Since when has the Rule of Law ever been of any concern to the Commies who have infiltrated OUR Government?
This insanity should get Sullivan removed. He can hardly be considered qualified to be a judge when he demonstrates such extreme political bias.
He’s better suited for a Third World dictatorship or Chicago.
Folks wonder why the President didn’t fire everyone when he took office. These people will not obey any law or precedent. They will challenge anything to keep conservatives from any power whether whether they can do it legally or not. It is all they have.
They have no capacity to honor anyone or the Constitution.
Thanks.
Dopey ol’Judge Bozo Emmet Sullivan is keeping Flynn on the torture rack and running up more legal bills. Let’s hope some wealthy benefactor is paying Flynn’s lawyer Sidney Powell, who has done a boffo job.
This judge needs to cut bait.
Remember when American Generals had nick-names like “Blood and Guts,” or “Stonewall” or “Vinegar Joe?”
Instead we have Beltway marshmallows who are so a part of the swamp, and so afraid of the perfumed apparatchiks of the FBI, they plead guilty to manufactured charges on crimes they didn’t commit.
The writer makes a good case based on the facts of the law. Sullivan will make his decision not based on the law but based on his obvious hate and contempt for Flynn, Bush and others.
Don’t waste time with legal arguments, this judge isn’t interested in the law or precedent. He’s already thrown that all out the window. He’ll do what he wants, which will inevitably be overturned but he doesn’t care. It’s political with him, not legal.
Does Sullivan have the sense to know that for Flynn to have committed perjury by pleading guilty when he wasn’t, that the government was guilty of accepting the guilty plea knowing Flynn was innocent?
Are not Jessie Liu and Van Grack therefore guilty of perjury and perpetrating a fraud on the court?
Isn’t Van Grack in criminal contempt for defying the judge’s order to submit all exculpatory material? For submitting falsified 302’s, knowing they were not legitimate evidence?
I presume Gleeson will argue that Flynn obstructed the court’s desire to railroad him by hiring competent defense, submitting exculpatory material recently obtained from Jensen, and reversing his plea.
I still don't understand why General Flynn didn't require an attorney being present during a so-called interview. You don't get to be a General without some commonsense. What did the FBI tell him to feel so at ease and not insist they formally request through White House counsel? Was it because he was newly appointed NSA and didn't want to rock the boat during the transition? What? Why?
As I've said over and over, NEVER SAY A WORD UNLESS YOU HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL. Or at the least, use Hillary's words, "I don't recall" "I don't remember" "I have no recollection of that", etc. for what? 70 times?. She set precedence that so many other political liars have followed. That's why it's so hard to nail the Deep State players.
Never say "I don't know". There could be documentation or witness[s] to testify you did know.
Sullivan doesn’the think he is above the law, he thinks he IS the law.
Self ping
I am basing my comment on the contents of this post alone. The poster’s take on the matter is superficial, and as with ALL the legal analysis on our side in the Flynn case (including Powell’s), fails to make distinctions.
As I have said before on this site, people get the “exceedingly slow” part of the saying, but they do not get, or even consider, the “exceedingly fine” part of the saying.
Legal analysis is all about distinctions based on context. The contexts change and the distinctions change with them. For instance, Powell readily demonstrated her gross incompetence by yelling Brady and citing the Steven’s case.
Witnesses commit perjury all the time during testimony. One of the principal duties of a jury is to determine who is telling the truth, both in terms of veracity and reliability. To give a judge power to hold someone in contempt for perjury during trial is giving a judge too much power to interfere in a jury’s authority.
A guilty plea is an entirely different legal context. A guilty plea implicates hugely significant duties of a judge, and the plea is a very special and specific interaction between a judge and a defendant.
An oath is administered before a guilty plea because it is essential (in many ways I will not go into here) that a defendant be scrupulously truthful to the judge while pleading guilty. There may be a dozen aspects of the plea of crucial significance, all dependent upon a defendant telling the utter truth.
A person is not entitled to lie to a judge just because the lie is told during a guilty plea. And a judge who is lied to his face is properly entitled to hold a person in contempt. Ask any judge in America, from village court to Supreme Court, what he thinks about people in court lying to his face.
Powell was grossly incompetent in this case. And every time I post that opinion there is an explosion of lawyers on our side who rush to assure us how brilliant Powell is. What they never do is write a post explaining her legal strategy in coherent terms, citing the actual law, and addressing the objection’s to Powell’s incoherent legal strategy and poor grasp of legal analysis.
Powell blundered her way into having Flynn commit perjury. No one on our side has even addressed that issue, because they cannot. That blunder alone (which I predicted before it happened) demonstrates Powell’s incompetence. But it is one example of many.
I have never doubted for one instant the corruption which lead to Flynn’s case. What I am questioning is how Powell handled the case after she took over.
And otherwise I am amazed at the people on our side, lawyers in particular, who keep doubling down on Flynn despite having no idea what they are talking about.
ping
Pollyannish much?
let’s see. . .in a trial, one side says one thing and the other side says something completely different.
So, if one side says one thing and is convicted, technically that person was deemed to be lying (perjury).
Why hasn’t this corrupt agenda-driven crayon eating judge punished all defendants in his court found to be guilty?
This whole thing is a farse and you have to wonder why the “judge” is doing this.
He’s got to know he is making a top-shelf brain-dead fool of himself and showing his partisan butt to the world.