This article by Gregg Jarrett is one of the better ones I've seen re Sullivan's absurd call for Leftist activist intervention in the Flynn criminal proceedings:
Flynn judge wrong to allow anti-Trump former Watergate prosecutors to interfere in case
He makes all the points most people are making, but he's concise and consistently on point.
This kind of prejudicial interference from outside forces has no place in a court of law. It makes a mockery of both fairness and impartiality.
Sadly, Judge Sullivan appears to have taken leave of his senses and decided to entertain the notion of allowing the former Watergate prosecutors to usurp the role of federal prosecutors. This resulted in his order Tuesday indicating he would permit “individuals and organizations” to file “amicus curiae” submissions.
Hours later, Flynn’s lawyer, Sidney Powell, filed a well-reasoned opposition argument that courts are not a forum for special interests. “The ‘Watergate Prosecutors’ have no special role and no authority whatsoever to insert themselves in this litigation on behalf of anyone,” she wrote.
Powell also pointed out that Sullivan rejected 24 previous attempts by parties to intervene in the Flynn case. In one of his prior refusals, the judge made this declarative statement: “The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal cases. Options exist for a private citizen to express his views about matters of public interest, but the Court’s docket is not an available option.”
What has changed? Nothing. But Sullivan’s ruling may be a reflection of his own abiding prejudice. In a hearing last year, he all but accused Flynn of treason, only to retract his words after a recess. He seems to have a feeble grasp of the facts in this important case.
Is Sullivan thinking through his decision or just winging it? Powell's rebuttal is devastating.ReplyDelete
In a fundamental way, Sullivan has done our country a great service. Specifically, this outrageous act of judicial malfeasance has finally laid bare the nature of the conflict that is roiling the country below the surface.ReplyDelete
We are a bifurcated nation, and the divide is growing with each passing day. Half the country is enraged by the ongoing persecution of Mike Flynn and the associated institutionalized destruction of the rule of law.
The other half is viscerally committed to winning at any and all costs, and there is no act of depravity to which they will not stoop.
Most decent-minded Americans want (and need) to believe that this travesty is an aberration, and that eventually the other side will come to it's senses and there can be reconciliation and redemption.
How can that self-delusion persist after Kavannagh and now Flynn?
It cannot, and Sullivan is making that point; however inadvertantly.
And, how can that self-delusion persist after *Sandmann's "punchable smirk"* in DC, andDelete
impeachment for "obstruction of Congress", etc., and
Schumer's recent agitProp vs. Kav & Gorsuch, and
Hillary's McCarthyist agitProp vs. Tulsi, Jill stein, etc., and ....
My guess is the judge is either so mentally long in the tooth that he is effectively being "controlled" by an activist clerk (analogy is the stories about Major league baseball umpires, who, after a night of heavy drinking, arrive at the ball park for the game very hung over, and unable to clearly see the ball. Umpire talks to both team's catchers, and explains his dilemma, and tells the catchers to just throw the ball back to the pitcher if it's a "ball" and hold the ball in their mitt, if it's a "strike." By about the 7 inning, the ump is able to call it himself, and takes over.)ReplyDelete
In the extant case, it seems like Judge Sullivan is no longer able to call judicial balls and strikes at all, or, alternatively.... he's being blackmailed.
IF Sullivan had his wits even if he's politically motivated, or weren't being blackmailed, he'd realize the track record of denying 24 previous requests to file Amicus briefs in criminal cases would make him look like he's insane or otherwise mentally incapacitated to grant it now. It's not even plausible.
As Flynn's lawyer has argued in his objection to allowing Amicus briefs, the rule under which Sullivan tries to allow the Amicus briefs is for CIVIL cases, not criminal, and worse still, it for circumstances where someone not a party to the case is seeking "relief." In a criminal case, there are only two parties: the defendant, and the Government, represented by the prosecutors. There are no outside parties to seek relief, and relief does not come in the form of filing an Amicus.
Note: I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. If MW has a different take, I'll defer to his expertise.
Mr. Wauck, the esteemed Margot Cleveland has an article in today's Federalist on Sullivan and she writes regarding Flynn, "The ploy worked, and Flynn’s responses to the Strzok’s questioning served as a sufficient predicate for a charge of making false statements to government officials under Section 1001."ReplyDelete
Should she have more accurately stated that the questioning served as a 'manufactured' predicate, since it has been established that the FBI did not have legitimate predication to open an investigation?
Good point, Joe. Normally one speaks of "predication" for an investigation. When it comes to bringing a charge via indictment or information the standard is "probable cause."Delete
Re your second paragraph, here's the real point. Because the charge of making a false statement requires that the false statement be "material"--essentially, make a difference to some government action or interest--the lack of any materiality involved (as DoJ now maintains) means 1) any supposedly false statement can't serve as predication for further investigation and 2) can't serve as probable cause for criminal charges.
To call the probable cause "manufactured" gets at that point, but the real point is that it wasn't even manufactured in the sense of being real--it involved the prosecutors themselves making false statements!
Sorry if that sounds convoluted.
Yes. I think the term "fiction of predication" gets more nearly to what both you and Joe saying.Delete
What evidence do we have that General Flynn even made a false statement? All we have is the word of a known liar Peter Strzok. Plus we know he altered the 302 himself. The missing 302 is the smoking gun.Delete
Yesterday Chuck Grassley asked Barr and Grenell to release the Flynn/Kislyak transcript and the original 302, as well as the unredacted Susan Rice CYA email to self.
Based on Grenell's record to date, I'll bet he complies.
It strikes me that Judge Sullivan has dismissed the DoJ, and by extension the U.S. Gov't, as the prosecutorial authority for criminal cases and is now shopping the criminal for a new prosecutor, something that even Beria hadn't thought of.ReplyDelete
Going forward, by the reasoning of his order, prosecutorial authority will rest with the political ideology that feels it has sufficient "muscle" to elbow their way to the forefront and bend justice to their will. It is as nearly a blatantly literal repudiation of the rule of law as the Republic has ever seen. This is possibly a more grievous a blow to the underpinnings of a constitutional republic than the corruption that produced the Russia Hoax to begin with.
If this is not slapped down hard and fast how long before the general citizenry processes the idea that courts are only a sham of justice? How long before even local cases are prosecuted openly as political kangaroo courts? How long will even the pretense of a Republic last? Sullivan has done an evil thing here. He is attempting to poison the very roots of the Republic.
Excellent point. I believe, whether Sullivan gets this or not, that that is the implication of his action. That's why it seems to me that a higher court needs to intervene in some way. I know for a fact that sometimes these things are handled "informally" by a Chief Judge calling an offbase lower judge and telling him to change a ruling. That's harder to do here because it's too public.Delete
They are already a sham of justiceDelete
My guess is Sullivan is going this to vaccinate himself from being slimed by Obama and company as an Uncle Tom / Oreo. By giving the anti Flynn side an opportunity to present their side.ReplyDelete
And unfortunately Sullivan’s smart to do this, to avoid being Alinsky’d.
Whether intending to or not, couldn't Sullivan's decision to accept amicus brief serve as a means of flushing out perpetrators to surface and defend Flynn? I mean, we will get to see who really has a vested interest in making sure Flynn is persecuted.ReplyDelete
Sullivan can't be so blind that he does not see how this ends up, so one has to ask why he is doing this. Presumably Sullivan can predict that if he does decline to accept the DOJ dropping charges, that he faces a likelihood he would be overturned, and that can only do him damage in such a high profile case.
What if Sullivan is just daring the guilty to step up and defend what they did to Flynn? He just puts out this honeypot that the real criminals cannot help but ensnare themselves in. If that's not his intent, that may be in effect what comes of this.
I think Sullivan had 2nd thoughts:ReplyDelete
Thanks very much. New Post.Delete
Someone, somewhere in a post or news bit, mentioned that Judge Sullivan had never properly completed a Rule 11 examination of the facts in the case, as expected in accepting any plea bargain. Could the most recent dump of brady material from the DOJ allow Sulivan to 'reset the clock' - return to that Rule 11 part of the trial, and could he use this amicus brief to spotlight the errors, then rule in favor of the defense argument of 'fictional predication' and throw everything out without having to sanction the original prosecutors for contempt..etc etc, and restore the dignity of the court etc etc etc ?ReplyDelete
1) DoJ is dismissing,
2) Ain't gonna be no Amicus Brief
That's how I read Sullivan's two orders today.Delete
Boy, for a layman, this stuff is a head scratcher. I come into this thinking Sullivan is a good guy replacing the corrupt Contreras. I think that he's trying to goad Flynn into fight for himself against abuse. Now it seems as though he's covering for the Deep State.ReplyDelete
He seemed outraged in the Ted Stevens Case. Does he have a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome?