Posted on 06/26/2020 7:20:23 AM PDT by rktman
So, will this anti-Flynn judge drop the case? Well, Margot Cleveland wrote in The Federalist that he could opt to keep this clown show going:
…as the respondent to Flynn’s petition for mandamus, Sullivan has the same options a normal litigant would have, including seeking review of the panel decision by the entire D.C. Circuit or requesting review by the United States Supreme Court.
Given that Judge Robert Wilkins dissented from the majority opinion, authored by Judge Neomi Rao and joined by Judge Karen Henderson, Sullivan might just opt for open defiance. Such a course of action would be a mistake, though, as Rao penned a cautious opinion, focused on separation-of-powers concerns, that has an extremely limited reach. The majority opinion eviscerated every argument presented in Wilkins’ dissent.
Rarely do federal appellate courts go en banc to rehear a case with narrow reach, and it would be even rarer for the Supreme Court to intervene in a case unlikely ever to arise again.
So Sullivan’s chances of success are low, and any attempt to push forward now would only fossilize his already-bare anti-Trump and anti-Flynn bias. Sullivan’s better course of action would be to immediately grant the government’s motion to dismiss in a short order that framed his earlier rulings and his appointment of an amicus as a concern for transparency. Then, by feigning disgust over the brief Gleeson submitted, Sullivan could extricate himself from the swamp he created.
If he were wise, Sullivan would also make note of the additional exculpatory evidence just turned over by the Department of Justice.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Oh, he could. But he’d be a fool if he did.
This “judge” will never be impeached, so what is his downside?
The Left wants Just-Us
Sullivan is a political hack in a robe, and not too bright. He will fight this all the way.
There is the problem, right there.
Sullivan has already shown himself to be a fool, and a tool.
The question is how much more humiliation he’s willing to endure.
If he’s a true believer, a true Marxist/Alinskyite Obama acolyte, he may continue.
If he has vestiges of normal American manhood, he’ll back down and do what he should have done in the first place: dismiss with prejudice.
There is no down size for him. He would be praised by the press for doing so!
Would not doubt the temperature is being taken on the full DC Appeals Court! And I am sure Sidney is a few steps ahead of him for her next move!
Ultimately, Sullivan knows he has Judge Roberts on his side.
Truly, the “judge” in this clown act is applying law in a most unique, and perhaps original, manner never before defined.
He simply has no standing to reinstate the court proceedings, nor does the “special prosecutor” have any standing either.
Hes either being blackmailed or being Paid.
Exactly what consequences would he suffer? Answer none. The Democrats in the House will not impeach him and even if they did the RINO’s would never vote for removal.
The Flynn case shows the systematic racism in the Federal Government... against White heterosexual Christian men.
Exactly there are little to no consequences for him. Maybe considerable award from a future Rat administration.
. . . who serve in the military And are highly decorated.
Exactly what consequences would he suffer? Answer none. The Democrats in the House will not impeach him and even if they did the RINO’s would never vote for removal.
Consequences would be the destruction of his reputation. Now, if he cares not for that then, sure, he’ll go scorched earth on this.
And leftists are doing that. They are desperate.
But it would expose him as the fully baked fool that he would be if he did that.
Frankly, if the judge attempts an appeal that isn’t “defiance” it’s our system.
He might win with John Roberts.
We see horrible precedents being set because of the left. Aside from Flynn, it was never intended that courts should use the plea bargain procedure to keep persecuting a defendant who tries to reverse a plea.
All of the concern was when a defendant withdraws a plea, can the government use that change against him in a future trial.
And the view generally was that it is a miscarriage of Justice to tell a jury that the defendant previously “lied” when he pled guilty.
Here it’s a dropped case and the judge seeking revenge on the defendant is even more twisted.
Since he has not already dismissed the case, it looks like he’s angling for an en banc review. I don’t know why that court would want to step into this mess, but you never know. If they just want to keep the clock running, they can.
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.