Per Leslie McAdoo Gordon, these are the four points Hashim (“Hash”) Mooppan presented:
Mr. Mooppan has 4 points.
First is that there is no case or controversy, which Sullivan said he wasn't going to discuss.
He's saying it's not a separate issue. It's one of the govt's grounds for dismissal.
Second issue: Court isn't a rubber stamp, but the examples Gleeson used don't apply here. This isn't a case of a rogue prosecutor. This case is the "considered view" of the US.
3rd: The US has exclusive authority to dismiss; Fokker give court no role to disagree with DOJ's determination. Nixon and Fokker are controlling.
4th: materiality. DOJ cited Safavian - he gives the page. Says that is about whether a jury "could" convict, not "should" and certainly not whether the DOJ "should" pursue.
saying it was a "close one" - he doesn't know if Flynn lied. Kohl says that would be a problem for DOJ. DOJ doesn't prosecute people unless they are SURE there is a crime; not that there might be.
Calling Strzok as witness? Who misled the FISC?
It's simply a weak case, even assuming there had been a reason for it to begin with.
Listening to hearing. Sullivan = Mme DeFarge at the guillotine. Knitting, knitting, knitting...ReplyDelete
Be careful. Listening to sh*t like that can make you stupid.Delete
Sullivan is so obsessed that he gets lost in the woods of his own words.Delete
I’m about to turn it off and wait for today’s last page. Sullivan still sounds as though his feet are planted in cement… and his brain.Delete
I'm guessing Sullivan knows this is his last case he'll ever be assigned (other than traffic court); wants to grand stand on his last moment in the floodlights, no matter how much of an ass he makes of himself.ReplyDelete
Gleeson says the if dismissal is not granted and the DOJ refuses to prosecute, it would show great disrespect for the court.ReplyDelete