Wednesday, December 18, 2019

Briefly Noted: Smacks Of Personal Hostility

Yes, that's what NeverTrump Paul Mirengoff just said about Judge Sullivan's cheap shot at Michael Flynn's lawyer, Sidney Powell. In Judge Rejects Flynn Motions I wrote initially:

What I noticed first was that Sullivan takes a shot at Flynn's attorney, Sidney Powell, suggesting that she has engaged in "professional misconduct" for plagiarization, by "merely provid[ing] a hyperlink" to a brief she quotes rather than a direct citation (p. 17):
I dunno. Sullivan's language strikes me as a bit over the top, a bit of a cheap shot, in that Powell was hiding nothing (any more than Flynn hid anything from the FBI)--what she did doesn't appear to be "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation”, even if it wasn't in full compliance with the rules.

And that was before additional details on the cheapness, even idiocy, of Sullivan's comments came out (quoting Techno Fog and Turley). What we see is a pattern of what DC law professor Jonathan Turley went so far as to call "false allegations" on the part of Sullivan.

So now Mirengoff goes there, too--plainly stating that "Sullivan’s accusation ... smacks of personal hostility."

You have to wonder whether this all may have some effect down the road.


  1. Mirengoff is usually #NeverTrump and on the Other Side. This is an interesting turn of events.

    About the impeachment, a poster at CTH - mylabs5 - raised this question:

    I need to check my legal eagle friends on this but it may be that when the GOP takes the House, they can vote to rescind the impeachment vote similarly to a prosecutor withdrawing charges and wiping the record clean.
    This will go up the ladder to the SCOTUS which should rule in his favor due to separation of powers. He could very well the first president impeached and unimpeached.
    HA! Wouldn’t that be a daisy? Years in the making and a big nothingburger for all the effort in the end. Campaign ads for decades on that. Trump would get the last laugh.

    Can impeachment be undone?

    1. Ha! I don't know--but I was wondering about that and some other things just this morning. As he says, the SCOTUS should basically have nothing to say about that. It could be a resolution or something like that. That's perfectly possible.

    2. Even if SCOTUS denies such a rescinding, I don't see how it can stop the (new) House, from passing a blistering denunciation of the prior House's work.
      Feed 'em mega-crow!

    3. I sure was wrong about Sullivan. I’m disappointed, too. Maybe he figured that he gave Flynn plenty of chances to withdraw his plea. First Sullivan accuses Flynn of treason and then he accuses Powell plagiarism.

    4. I understand that Flynn placed himself in a terrible position, but I'm still disappointed--especially by the smallness exhibited by Sullivan.

    5. Especially since Sullivan agreed with Powell many years ago (or seemed to).

      Everyone thought he'd agree this time too. Seems someone got to him over the years.