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, many other civil liberties are enforceable against the government only by exercising this basic right.
According to the Congressional Research Service, since the Constitution was written,
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 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.