Bad news for Michael Flynn

[floridafan]

The judge presiding for Michael Flynn’s case was told by the former prosecutor he appointed to advise him that he should deny the Justice Department request and move towards sentencing Flynn.

The former prosecutor, John Gleeson, who also is a retired judge, told U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan that the Justice Department’s reasons for wanting the case dismissed were contradictory and were disproven by previous filings in the case.

“They contradict and ignore this Court’s prior orders, which constitute law of the case,” Gleeson said of the DOJ’s new reasons for why the case should be dismissed. “They are riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact.”

Gleeson described the DOJ’s explanations for dropping the case as “not credible,” saying that it was involved in “corrupt, politically motivated dismissals.”

“The Government has engaged in highly irregular conduct to benefit a political ally of the President,” Gleeson wrote.

Gleeson recommended to Sullivan that, rather than initiate a separate contempt proceeding against Flynn for perjury, he should take into account Flynn’s perjury during sentencing in the underlying case.

“This approach—rather than a separate prosecution for perjury or contempt—aligns with the Court’s intent to treat this case, and this Defendant, in the same way it would any other,” Gleeson wrote.

For Flynn, that would mean sentencing on the single felony count of false statements to which he pleaded guilty in December 2017.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/michael-flynn-john-gleeson-amicus-filing-justice-department

 

[Tacomaman]

So, the retired judge recognizes (as do most politically savvy folks) that this is merely a quid pro quo afforded to trRump's favorite traitor by tRump's second favorite traitor and current "fixer " A. G. Barr.

 

[Concart]

The judge presiding for Michael Flynn’s case was told by the former prosecutor he appointed to advise him that he should deny the Justice Department request and move towards sentencing Flynn.

The former prosecutor, John Gleeson, who also is a retired judge, told U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan that the Justice Department’s reasons for wanting the case dismissed were contradictory and were disproven by previous filings in the case.

“They contradict and ignore this Court’s prior orders, which constitute law of the case,” Gleeson said of the DOJ’s new reasons for why the case should be dismissed. “They are riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact.”

Gleeson described the DOJ’s explanations for dropping the case as “not credible,” saying that it was involved in “corrupt, politically motivated dismissals.”

“The Government has engaged in highly irregular conduct to benefit a political ally of the President,” Gleeson wrote.

Gleeson recommended to Sullivan that, rather than initiate a separate contempt proceeding against Flynn for perjury, he should take into account Flynn’s perjury during sentencing in the underlying case.

“This approach—rather than a separate prosecution for perjury or contempt—aligns with the Court’s intent to treat this case, and this Defendant, in the same way it would any other,” Gleeson wrote.

For Flynn, that would mean sentencing on the single felony count of false statements to which he pleaded guilty in December 2017.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/michael-flynn-john-gleeson-amicus-filing-justice-department

Let the whining and crying begin. As usual, the cult got this one wrong.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Maybe you should look a bit closer at this. Sullivan's rulings will stand only until they're appealed.

Sullivan, who ruled on the original Flynn conviction, is tainted goods. During the sentencing, he burst out with a tirade against Flynn from the bench that he had to apologize for the next day--formally and from the bench. That is a rarity but when it happens but usually the judge is removed from the case for open bias against the defendant.

Next, Sullivan failed to follow case law and precedent in using Gleeson. The supreme court has already ruled more than once against such actions and it doesn't help Sullivan's case that Gleeson had made public statements against Flynn in the past and is an active Democrat politically. The Supreme Court precedent is US v. Sineneng-Smith, and even Justice Ginsburg easily the most liberal of the Justices would side against Sullivan based on her opinions given in that case. Sullivan doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

In fact, Flynn's lawyers have filed appeals and a writ of mandamus with the DC Court of Appeals (the next level up in the courts) asking them to demand Sullivan explain and defend his actions. Sullivan responded by hiring lawyers himself rather than give a written response as asked for...

Now the DC Court of Appeals is seriously considering taking the whole case away from Sullivan, based on his actions, and giving it to another judge. That would be a serious slap in the face to Sullivan as it says he's either too biased and tainted or incompetent to handle the case, or both.

 

[archives]

Maybe you should look a bit closer at this. Sullivan's rulings will stand only until they're appealed.

Sullivan, who ruled on the original Flynn conviction, is tainted goods. During the sentencing, he burst out with a tirade against Flynn from the bench that he had to apologize for the next day--formally and from the bench. That is a rarity but when it happens but usually the judge is removed from the case for open bias against the defendant.

Next, Sullivan failed to follow case law and precedent in using Gleeson. The supreme court has already ruled more than once against such actions and it doesn't help Sullivan's case that Gleeson had made public statements against Flynn in the past and is an active Democrat politically. The Supreme Court precedent is US v. Sineneng-Smith, and even Justice Ginsburg easily the most liberal of the Justices would side against Sullivan based on her opinions given in that case. Sullivan doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

In fact, Flynn's lawyers have filed appeals and a writ of mandamus with the DC Court of Appeals (the next level up in the courts) asking them to demand Sullivan explain and defend his actions. Sullivan responded by hiring lawyers himself rather than give a written response as asked for...

Now the DC Court of Appeals is seriously considering taking the whole case away from Sullivan, based on his actions, and giving it to another judge. That would be a serious slap in the face to Sullivan as it says he's either too biased and tainted or incompetent to handle the case, or both.

There is the out, “appeal,” anything Trump or his surrogates do that is challenged is going to wind up in the Court system, and given Trump’s stacking the SCOTUS with his lackeys, he nor those surrogates are ever going to be held accountable

 

[Concart]

There is the out, “appeal,” anything Trump or his surrogates do that is challenged is going to wind up in the Court system, and given Trump’s stacking the SCOTUS with his lackeys, he nor those surrogates are ever going to be held accountable

Roberts is not compliant. So I think we're still okay for the time being.

 

[floridafan]

Maybe you should look a bit closer at this. Sullivan's rulings will stand only until they're appealed.

Sullivan, who ruled on the original Flynn conviction, is tainted goods. During the sentencing, he burst out with a tirade against Flynn from the bench that he had to apologize for the next day--formally and from the bench. That is a rarity but when it happens but usually the judge is removed from the case for open bias against the defendant.

Next, Sullivan failed to follow case law and precedent in using Gleeson. The supreme court has already ruled more than once against such actions and it doesn't help Sullivan's case that Gleeson had made public statements against Flynn in the past and is an active Democrat politically. The Supreme Court precedent is US v. Sineneng-Smith, and even Justice Ginsburg easily the most liberal of the Justices would side against Sullivan based on her opinions given in that case. Sullivan doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

In fact, Flynn's lawyers have filed appeals and a writ of mandamus with the DC Court of Appeals (the next level up in the courts) asking them to demand Sullivan explain and defend his actions. Sullivan responded by hiring lawyers himself rather than give a written response as asked for...

Now the DC Court of Appeals is seriously considering taking the whole case away from Sullivan, based on his actions, and giving it to another judge. That would be a serious slap in the face to Sullivan as it says he's either too biased and tainted or incompetent to handle the case, or both.

Sweetie pie, this isn't about the judge, but solely about our failed justice department who lied and cheated in an attempt to get Flynn off the hook. They lost.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

There is the out, “appeal,” anything Trump or his surrogates do that is challenged is going to wind up in the Court system, and given Trump’s stacking the SCOTUS with his lackeys, he nor those surrogates are ever going to be held accountable

Actually, to date, every time almost without exception--and let me just say I am in no way defending Trump here this is just factual observation--that an Obama (mostly) or Clinton appointed judge rules against the Trump administration it is overturned on appeal or at the Supreme Court. That has been a near 100% case since Trump took office.

In the Sullivan case, he showed bias in his initial sentencing-- I showed how
Now, Sullivan has put himself in a bind with the motion to dismiss by ignoring previous case law and rulings, used a tainted--as far as the case goes-- person to do the amicus brief to the court and is being questioned by the appeals court above him on his actions.

I don't think that's going to be a win for Sullivan.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Sweetie pie, this isn't about the judge, but solely about our failed justice department who lied and cheated in an attempt to get Flynn off the hook. They lost.

It's all about how the courts are supposed to work. You can't ad hominem your way around that. Sullivan is tainted goods, badly tainted goods in this case. Hand the case to an unbiased court and let things fall where they may. But, a ruling based on smoke, mirrors, and sand will not stand long. That isn't about Flynn either. It's about the judge's actions. Sullivan screwed the pooch here. Hate Flynn or cheer for him, Flynn deserves a fair hearing and a legally sound outcome.

 

[floridafan]

It's all about how the courts are supposed to work. You can't ad hominem your way around that. Sullivan is tainted goods, badly tainted goods in this case. Hand the case to an unbiased court and let things fall where they may. But, a ruling based on smoke, mirrors, and sand will not stand long. That isn't about Flynn either. It's about the judge's actions. Sullivan screwed the pooch here. Hate Flynn or cheer for him, Flynn deserves a fair hearing and a legally sound outcome.

You are not a lawyer, you have zero legal training, your personal opinion, and that is all it is, means nothing.

 

[floridafan]

Actually, to date, every time almost without exception--and let me just say I am in no way defending Trump here this is just factual observation--that an Obama (mostly) or Clinton appointed judge rules against the Trump administration it is overturned on appeal or at the Supreme Court. That has been a near 100% case since Trump took office.

In the Sullivan case, he showed bias in his initial sentencing-- I showed how
Now, Sullivan has put himself in a bind with the motion to dismiss by ignoring previous case law and rulings, used a tainted--as far as the case goes-- person to do the amicus brief to the court and is being questioned by the appeals court above him on his actions.

I don't think that's going to be a win for Sullivan.

Flynn lied to the FBI, Flynn lied to the VP, he was fired by Trump. Flynn plead guilty, and that about the entire story. Its quite simple.

 

[Matt Dillon]

In b4 Sullivan is impeached and kicked off the bench. The Supreme Court already warned him.


https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morr...unt-nyt-sullivan-renowned-independent-streak/

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You are not a lawyer, you have zero legal training, your personal opinion, and that is all it is, means nothing.

Ah, now we have an appeal to authority. That makes the above irrelevant. Either what I stated is correct or it isn't. Telling me that because I don't have a simply liberal arts degree in law is a dodge. It also isn't my "personal opinion" either.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/0...n-in-flynn-case-proving-why-it-was-necessary/

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ta...-who-must-explain-why-he-has-not-dropped-case

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markch...appointing-amicus-in-flynn-case/#3b3584006f0a

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Flynn lied to the FBI, Flynn lied to the VP, he was fired by Trump. Flynn plead guilty, and that about the entire story. Its quite simple.

Painting with a very broad brush there. I think the devil is in the details. None of that excuses Sullivan's actions either. If the courts screwed up the case because the judge did incompetent and judicially illegal procedures Flynn walks on a technicality if nothing else. Right now, that looks like one conclusion that could occur.

 

[archives]

Actually, to date, every time almost without exception--and let me just say I am in no way defending Trump here this is just factual observation--that an Obama (mostly) or Clinton appointed judge rules against the Trump administration it is overturned on appeal or at the Supreme Court. That has been a near 100% case since Trump took office.

In the Sullivan case, he showed bias in his initial sentencing-- I showed how
Now, Sullivan has put himself in a bind with the motion to dismiss by ignoring previous case law and rulings, used a tainted--as far as the case goes-- person to do the amicus brief to the court and is being questioned by the appeals court above him on his actions.

I don't think that's going to be a win for Sullivan.

Doesn’t that prove my point?

 

[archives]

Roberts is not compliant. So I think we're still okay for the time being.

We will find out before the end of this Court’s session, two big cases regarding Trump’s taxes, the Congressional one I think they will rule in Trump’s favor, but the NY case, where a Grand Jury is requesting the information which dates from before Trump became President will be the real answer

 

[floridafan]

Painting with a very broad brush there. I think the devil is in the details. None of that excuses Sullivan's actions either. If the courts screwed up the case because the judge did incompetent and judicially illegal procedures Flynn walks on a technicality if nothing else. Right now, that looks like one conclusion that could occur.

Flynn pled guilty, not once but twice. Trump fired him for lying. The justice department lied to get this case ended. The judge wanted no part of this, end of story. Why do you support a liar and a man who pled guilty twice?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Doesn’t that prove my point?

What? That Obama appointed judges are, in particular, extremely poor at following the law and case law in their rulings resulting in being overturned at every appeal? Because, like it or not, that's their track record versus Trump. That's neither opinion, nor is it support for Trump. It's factual history at this point.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Flynn pled guilty, not once but twice. Trump fired him for lying. The justice department lied to get this case ended. The judge wanted no part of this, end of story. Why do you support a liar and a man who pled guilty twice?

So? I think OJ Simpson is guilty of two murders but he walked. Sometimes justice isn't fair and the Court of Public and Personal Opinion never counts.

 

[floridafan]

So? I think OJ Simpson is guilty of two murders but he walked. Sometimes justice isn't fair and the Court of Public and Personal Opinion never counts.

You lie and suffer the consequences- end of story