Pages

Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Sullivan Makes A Pig's Breakfast Of The Hearing

Sullivan is a shocking idiot. Remember how he previously had no clue about the constitutional definition of "treason"? Now it turns out that he has no clue about the First Amendment right to petition the government. He thinks there was something improper about Sidney Powell writing a letter to AG Barr!

From Wikipedia, about the right to petition the government:


In the United States the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

Although often overlooked in favor of other more famous freedoms, and sometimes taken for granted,[1] many other civil liberties are enforceable against the government only by exercising this basic right.[2][1]

According to the Congressional Research Service, since the Constitution was written,[3]

the right of petition has expanded. It is no longer confined to demands for “a redress of grievances,” in any accurate meaning of these words, but comprehends demands for an exercise by the government of its powers in furtherance of the interest and prosperity of the petitioners and of their views on politically contentious matters. The right extends to the "approach of citizens or groups of them to administrative agencies (which are both creatures of the legislature, and arms of the executive) and to courts, the third branch of Government. Certainly the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government. The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition."


So now check this out (again per Leslie McAdoo Gordon). Note that Sidney Powell is pulling no punches (JS = Judge Sullivan):


JS now asking about a letter from Sidney to Barr. He wants to ask the govt about that. JS going to read from it now. (This is going to an argument of improper interference.) 

JS now reading Sidney's letter. So now a defense lawyer asking for supervisory review of a case is creating "interference" with justice apparently. Unbelievable. JS notes she had not entered her appearance yet in the court. 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a person having lawyers who represent them in court and different lawyers who don't enter their appearance in court but approach the govt for resolution. I certainly hope Judge Sullivan isn't going to try to say this is a problem. 

There he goes. He questions the "propriety" of the letter.

"One must wonder" what the public would think. "Someone who doesn't represent someone." THAT IS WRONG. Just because you have not entered your appearance DOES NOT mean you don't represent them. 

I had this same issue with another judge. They forget that entering your appearance is NOT the same thing as representing them. It is ENTIRELY legal and ethical for people to have a team of lawyers, some of whom are in court and some of whom are not. 

Mooppan telling Sullivan he does not see why this would be a problem. Even if she was an unrelated person, why would it be wrong for someone to raise a question of justice with DOJ? 

JS wants a copy of any reply and wants to know of any discussion within DOJ about it or with Sidney. This is not appropriate. Mooppan says he'll look into it and respond. Sullivan says DOJ might have reasons to redact. 

Sidney tries to jump in. JS says he'll let her talk in a minute. 

She's talking now, says there was no meeting; no discussions; only response she got was a denial that there was any Brady. 

She's starting to make objections. Sullivan interrupts her. Asks if she's had discussions with the President. 

Sidney declining to answer. Says any such conversation would invoke executive privilege. 

Sullivan incredulous. 

Sullivan says she doesn't work for the govt. She says that isn't required to invoke the privilege. 

Sullivan pressing her about with discussions with DJT and who in his office she spoke to. 

Sidney saying once after the govt moved to dismiss and to update him about status. 

Sullivan asking whether she asked DJT to intervene. She says she only asked DJT NOT to issue a pardon and gave him an update. 

Sullivan asking Sidney whether it is ethically proper for her to write DOJ. She says yes; Flynn had terminated Covington already, but she had not just entered her appearance in the court, but was repping Flynn at the time. (This is 100% correct.) 

Sidney moving to strike Gleeson and all his pleadings and the facts he's interjected into the case. Sullivan says her record is clear that she objects to Gleeson and his role in the case. 

Sidney moves to recuse Sullivan. 

She's objecting to how he's handled the case after the Court of Appeals's opinion. Sullivan defending himself for delaying 21 days saying he did so to give Flynn time to file for cert & for the mandate to return to him. (Under the appellate rule, there is no mandate on mandamus.) 

Sullivan continuing to defend himself saying he wasn't unduly trying to delay. 

Sidney continues with why he should recuse himself. Saying he appointed Gleeson to advance his own personal agenda. He's ignoring the materials provided by DOJ on the record recently. 

She also objected to him allowing the filing yesterday by Strzok's attorney, one of the dirtiest FBI agents ever. 

"If you want to file a motion to recuse - you probably should have filed it - file a motion." He's giving her a week to file it. 

She says she will file it. Sullivan asks what her next point it. 

Sidney consulting her notes. 

She's objecting to JS's assertion that Flynn refused to cooperate in the VA case; she says the govt asked him to lie (Van Grack) and that he could not do that (also Van Grack threatened Flynn), referencing edits to plea papers. 


It appears that Sullivan is setting himself up for a major slapdown down the road.


30 comments:

  1. Dare we hope?

    He is surreal. Natters on and on, “file a motion”, “off with his head”, he does the Red Queen one better…. “Let’s make this last…."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Now he’s off on the President’s twitters ...

    ReplyDelete
  3. My God, Sullivan's an idiot. DOJ lawyer Kohl made very clear they have no case. Their only 3 witnesses would be: Peter "Insurance Policy" Strozk, Joe Pientka (who lied to the FISC in the Carter Page applications, and Andy McCabe (who was fired for lying). Serious credibility problems. And yet Sullivan persists.

    But you're exactly right. Sullivan will get hammered by the DC Circuit if he doesn't promptly grant the dismissal.

    Fingers crossed Powell files her motion to recuse tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  4. At this point it may not be that Sullivan is running interference for the Coup. It is entirely possible he is so invested in his delusion that he is largely defending his judgement because to have it questioned is a deeply felt, egregiously personal, affront to his sense of righteous power.

    A practicing narcissist can not stop themselves. To them their use of power is unassailably wise/smart and unquestionably righteous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is why we need to term limit the judiciary.

      Rob S

      Delete
    2. Despite all the legal gyrations in the Flynn case, this is the likely explanation--Sullivan's ego and arrogance (narcissism and righteousness) has gotten the best of the judgment that remains at his age.

      I'm usually quite respectful of age. The wise and clever among us learn their capabilities slow with time, and learn to adjust their temperament and patience. But for some, they become their own worst enemy as they don't adjust because they don't recognize their slowing in mental agility and acuity.

      Delete
    3. A significant part of the problem is sitting day after day, for years, handing down delivered wisdom to those who perforce must look up and submit, or else. I would be all for limits of 30 years or the age of 80, whichever comes first, anything less than that and you start seeing wild swings in the very theory of jurisprudence. Perhaps something on the lines of a working sabbatical might help. Sit as a judge for four years and then do one as a practicing attorney, preferably at street level, maybe as a public defender. Something where they feel essentially powerless except for their wits applying actual law.

      Just spit-balling here. I know that no one enters .gov service, or law for that matter, for lessons in humility, much less to practice it.

      Delete
  5. >> JS now reading Sidney's letter. So now a defense lawyer asking for supervisory review of a case is creating "interference" with justice apparently. Unbelievable. JS notes she had not entered her appearance yet in the court. <<

    Sullivan appears to arguing that DOJ review of US Attorney prosecution is "Obstruction of Justice"? But USAs work for DOJ! He's claiming DOJ is Obstructing itself?????

    Sounds like what he really wants is to force shut down Jensen ....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And sure enough, Gleeson delivers exactly what I suspected Sullivan wants:

      >> Gleeson says objecting the DOJ arguments has become a game of wack-a-mole with tidbits from this bizarre investigation in MO. "It's sad." "Because it's our Justice Department too." (What's sad is how badly he's embarrassing himself, actually.) <<

      But for Jensen's review, ordered by AG Barr, Flynn's attorney and DOJ leadeship would never have seen the exculpatory evidence previous prosecutors refused to release, and DOJ would have just plowed ahead trying to bamboozle Flynn into being sentenced for a crime that never took place.

      Delete
  6. Gleeson is arguing -- essentially -- that the Govt has made a bona fide, good faith case against Flynn -- as demonstrated conclusively by Flynn's two guilty pleas -- and that the Govt's motion to dismiss is in bad faith. Gleeson says that, notwithstanding Flynn's admitted guilt, the Govt is bowing to political pressure from Trump.

    Gleeson totally ignores the evidentiary problems with the case presented by the Govt. Although he doesn't specifically so state he is implicitly accusing the Govt of lying to the Court.

    He is also expressly accepting the good faith of the FBI and DOJ in prosecuting Flynn in 2017 and 2018 -- notwithstanding overwhelming evidence produced to the contrary.

    In this respect I conclude that Gleeson's argument is fundamentally dishonest. But I'm not sure it matters, because I conclude the Govt has unqualified discretion to dismiss.

    (FWIW, with respect to WH pressure on the DOJ/FBI, 'whaddabout' the January 5 WH meeting which led to the Flynn prosecution? Political pressure?)

    On a separate note, like others, I see plenty of opportunity here for Sullivan to ask for more motions and more argument -- and more delay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Incredibly, this former judge is strongly suggesting--in public--that a defendant is not allowed to withdraw a plea:

      "Gleeson says he can't believe some of what he's hearing. Says Flynn plead guilty twice. Says people who don't hang around federal courts don't get the solemnity of the guilty plea. You can't do what Flynn did. That is wrong; you can absolutely move to withdraw your plea."

      Delete
    2. The motion before the court is to DISMISS the case, not withdraw the defendant's plea.

      Gleeson is arguing the legal equivalent of a red herring.

      Delete
    3. Amazing how fast the DC Circuit morphed into Die Volksgericht & Sullivan into a veritable Roland Freisler.

      Delete
    4. Indeed! Complete with tirades about defendants being traitors to the Volk and enemies of the Reich. We desperately need a "Justice at Nuremberg" moment.

      Delete
    5. Sorry, that should be "Judgement at Nuremberg". Reading EZ's comment at 2:29 below it would seem that Gleeson has volunteered for the part of Emil Hahn.

      Delete
  7. To accept Gleeson's argument you have to believe that Strzok, Pientka and McCabe and the Mueller Team were telling the truth about Flynn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At this point, those three no longer have credibility to testify in court regarding the truth of any matter. Their integrity and credibility have been completely sullied by their conduct.

      As said by a solicitor in Rumpole of the Bailey, "based on the evidence, you couldn't convict on the non-renewal of a dog license."

      Delete
    2. Sidney Powell is on fire.

      The initial prosecution was politically motivated, based on false evidence and utterly corrupt.

      She takes Gleeson apart -- using his own words in prior cases. If I were Gleeson I would be absolutely humiliated. But I am sure he has no capacity for this emotion.

      Delete
  8. Sidney Powell needs to Object to Gleeson's incoherent, rambling, and off-point argumentation, on the grounds that it violates the 8th Amendment's prohibition against Cruel and Unusual Punishment."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Van Grack, the FBI and DOJ, Flynn's Covington's lawyers, and Sullivan have conspired to frame Flynn.

    No question in my mind that Sullivan is part of the attempted coup of Trump.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just did a quick sample of other commentary. Uniformly appalled at the mockery Gleeson and Sullivan have made of the entire judiciary. DC Circuit has egg all over its face. They totally sh*t in their messkit by sending the case back to Sullivan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was just going to comment to that effect. DC Circuit really disgraced itself. What a truly embarrassing episode. There's something very wrong with Sullivan and Gleeson both. The willful disregarding of evidence and facts in this case is extremely disturbing.

      Delete
  11. Two thoughts come to mind with this today.

    1) Judge Sullivan is looking for an exit strategy. When the DOJ sends the 2 high power guys over to placate to his will to "inform" JS of all that has transpired in the past several months they are essentially gracing him with the information HE requires in order to save face and make the proper decision.

    2) I'm guessing Judge Gleeson is finding out that the more one says thinks out loud the more one finds out how silly they sound... Especially when repeating themselves out loud. I'd guess by the end of the day he won't be able to believe what came out of his own mouth after all is said and done.

    ReplyDelete
  12. By other commentary, do you mean sites specializing in legal stuff?
    Can you rattle off a few of the best?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Undercover Huber
      @JohnWHuber

      From the Flynn hearing - the most senior DOJ career official in DC attorney office Kenneth Kohl just wrecked - and I mean obliterated, ground into dust, nuked - the potential for any prosecution of Flynn by the government

      John M. Reeves
      @reeveslawstl
      ·
      Sep 29, 2020
      1) Judge Sullivan's questioning fully validates Judge Henderson's dissenting opinion in the Flynn mandamus case pointing out how biased he has become, and how Judge Sullivan should have been recused.

      John M. Reeves
      @reeveslawstl
      2) The way in which Judge Sullivan is conducting this hearing fully confirms why the DC Circuit should already have granted mandamus. Judge Sullivan's questioning of the Govt.'s motives is ITSELF a violation of separation of powers.









      Delete
  13. I couldn't get a connection on the phone in numbers, and man, I was glad I didn't! It was way too long, but I would have listened like a rubber necker and wasted most of my day! I followed Leslie's tweets, and she did a great job! Best I could work, and then check them every so often. Sullivan and Gleeson really put on a circus act! However, there was short time, when US Atty was speaking about practicalities of witnesses, etc., that I think got through to Sullivan that this just wasn't going to be worth it much longer. Sullivan doesn't seem to be an ideologue like Gleeson, but he does know who his friends are, and they include Obama and Holder, big time. All the mentions of Flynn's prior lawyers spelled potential liability for Holder's firm, but at some point that's not Sullivan's problem. I think he'll grant the motion to dismiss because he's practical, but maybe put a couple little hurdles in the way, just to help the cause.

    Flynn's in a tough position on filing the motion for recusal. That could become another source of delay with Sullivan, but it does need to be on the record because it's still likely there will be an appeal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Tom. Very interesting.

      Delete
    2. Make Flynn write 100 times, I will never speak to a government agent without a lawyer again.


      Rob S

      Delete
  14. Leslie McAdoo Gordon’s take:

    “Flynn- my prediction: based on the pleadings, the argument today & my experience appearing before Sullivan, I think he’s going to deny the motion to dismiss & set a schedule to deal w/the motion to w/draw the plea, which he’ll likely also deny, taking the case back to sentencing.”

    twitter.com/McAdooGordon/status/1311078937703964674

    So she thinks he’ll sentence Flynn & Flynn will then have to appeal. I know that DOJ may still have a mandamus card up their sleeve, but Sullivan’s plan does seem now what it’s seemed all along: get Flynn at all costs.

    ReplyDelete