Posted on 05/23/2020 2:46:59 PM PDT by CaptainK
Veteran trial lawyer Beth Wilkinson is helping guide U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan as a federal appeals court questions his plan to probe the U.S. Justice Department’s decision to dismiss the case against former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn despite his admission he lied to the FBI.
Sullivan refused to immediately dismiss the charge against Flynn, a retired Army general who served for just weeks in Trump’s White House, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is now weighing whether the longtime Washington federal trial judge overstepped his authority.
The appeals court set a June 1 deadline for Sullivan to respond to a petition from Flynn’s lawyers that seeks the immediate dismissal of the case. Sullivan, meanwhile, has appointed an outside lawyer, John Gleeson, a former federal judge in Brooklyn, to make arguments against the Justice Department’s bid to ditch the prosecution. Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about his communications with the Russian ambassador to the U.S., but he later hired new lawyers to help him withdraw his acknowledgement of wrongdoing.
Wilkinson, a co-founder of the litigation boutique Wilkinson Walsh, confirmed Saturday she had been retained by Sullivan, who has served on Washington’s federal trial court since 1994. The Washington Post first reported Wilkinson’s role advocating for the judge.
Wilkinson has long been in the spotlight in Washington legal circles and beyond as a successful defense-side trial lawyer advocating for major U.S. companies. She left the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in 2016 to start the boutique, which has offices in Washington, New York and Los Angeles.
She has frequently taken on high-profile assignments. In 2018, she was hired by Brett Kavanaugh, then a U.S. Supreme Court nominee, to help shepherd him through confirmation proceedings at which he had been accused of a decades-old sexual misconduct allegation. Kavanaugh, who denied the claim, was confirmed to the high court.
More recently, Wilkinson was retained by Summer Zervos in a suit in New York state court that accuses Trump of lying in his denials that he did not grope and kiss her without consent in 2007. The case is pending.
In the D.C. Circuit now, Wilkinson is counsel to Cheryl Mills, a former aide to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a dispute over a deposition in a public-records case. One of Sullivan’s colleagues on the bench, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, said the plaintiff—the conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch—could depose Clinton and Mills.
.Sullivan’s move to appoint Gleeson, now a partner at Debevoise & Plimpton, to oppose the Justice Department’s move to dismiss was seen by some observers as an assertion of independence of the courts as a co-equal branch of government. Still others said Sullivan had assumed too powerful a role, and that he should have dismissed the case at the Justice Department’s request.
Legal scholars are divided over how much power Sullivan holds to scrutinize the Justice Department’s charging decisions. Federal rules do not allow prosecutors to unilaterally dismiss any criminal case. They need “leave of court” before a charge can be withdrawn.
At one time, Flynn was prepared to be punished, but he agreed to further cooperate with the special counsel’s Russia investigation in an effort to secure a non-jail sentence. During Flynn’s first scheduled sentencing, Sullivan raised the prospect that Flynn might go to prison for lying to federal agents.
Timothy Shea, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia and a former close adviser to Barr, asked Sullivan to dismiss the case against Flynn on the ground that prosecutors no longer believe there was a strong basis to justify the FBI’s 2017 interview that is central to the false-statements claim. Former Justice Department officials have disputed the government’s claim there was no ground to interview Flynn.
“Who pays?”
That’s a very good question.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find that someone pays, but that its “off the books,” but that the public story is that the “lawyer has volunteered out of a sense of public duty and justice,” because of “the egregious interference of Trump and Barr in the justice process.”
And, while that wouldn’t surprise me, it would surprise me if I ever found out the true answer.
Payments can be cleverly disguised. Family can be hired (Bidens). Or offshore benefits can accrue (Chinese Thousand Talents Program.)
Call me jaded and cynical.
....college ‘scholarships” are a big one...
He may have hired an Attorney, but that isn’t reason enough to ask for a response delay beyond June 1. I suspect he hired that Attorney solely to get a delay. I hope the Appeals Court wont fall for that trick.
Thanks.
Yep.
I guess Nixon is the example of a preventative pardon.
You have a learning disability.
The current fiasco is NOT about winning the case.
It’s about responding on June 1st and then DELAYING the case.
The discussion you are disrupting with your amateurish banter is about what procedural delay tactics the Sullivan side might utilize.
Stand aside and let those with professional knowledge and experience continue hashing out what might be expected. Otherwise, you degrade the thread.
No one said the RESPONSE to the appellate ORDER would be delayed beyond June 1st.
There will certainly be a response filed by or on behalf of Sullivan on or before June 1st.
But it doesn’t end on June 1. That’s just the beginning.
The legal discussion is about what procedural delay tactics might be utilized to prolong the case before it is dismissed.
It’s no longer about putting General Flynn in prison or convicting him. It’s about keeping him silent about the case with an existing gag order that remains active as long as the case is not dismissed.
They would want the case to remain open so that the gag order stays in place until after the election.
General Flynn has the goods on Obama, Hillary, and others. If he is allowed to speak, he incriminates them.
So the game is to delay, delay, delay. The response that will be filed on June 1st is not the end. There will be other countermoves to keep the case open
You keep claiming it’s about “delaying the case.”
But the Appeals Court has aggressively responded in rare fashion to the writ.
I’ve been correct on this for two years and I will be correct again.
You will be wrong. Again. I’ve won every bet on this against all comers.
General Flynn will soon be exonerated and dismissed from this persecution.
God bless General Flynn and his family!
> “But the Appeals Court has aggressively responded in rare fashion to the writ.”
Attorney Sydney Powell has said in her interviews that the DC Appeals Court did NOT respond DIRECTLY to her motion for Writ of Mandamus. She made it clear the appellate court was not ordering him to respond to the Writ motion, it was ordering him to respond to what he was doing especially in regards to the Fokker case.
In effect, the appellate court is ordering Sullivan to show his cards, strongly suggesting he dismiss the case and render the Writ motion moot.
> “I’ve been correct on this for two years and I will be correct again.”
That statement is so lame that I am sure any attorney scanning it over will decide the level of the thread is not worth their time.
Again, you are not learning what the issue is.
People on this thread including me read the same and more than you. All the information you have, I have and then some.
Because you refuse to get it, answer what happens AFTER the response to the order is filed on June 1. You don’t have the knowledge and experience to answer informatively.
And don’t say the appellate panel will come down hard on Sullivan yada, yada, yada, etc.
There are legal procedures that must be followed after June 1 and those procedures can be exploited for delay. Attorney Powell will certainly be prepped and ready to staunch those delays but she can’t change court rules if such rules allow delays. For example, the appellate court will need to extend per procedure a separate response to the motion for Writ of Mandamus. Then there will be a reply. There may be a motion by the Sullivan side to be heard before the full en banc appeals panel, not just a 3-judge panel and that can cause time to assemble causing more delay.
That’s what you’re not getting and the reason you don’t get it is because you are not a lawyer with knowledge and experience yet you think you can bully a thread with your view because you think you know best when it is obvious to any legal mind you don’t know much.
> “General Flynn will soon be exonerated and dismissed from this persecution.”
My posting history shows I believed in General Flynn and supported his side before most on FR. When many FR participants were saying he was a Democrat who lied and made mistakes, I was posting his party affiliation was irrelevant, his patriotism was more important, and his plea was coerced. I was posting this last year and it just came out this year it was true.
And now he should be freed but Sullivan is holding him hostage because Sullivan is controlled by the Obama-Hillary faction. This faction has now got Sullivan a lawyer and will be responding to the appellate order rather than letting Sullivan dismiss the case.
And the question is why? Why are they maneuvering to cause delay? They will respond to the order on June 1 but then they will cause the appellate court to set schedule on the motion for Writ of Mandamus and that will cause delay. It doesn’t matter how aggressive the 3-judge appellate panel is against Sullivan because certain court rules must be followed and those rules require days of notice, days of response, days for reply and there can be intervening motions in the interim.
Hopefully, if you bothered to read the above, you will start to be aware of what the discussion is about.
I am well read on the case and know it better than you. Which is why my prediction will again be proven correct.
You are wrong.
The Appeals Court responded very aggressively to Judge Sullivan’s ridiculous action against General Flynn in his refusal to remove his fingers from around General Flynn’s neck.
I am well informed and know full well the Appeals Court did not take well to Sullivan’s briefing scheduling opening up an amicus briefing schedule.
You just can’t handle that I’m going to be right again. It bothers you but I don’t care.
General Flynn follows me on Twitter. No one cares about what you think and inability to recognize the June 1 Appeals Court deadline to Judge Sullivan.
You’ve insisted this is all about delay and I’ve insisted it’s all about the pending victory for General Flynn.
So, I’m quite confident I will be correct here once more.
> “I am well read on the case and know it better than you ...”
Great, then answer what happens procedural to court rules AFTER the June 1 Response is filed.
List the actual posted rules, not your opinion but the actual rules to be followed AFTER June 1.
List the rule numbers, links and procedures here.
This should be easy for you because you insist you know so much.
“, he has a gun to his head.”
Eric Holder?
Yeah 30 some years ago. Got anything within the last 4 years? Sure have been a crapload of judicial malfeasance going on. Not one nominationfor impeachment. Thank you Republicans!
My prediction stands, is publicly noted and will be proven correct once again.
The Appeals Court will act on the submission by Judge Sullivan’s hired lawyer and she will submit by June 1st.
After June 1st, the Appeals Court will take further action against Judge Sullivan.
As stated, General Flynn will be exonerated and will the case with a dismissal, one way or another.
I’m correct to date.
There’s already been a delay.
In light of the delay that has already occurred, your ‘prediction’ is bloviation.
Plenty of people including me are predicting the DC Circuit Court of Appeals will eventually force case dismissal.
So your ‘prediction’ is nothing special except to see the ugly sight of your narcissism. Have fun looking at yourself because it’s a good bet no one else is paying any attention.
The question is not WHETHER case dismissal. The question is WHEN case dismissal.
How long can the Sullivan side delay is the question.
You have nothing to contribute to inform on that question.
Now let’s see again you post of how you think you are so wonderful.
I already predicted the June 1st date for the Appeals Court to handle the next aspect toward dismissal.
You’re too late.
Plenty of people say they predicted dismissal but I did it here and elsewhere last year.
So my prediction is not only on the record but correct back to 2019 long before you tried to duplicate me here and make some ridiculous non-argument when I’ve already stated on the record my full and complete prediction.
I’ve stated it will be sooner than later. You have not countered with any date. If you dare Hostage, I will follow your prediction and beat you once again!
So try me.
I see. You’re predicting June 1 the appellate court will handle ‘something”.
I suppose you think they are not going to read Wilkinson’s response for Sullivan, just wave their hands and say Sullivan sucks.
Uh-huh.
You’ve got nothing of value to add here other than you’re a narcissistic A—h——.
> “I’ve stated it will be ***sooner than later***. You have not countered with any date. If you dare Hostage, I will follow your prediction and beat you once again!”
What a frickin load of bleep.
I predicted when the appellate court ORDERED Sullivan to address his actions in light of the Fokker case, I predicted Sullivan would dismiss and not bother to respond. I was wrong.
So there’s already been a delay because the Obama-Hillary mafia decided Sullivan’s getting a well-connected DC lawyer to write his response to the appeals court. And the question I have on this thread and others is how long will be the delay. I have received info from lawyers that is quite useful.
The question is how much more delay is possible. Your BS answer is ***sooner than later***. My dog could predict that.
Get lost!
When she submits then at some point I’ll read Wilkinson’s argument on behalf of Sullivan and see how she’ll attempt to use the same Fokker case to advantage.
You don’t know what I’m going to do or say. You’re just angry that I’m correct this week and will be again.
I am not ruling out that Sullivan will hold no card and issue a dismissal but I haven’t predicted that outcome in this instance. I would like it to go that way but that’s not my prediction.
You’re obviously afraid to pick a date for a final outcome. You should because I’ll pick a different date and you’ll be wrong and I’ll be closer to the correct outcome.
You’re afraid. You’re a hostage to your ego. Sucks to be you.
> “You’re just angry that I’m correct this week and will be again.”
You’re so full of sh*t it’s drooling out your ears.
I don’t could care an iota about you.
I only provoke your response to let others see what a narcissistic a-hole you are. it’s not fun for me, but it’s so blatant that it gets post time.
Go away. Nobody’s buying your bullsh*t.
You talk smack but you get challenged and you can’t put up.
Put up or shut up.
Name a damn date or just go away and be the fake know-it-all coward you are witnessed as here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.