a matter of fact that Sullivan did not respond as directed.

    Liked by 12 people

  14. kleen says:

    Why is the original 302 still missing?

    ?????????????????????

    Liked by 6 people

    • Chewbarkah says:

      Because Christopher Wray is complicit or incompetent.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Road Runner says:

      Right you are… Their absolute BS reference to a “Draft of the Original 302” and then they segue into the “Final 302″… Pure intentional misdirection… There is no ‘Draft 302’ it is the ‘Original 302’… period…

      If they want to claim that they drafted an ‘Original 302’ and then edited the ‘Original 302’ and filed the edited ‘Final 302’ then just say so…

      That is classic slight of hand and highlights what the DOJ is hiding… They should just admit that by F’ing saying so… But they cant seem to bring themselves to do so…

      And that as Paul Harvey would say it “The Rest of the Story”…

      Liked by 7 people

    • John Drake says:

      Because it was deleted and destroyed. Strzok didn’t spend all weekend editing the FD302 to fit the CUT just to leave the evidence lying around to prove that crime. That’s one of the things they’re hiding…the destruction of evidence that compounds their guilt.
      1. Falsifying Official Documents
      2. Making a False Official Statement
      3. ‘Lack of Candor’ under Oath (e.g. ‘Lying’)
      4. Obstruction of Justice
      …and because Lisa Page was his little helper…
      6. Conspiracy

      BCNU…

      Liked by 1 person

  15. starfcker says:

    You can’t say it Sidney, so I will. The Flynn prosecution is the finger in the dike that is the corruption of the 0bama administration. Set Flynn free, and the layers of lawfare can’t hold back the tidal wave of crookedness that will be exposed. It’s a race thing, a gentleman of Sullivan’s age and background refuses to participate in the destruction of the 0bama legacy. He ain’t gonna do it. Period. He’s 72, he can retire tomorrow. His legacy might be ugly to us on the merits, but to the people of his generation and background, he is and will always he a hero. General Flynn will win, this is going to be over soon. Let’s move on and get the real culprits.

    Liked by 17 people

    • Raptors2020 says:

      Judge Sullivan waited all his life to see a black President. He is not going to see Obama’s legacy ruined. He regards himself as a hero.

      Millions of Democrats still believe the Russian Collusion hoax. Sullivan called Flynn a traitor: that’s a definitive clue that Sullivan believes it.

      Like all conspiracy theories, the holes become proof of the conspiracy. No proof of Russian collusion? Trump covered it all up, a further crime. Flynn is a big part of both the conspiracy and the cover-up, to Sullivan.

      Left and right, Democrat and Republican, live in different worlds, and will, for the foreseeable future. Aspiring bipartisans like Romney (none left among the Democrats) will almost certainly become quislings or pariahs. Victory is the only option. Sorry, Dubya!

      Liked by 3 people

    • Screaming Eagle says:

      I’ve posted for 2 years that General Flynn is the ball hitch of this whole crooked enterprise, Bommy, Deep State, and certainly Sullied Emmitt know it. I guarantee that DJT knows this and will step in to pardon, It may raise the stakes, but DJT isn’t adverse to risk. Again, General Flynn is the ball hitch, if we can release it, the trailer behind will spin out of control, end over end, spilling everything onto the road for all to see.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Paul Cohen says:

        Pardon is the wrong answer (except as the absolute last resort) — General Flynn wants and deserves total exoneration!

        Liked by 2 people

        • Screaming Eagle says:

          I totally agree Paul, winning on the merits is what we all want, it also allows General Flynn to sue these bastards. DJT needs Flynn free to expose Bommy and his band of crooks. At some point, he will need to step in if this doesn’t stop. Sullied Emmitt, on his side, is also running for his life. If he cant keep Flynn on ice until the election, that they are convinced they can steal, then there will be no need to impeach, Sullied Emmitt’s masters have a different philosophy on how to deal with failure. I cant tell you, it isn’t more training.

          Liked by 1 person

  16. hawkins6 says:

    Liked by 13 people

    • republicanvet91 says:

      Somehow given the detail of what Sidney knows of what Gen. Flynn said during this “interview”, I suspect Gen. Flynn had a recorder going. It would just be prudent for a man in his position.

      Liked by 4 people

  17. Gman1976 says:

    Just in: Judge Sullivan wins the Adam Schiff award! This new commendation gives recognition to those in our country who demand to be a Prosecutor, Judge and Jury all at the same time while ignoring most of the evidence and facts of a case.

    Liked by 13 people

  18. ann says:

    Peanut gallery question:.
    Why didn’t this judicial panel that supervises Sullivan just end this misery themselves?

    Law is not my field.

    So I read the SG filing posted on the previous page . to me the process resembles a differential diagnosis, in legal world.
    Each argument is objectively examined, and ruled out, using principles, grounded in applied legal rulings.
    It even references legislation passed in 1831. In other words, none of Sullivan’s posits meet the criteria. ,
    Why does this grind on?

    Liked by 7 people

  19. Linda K. says:

    The irrationality of Sullivan’s argument and disregard of the facts of the case lead me to believe he is a senile old man trying to fulfill the wishes of Obama, the first black President.

    Liked by 8 people

  20. kleen says:

    Any bets on how much this judge’s book deal will be? 2 million for his service to the swamp?

    3 Million?

    What is the pay scale for someone to ruin his reputation in front of the whole world like that, to help Obama?

    I mean… he went above and beyond being ridiculous…. all for the cause. He is taking one for the team. How much money will be laundered through a book deal for his dedication?

    Liked by 5 people

    • Tiffthis says:

      I think if Sullivan fails in keeping Flynn “on the hook” he might be epsteined. I think sullivan is holding on for dear life- I don’t feel bad for him.

      Liked by 1 person

  21. Mike Lee DelMarcelle says:

    The way Sullivan responded to the higher court is basically him saying “you can’t tell me what to do, I’ll do whatever I want”, like a petulant child. He knows what he is doing doesn’t follow the law but is determined to do it anyway. Shows no respect for the higher court. There must be something they really don’t want out that Flynn knows for them to act like this.

    Liked by 9 people

  22. Skidroe says:

    BD Sorry, I think you are right it was Cohen. Still would like to see Lanny Davis locked up though. Cohen was another one they railroaded.

    Liked by 3 people

  23. Rah says:

    Sullivan cited no law or legal precident to base his actions on as demanded by his superiors. He is simply saying that he is the judge and can do what ever he wants and his superiors should butt out. He is guilty of gross incompetence and is in contempt of the court and should be impeached.

    Liked by 9 people

    • Screaming Eagle says:

      No chance for impeachment, It starts in The House. There will be no need to impeach Sullied Emmitt if he fails his masters. As Smokey Robinson sings – “Everybody plays the FOOL, sometime”,…….. Sullied Emmitt is trying to avoid a forced dirt nap.

      Like

      • Jan Pauliny-Toth says:

        Excuse the length, but I massively reduced thr original article ;https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5053&context=ylj

        Because the original Constitution only mentions removal in the context of
        impeachment,’ one might suppose that impeachment is the exclusive means of
        removing officers. During the debate that preceded the Decision of 1789, the
        famous decision relating to whether the President had a power to remove
        executive officers, a few Representatives denied that the President could
        remove or that Congress could grant removal authority. Instead, they insisted
        that the Constitution established impeachment as the exclusive means of
        removing officers.
        At first blush, the impeachment-only position has a certain plausibility.
        After all, other than impeachment, the Constitution does not explicitly provide
        for any method of removing officials. On the familiar doctrine of enumerated
        powers-the claim that the federal government’s branches have only those
        powers that the text enumerates -it might seem to follow that impeachment is
        the only means of removing any federal officer.

        But only a little reflection is-and was-required to conclude that this
        impeachment-only reading is untenable. As a textual matter, the Constitution’s
        text nowhere makes impeachment the only means of removing officers. It
        merely provides that the House may impeach and that the Senate may conduct
        a trial and must remove upon a conviction. To say that the Senate must remove
        a convicted officeris is a far cry from precluding others from removing officers.
        There is no reason to read a mandatory removal provision (mandatory once
        someone is convicted) as an implicit bar on discretionary removals by others.
        As a practical matter, this interpretation points to utterly unacceptable
        conclusions. Could it possibly be that every postmaster or United States
        marshal or customs house officer enjoys life tenure subject only to
        impeachment in Congress for high crimes and misdemeanors? For these
        reasons, the impeachment provisions are rather poor candidates for a rigorous
        application of the expressio unius est exciusio alterius canon, at least when it
        comes to the question of whether officers may be removed by other means.”

        Of course, the Decision of 1789 concerned the removability of executive
        officers and not federal judges. The First Congress never debated whether
        impeachment was the only means of removing federal judges. This lack of
        debate, combined with the superficial plausibility of the general impeachment-
        only view, perhaps explains why the impeachment-only view still has great
        currency in the context of federal judges. Yet the same impeachment provisions
        apply to both judges and executive officers. All judicial officers and almost all
        executive officers fall into the single category of “civil Officers.” It is hard to
        imagine that Article II, Section 4 implicitly bifurcates this category of “civil
        Officers” and then treats judges differently than executive officers. The text
        does not provide that the “President, Vice President, and civil Officers shall be
        removed upon impeachment and judges shall be removed only via
        impeachment.”

        Over time, the two provisions that the Constitution presented as
        independent- impeachment and “good Behaviour” tenure-have come to be
        conflated in the general understanding. We have not offered an explanation of
        exactly when and how the original meaning of the Constitution came to be
        altered in this way -our goal was to show that they originally were two distinct
        concepts. But it seems clear that at least one factor that led to this reading was
        the impeachment-only argument that suggested that because the Constitution
        did not explicitly provide for any other procedure for removing judges,
        impeachment must be the only method of removal.
        The impeachment-only argument has a superficial plausibility, especially
        because it resonates with the sensible intuition that the Constitution is a
        document of enumerated powers. Yet the impeachment-only argument is the
        same one that was raised, debated, and decisively rejected in the First Congress
        with respect to executive officials.

        In short, it is not hard to imagine how the impeachment-only argument
        might pass without serious scrutiny with respect to judges, and how it would,
        in any case, appear more attractive than the same argument seems with respect
        to many other officials. The question we have asked in this Article, however, is
        whether there is any basis in the original Constitution for accepting the argument
        for judicial officers. And the reality is that there is no more support for the
        argument-either in the constitutional text or in the long history that lay
        behind that text- for judges than for executive officials generally.

        The impeachment-only argument, it seems to us, reflects an unwillingness
        to come to grips with what it means to grant tenure during good behavior. The
        tendency has been to conclude that, based on a preference for judicial
        independence and on a superficial reading of the impeachment provisions,
        impeachment must be the only means of removing judges. In this mindset, the
        grant of good-behavior tenure is quickly read to merely echo this conclusion
        reached by other means. This treats the grant of good behavior as a redundant,
        almost ornamental provision. Our research establishes the error of this
        mindset, a mindset that we once shared.
        There of course remains the overarching question of whether it is too late
        to embrace the original meaning of good behavior. It may well be that the
        country has collectively decided that impeachment should be the only means of
        removing federal judges, notwithstanding the best reading of the original
        Constitution. But many who hold this position likely reach it not through an
        independent reading and analysis of the Constitution, but rather because for
        quite a long time, other people have unreflectively accepted and passed on a
        received wisdom that has little or nothing in the Constitution’s text, structure,
        and history to support it.

        Like

  24. MVW says:

    Everything to these Communist goons becomes a narrative war in politics. The goal here is to keep throwing mud at Flynn, or any one or department that saves him from their corruption.

    Trump and now the DOJ are letting the jackals hang themselves… by the book. It is slower that way, but for the general public reality has to be so obvious that all the smoke and mirrors can’t hide from or fool the densest partisan.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. Johnny says:

    I have a humble opinion on this travesty of legal chicanery.

    1. The deep state Obama crowd failed on the Mueller Coup all the way around. That was their cover for the illegal spying back to 2012.

    2. The impeachment failed at taking out President Trump for the second time.

    3. They hopefully fail on the attempt at getting Grand Jury testimony, because this will be another attempt to take out President Trump.

    4. The General Flynn trial dismissal is the final hail mary attempt to muddy up the waters in case Barr does decide to do his job and go after the big fish in the coup attempt.

    5. I believe it was not just good luck that the DC appeals court that Sydney submitted her request to remove Judge Sullivan for bias,
    Was randomly assigned 2 conservative judges and 1 liberal.

    6. The Obamagate and lawfare know that this case is gonna be tossed big time. They are counting on it. This would explain Sullivans irrational rulings and edicts on the case.

    7. This will be lightning rod ruling, to use in court to argue for their not guilty verdicts if the big fish are tried for the coup attempt. They are setting this up to argue in court that if Flynn were convicted of lying they would not be on trial.

    8. If Flynn has any evidence or testimony, this lightning rod case will neutralize any evidence that that prosecutor would use against the coup ring leaders, liberals and Republicans.

    I think the coup ring leaders know that President Trump has caught them all. This is an insurance policy for the defense of the big fish. They are going to argue that those judges 2 conservative judges were illegally placed on that appeal court against the odds, and that Flynn dismissal was done illegaly and this is a payback.

    It gives any jury cover for a Not Guilty Ruling. The liberal attempt at 64D chess.

    Like

  26. Chewbarkah says:

    Everyone is ignoring the most outrageous part of Sullivan’s answer. He says he needs to investigate whether the DoJ decision to drop the charges was “irregular”, i.e, corrupt. A ton of evidence in his face, and he is still persisting with the Lawfare agenda.

    Liked by 3 people

  27. TwoLaine says:

    Interesting.

    Liked by 5 people

  28. TFred says:

    Sullivan is jumping on the nerf grenade. Trying to drag this out until their hope of all hopes eventually comes true, the time that President Trump is no longer president, and all these efforts to expose their criminal corruption can finally be stopped.

    It’s a nerf grenade, because even though he is engaging in conduct that would certainly end the career of any other officer of the court, the deep state will protect him for what he is doing.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. tax2much says:

    I hope Gen. Flynn now realizes what being a life-long democrat really means.

    Liked by 2 people

  30. regitiger says:

    it’s a far deeper

    Reality blindness
    Some people, it seems, are not in touch with reality. They live in their own world of fantasy where everything is just so. Or perhaps not so. A fantasy can be a nightmare as well as heroic delusion. Whatever their way, they seem totally blind to the reality around them.

    How do they cope, then, with the endless disappointment of the real world? Perhaps they are disappointed, which drives them further inside. We also have a need to explain, which can lead them to point at other people and factors beyond their control. And control may well be a driving force for the fantasy, for it is a world where they are gods and to get something they just have to will it.

    We say someone ‘loses touch with reality’ and perhaps they do. But maybe also some people never connect in the first place. Perhaps they are stuck in Lacan’s ‘imaginary’ phase, never transitioning through the Oedipal stage to the outer ‘symbolic’ world.

    most of the defects of the warp left radical progressives acquire a diseased mind because they are invested fully in the notion that they and they alone can shape reality…FOR OTHERS!

    the error of course, is that they are simply projecting the unnatural (ungodly) failures of self, and indicting the world as the cause.

    these are not people of FAITH..they have no need for God..they make the corrupt rules because it provides them space for their own failures. And thus, we see the self mutilation..and the outward lashing of any that actually shine bright.

    corruption breeds contempt.

    spoiled/tdlr: these people are wicked, infected by the ancient old sin nature…dispising all who are good and principled. Willing accomplices to the oldest trick of satan: envy!

    THAT is the essence of why they are threatened by General Flynn.

    General Flynn’s of the world expose their inner demons. LITERALLY.

    NOW YOU KNOW.

    take on the armor of God’s righteous virtues…

    DO NOT BACK DOWN.

    SATAN CANNOT EXIST IN THE SUNLIGHT OF TRUTH.

    SHINE!

    Liked by 2 people

    • johneb18 / @johneb18 says:

      The root cause is relativism, the spinoff of the denial of objective Truth. It is literal insanity. It’s why you hear people now say, “This is my truth.” “Listen to her tell her truth.” It’s all BS. Denial of objective reality. Denial of the Word of God.

      Like

  31. Mark says:

    “Judge” Sullivan is corrupt and these antics should easily lead to his removal from being a “Judge” ever again. He needs to be promptly removed from the bench.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Julian says:

      General Flynn 2024.

      When was the last time Americans elected military man President.

      Was it Dwight D. Eisenhower?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Julian says:

        Or how about this for a Convention switcheroo.

        Pence got Flynn fired.

        Time to fire Pence and install Flynn as Trump’s VP for 2020.

        Did anyone say ‘splodey heads?’

        Like

  32. Jayke says:

    Do I remember correctly that not long ago the previous occupier of the White House gave his lawfare followers some kind of marching order?

    Like

  33. CET says:

    Sydney Powell is concerned that Judge Sullivan is redefining the issues and law. Hope she doesn’t need Justice Robert’s help.
    Sounds like he’s already involved.

    Like

  34. islandpalmtrees says:

    I believe, that it’s critical to understand the motivation of Judge Emmet Sullivan. Is he crazy okay, is he fanatic okay, but if he is acting out of fear, from an outside source, say Obama or an Obama surrogate this changes everything.

    We could all say Judge Emmet Sullivan is just a crazy fanatic and move on but like the FSIA court. It’s important to understand what other damage was done by this same judge. Flynn is important to us but other Flynns have passed through Sullivan’s court.

    Like

  35. Sherri Young says:

    A thought —

    Is it plausible that Durham is waiting for final resolution of the Flynn case before he unseals his indictments?

    The Flynn case has gone very high profile and involves some of the same persons who would have been targets of Durham’s investigation. If you were Durham or Barr, wouldn’t you want to hold back a little longer if you could reasonably expect to see the Flynn case dismissed very soon? Having these two cases meet up in time in the DC district courts seems like a bad idea if it could be avoided.

    Also, it is possible that Flynn might be called to testify in Durham’s cases. The Flynn case needs to be dismissed with prejudice before the Durham indictments are unsealed to be able to restore Flynn to a state of “purity” so that his testimony could not be reasonably questioned. (It would be in the press, but not as reasonably.) Flynn needs his reputation back before he puts one hand on the Bible and another one in the air.

    Liked by 2 people

  36. tommyd22 says:

    Would be such a better clip if Lou would cut his verbiage down by 50%..

    Liked by 2 people

  37. Bromdale says:

    This may well be a minority view here, but it seems to me not unreasonable that a judge might feel compelled to challenge the reasoning behind a prosecution motion to withdraw a case. The motion will be based on an argument, and the argument will be open to counter-argument. In this case, an alleged offence has been characterised as lacking “materiality” as it had no bearing on any ongoing investigation, and yet it had originally been presented as material, for obvious reasons, as otherwise there would have been no case to try. Whether such a challenge can amount to justification for refusing dismissal is another question.

    Like

  38. Oldretiredguy says:

    Most of the speculation regarding Judge Sullivan is based on the idea he is reacting based on political motivations. A better guess for his irrational actons might be based on Obama era spying. Who’s to say what the Odumbo criminal co-conspirators have on him? There is some speculation that Brennan et.al used “the hammer” software for generating personal dirt on 100s of individuals.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Sullivan’s courtroom needs some repairs. Shut off the AC and electricity. This could take some time.

    Like

  40. ChampagneReady says:

    Talk about a person that needs to be impeached.

    Like

  41. Just came across this from yesterday. I didn’t know these senators had filed a brief in the case. Good article, helps explain a lot.

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/01/in-new-court-filing-top-senators-blast-rogue-judges-refusal-to-dismiss-flynn-case/

    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