Michael Flynn: judge pauses justice department effort to dismiss case

Yep.

That's what a smart person does when they've messed up bad, and they're in deep doo doo. They lawyer up.

 

A decent summary, but you ignore one important faucet. The judge has two related but separate issues. One is the recanting by Flynn of his guilty plea. The other is whether to accept the prosecution's withdrawal of the case. Regarding the latter the judge is on extremely shaky ground: Judges hardly ever (never??) force the prosecution to pursue a case the prosecution wants to drop, primarily because there is no legal justification for doing so. If the case is then dropped that makes the guilty plea extremely tenuous at best. If the judge rules that the guilty plea is still valid then he would be accepting a guilty plea for a crime that was not committed. That seldom happens, but it is not unheard of. Many times a judge has accepted a guilty plea knowing the defendant did not commit the crime, usually because the defendant is willingly pleading guilty to a non-crime to get better treatment from the prosecutors for other misdeeds. This does not apply in Flynn's case, so if the judge keeps the guilty plea it can only be because the judge doesn't like Flynn and has no concern whatsoever with judicial rationale or justice.

 

Judge Sullivan has to explain his actions to the Court of Appeals by 6/1/20.

This is going to be hilarious.

 

He has now been ordered by a higher court to appear before them in person and justify using the power of his office to continue persecuting Flynn. It's not looking good for this liberal activist judge.

 

And he hired a flunkie to do the talking for him. He won't even man up and answer for himself.

 

Who is he really working for and why is he so motivated to keep this case going and see Flynn thrown in jail? Any sane person could look at the evidence, see that the DOJ has dropped the case and then act accordingly.

Judges like this have a political bias and it makes you wonder why he is so invested in this.

Biased judges like this have no place in the court system and must be removed.

 

And the appointment of a lawyer when they specifically asked HIM to respond, will likely not sit well with the court either. That moves closely to what we would call contempt of the court system.

 

And he's doubling down. This arrogant Judge thinks he is entitled to arrogate the powers of all 3 branches of the Federal Government, rather than just Judicial powers.

JUDGE SULLIVAN ISN’T DOING MUCH TO UPHOLD THE DIGNITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY: ‘What a circus’: Techno Fog and others weigh in on Judge Emmet Sullivan hiring an attorney to represent him.

Judge Emmet Sullivan has hired attorney Beth Wilkinson to respond to an appeals court order that he explain his reasoning for not dropping the Michael Flynn case. Sullivan is trying very hard to have Michael Flynn tried on a contempt of court charge for committing perjury, and he’s already appointed retired judge John Gleeson to help him construct his argument why the Flynn case shouldn’t be dropped.

Now, with an appeals court demanding Sullivan explain himself, Sullivan has lawyered up, to meet the June 1 deadline, an odd development. The higher Court told Sullivan EXACTLY which case law applied, and that case law shows that he absolutely does not have the right, as an Article III judge to arrogate Article II power. This is the long awaited showdown between the Textualists and the Consequentialists.

There's no reason Sullivan can't respond to appeals court order himself. A federal judge doesn’t typically hire private counsel to respond to an appeals court, it's not supposed to be an aversarial process. We'll see if the appeals court will allow this.

Why can’t Sullivan just explain himself? Why does he need to collect amicus briefs, appoint his own “prosecutor,” and now hire an attorney?

A Judge needs an attorney to interpret the law? I wonder if he is being blackmailed, is following someone else's orders and has no idea how to justify his actions.

Remember how he blew up a Flynn, who was supposed to be pleading to a minor crime with no time and accused him, with zero evidence, of being guilty of a capital offense?

 

It would make sense if he thinks his actions are a chargeable offense. So Judge Sullivan tells his lawyer the real reasons behind his actions, then claims attorney client privilege prevents him from answering the court? All he's being ordered to give is a legal rationale for his actions.

"I don't know why I didn't drop the case." "You are a high priced hired gun. YOU figure out why I didn't drop the case!!!"​

This case is getting ridiculous. Original judge recused. New judge calls the defendant a traitor, then apologizes. Gov't caught withholding evidence, judge mad at defendant. Gov't withdraws, judge gets mad, tries to bring in another judge, but now hires a lawyer!

Hires Lawyer, to explain his own ruling to the Appellate Court​

 

A masterful summary. Personally I wouldn't dream of naming names as far as possible influence mongers and Judge Sullivan might be concerned, but for some mysterious reason I suddenly fancy that Barack Obama is biting his nails at this point in time. Just . . . a . . . hunch.

 

Parroting the Trump narrative is a nothing, especially to Sullivan who will want all that revealed via admissible evidence under oath in his Court.

 

I agree with most of that. It seems very basic to me. I presume the charge to which Flynn pleaded guilty is in fact an offence in the USA. That being the case, a legally represented defendant/accused is the best person on the Planet to know whether he did in fact commit the offence with the necessary mens rea. It matters not a jot whether it later was discovered that the DOJ had zero chance of actually proving his guilt. That is irrelevant to the fact that the admission of guilt was made in open Court to Sullivan.

If Sullivan does not allow the recant, it does not mean he does not like Flynn etc. It will mean that Flynn failed to meet the established legal threshold/precedence etc on whether a plea may be recanted in the given circumstances.

If Sullivan denies the recant, Flynn has a right to appeal.

 

Yes, and if you read my recent comments up thread, you will see I have opined that the Writ of Mandamus will be denied.

 

There is no case for Sullivan to decide. Any attempt by him to drag this out or sentence Flynn will be slammed by the appellate court.

Why did he bring in a judge to be a prosecutor? Judges don't prosecute cases.

 

The first step in getting out of a hole is to stop digging.

Judge Sullivan hasn't stopped digging.

 

There is no point in telling the Bush Lawyer stuff like that. Sullivan has to decide whether he allows Flynn to recant his guilty plea. (You are right to this extent ~ there is no case to prosecute. That ended on the guilty plea.) He has appointed a 'Friend of the Court' ( a duly admitted Member of the Bar) to debate/discuss/opine whether he ought to allow the recant or not because the DOJ is lying doggo on that issue.

 

And this is how easy it is to distinguish that case from 'Flynn.' In that case, there was a plea of not guilty and a Trial, with witnesses cross-examined...all the usual whistles and bells ~ and the Jury acquitted. In the case of 'Flynn,' he confessed, admitted his guilt in open Court to a Judge, with his Lawyers at his shoulders.

"See? That's how that works."

 

Trying to run out the clock and keep it alive until the November election.

I have a feeling that a few judges at the FISA level are also in jeopardy.

 

Sullivan obviously didn't think that he might be personally vulnerable to being rebuked. The appeals court is now asking why he can't seem to accept the reality that Flynn's rights were violated in about 6 different ways.

 

According to the 4th Amendment of the constitution as defined by the SCOTUS, it is not illegal to make false statements to investigators unless the person being investigated is informed that a false statement constitutes a criminal offense. With the fact that the agent's notes specifically states that the agents took steps to make Flynn think they were just getting background information on someone else. In every other interview, the person was informed that a false statement could be a crime. But the Agent's notes specifically stated that they did not do this with Flynn because they wanted him to put him at ease. Then there is the handwritten memo that specifically states that the purpose of the interview was to get Flynn to lie. This is textbook entrapment.

It is strange that the liberals and Democrats will throw their full weight behind the 4th Amendment for a bank robber, drug dealer or rapist, but will ignore it when it comes to a political opponent. Just another example of sleazy liberal hypocrisy.

 

This is not exactly true. The Obama DOJ withdrew the plea agreement from Flynn claiming that he was not working with them. The fact is that the DOJ wanted Flynn to make several false statements against the Trump Campaign to give the illusion that they were colluding with the Russians. Flynn refused to make these false statements. So, they withdrew the plea agreement, and moved to go for the maximum sentence. At the same time, Flynn attempted to withdraw his guilty plea, but the political activist judge refused to allow Flynn his rights. The fact that Flynn's guilty plea was coerced in the first place should have tipped the ruling in Flynn's favor. But then again there is the Judicial activist judge.

Now, this political activist judge has hired a defense attorney. Not just any defense firm, but one that has Eric Holder as a partner. To rephrase the old adage: What a twisted web we weave when Democrats get involved in politics.

 

Flynn is not a political opponent. He is a bloke charged with an offence to which he made an admission of guilt in an open Court with his Lawyers at his shoulders to Judge Sullivan. Sullivan is well entitled to know why that happened before he allows a recant of the guilty plea.

 

Here is another example of liberal double standards. During the 2012 elections, Obama was caught in a hot mic moment telling Putin that he would be in a better position to help him after he is reelected. Now, if that had been President Trump, the media would claim that he was trying to get the Russians to get reelected, but this was Obama so he gets a pass on it. But this was no different then what Flynn did. He actually was working in support of the Obama position. Obama had already announced that they would put sanctions for their annexing of Crimea. Flynn asked the Russian Ambassador not to overreact when the sanctions were passed. That was supporting the Obama position. Not working against them.

The FBI wanted to hit Flynn with a violation of Logan Act. A law that was passed in 1799, and has never been used in court ever. The act says that it is against the law to claim that you represent the US when you are entering negotiations with a foreign government. You know like Kerry did when he went to Iran a couple of years ago. Or has been done by Carter on numerous occasions. The law has never been challenged in court, and may very well be deemed unconstitutional.

 

Yup - Flynn has claimed coercion .. If the Judge see's merit in the claim - that is enough to overturn.

but - that is not the main reason why this case should be dismissed - and what Barr has argued - quite convincingly - that Flynn never should have been the subject of an investigation to begin with... As part of an investigation that in of itself was a Sham - and enough people knew "Russiagate" was a Sham - early on.

This makes Sullivan a Clown for impeding quick dismissal - because now we all know it was a Sham.

 

It is the only thing Sullivan will give a possum's piss about.