Looks like it's going into extra innings

actually, he's a Reagan judge before going upstairs to higher court. i looked at the wiki page incorrectly.

he was prolly one of those compromise judges that had to clear a democrat majority in the senate.

Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
In office 1984–1992
Appointed by Ronald Reagan

Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
In office 1992–1994
Appointed by George H. W. Bush

Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Incumbent Assumed office
June 16, 1994
Appointed by Bill Clinton Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Different courts in each and every case. His current seat is solely because Slick Willie put him there.

How many times have we seen and heard Black kids ( and White and Hispanic ) admit to things they didn't do because of hours of interrogations and the cop says "if you just tell us you did this, you can go home ) and unbelievable to us not having been interrogated without a lawyer for hours, say yes, I did it and then ask "can I go home now"?


Everybody including Munchman knows this to be true but he can not envision that this happened to Michael Flynn. No, Flynn lied and he can't take it back! Of course you can. That is the beauty of America, that at any time you can tell the truth and explain why you did what you did and in my opinion the legal community has an obligation at any time to hear your truth. Isn't that what we heard in the Kavanaugh hearing? It's never to late to tell your truth?


Well, General Flynn is now telling his truth and we have an obligation to him to listen because one day it might be us coerced into a false confession because of threats made to us or our family or is that how we want law enforcement in America to work?


But it seems that Judge Sullivan for some reason, doesn't want General Flynn to tell us that he was mistreated at the hands of the FBI and that is a shame.


The only argue that I can see, that this new outside judge could present is actually that. "He lied and he can't take it back". What else is there to present? You can't present an underlying crime because there wasn't one. You can't provide a recording that I am aware of, of what General Flynn actually said that day the FBI interviewed him. You only have the word of the two agents that he lied and even that is in question and can not in my opinion be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


Throw in the fact that President Obama pardoned General Cartwright for doing the exact same thing Flynn did or they say he did and admitted to under coercion IMHO and you do have the precedent that Obama stunningly said didn't exist when he was the precedent.


There is no good reason to proceed with this case. There is no good reason to not dismiss a case that the DOJ says should never have been brought in the first case and has clearly explained why.


But the real topper here is the hand written note from the head of the FBI Counter Intelligence "what is our goal, truth/ admission or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired". The fact that memo was uncovered which was surely known by Director Wrey if he knew what he was doing but did not provide the exculpatory evidence, is reason enough for an unbiased judge to dismiss this case. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

E.g., the Central Park Five.

Doesn't really matter whether Sullivan was appointed by a Democrat President or a Republican President. As we have seen on the SC no less, sometimes a President misjudges the judge they appoint.


And we know that there are plenty of so called Republican judges who hate Donald Trump and don't believe he is a Republican in any sense of the word.


Then there is the possibility that Judge Sullivan has a hair up his ass for a reason we will never know but for what ever reason, Sullivan is flirting with being over ruled by an Appellate court if he keeps this up. There is no reason at all for a judge to disregard the wishes of the DOJ and out loud question their motives. I'll bet Sullivan isn't appreciating his motives being questioned.

How did the Fockers get dragged into this?? Must be that sneaky ex-CIA bastard Jack Byrnes!!
Originally Posted by lustylad

Congrats on being the first to make that connection. I made a mistake saying Focker when it should have been Fokker but the joke was still hanging there like low hanging fruit to be picked.

Doesn't really matter whether Sullivan was appointed by a Democrat President or a Republican President. As we have seen on the SC no less, sometimes a President misjudges the judge they appoint.


And we know that there are plenty of so called Republican judges who hate Donald Trump and don't believe he is a Republican in any sense of the word.


Then there is the possibility that Judge Sullivan has a hair up his ass for a reason we will never know but for what ever reason, Sullivan is flirting with being over ruled by an Appellate court if he keeps this up. There is no reason at all for a judge to disregard the wishes of the DOJ and out loud question their motives. I'll bet Sullivan isn't appreciating his motives being questioned. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Despite Robert's denial, who as president appointed whom has mattered since President John Adams via his "Midnight Appointments" elevated Justice John Marshall to Chief Justice on the Supreme Court.



Sullivan wants to charge Flynn with contempt of court or perjury for what has happened in Sullivan's courtroom -- which is a separate matter from the charges Mueller's team brought against Flynn: those charges are dead -- Flynn has been exonerated of those charges. Furthermore, AG Jensen predicated his recommendation that Mueller's charges against Flynn be dropped because there was no predicate cause to investigate Flynn in the first place.

Ergo, Flynn shouldn't have been in Sullivan's courtroom to begin with -- and wouldn't have bee except for government malfeasance.

Therefore, for Sullivan to argue that Flynn committed a crime in his courtroom now is much like the FBI unjustly investigating Flynn to begin with. Government malfeasance is at the root of Sullivan's case just as it was at the root of Mueller's case against Flynn.

Doesn't really matter whether Sullivan was appointed by a Democrat President or a Republican President. As we have seen on the SC no less, sometimes a President misjudges the judge they appoint.


And we know that there are plenty of so called Republican judges who hate Donald Trump and don't believe he is a Republican in any sense of the word.


Then there is the possibility that Judge Sullivan has a hair up his ass for a reason we will never know but for what ever reason, Sullivan is flirting with being over ruled by an Appellate court if he keeps this up. There is no reason at all for a judge to disregard the wishes of the DOJ and out loud question their motives. I'll bet Sullivan isn't appreciating his motives being questioned. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

clearly this judge has a corncob up his ass over Flynn. and his actions prove it. any reasonable judge would have dismissed all charges by now. some judges may not care about being overruled by the higher courts but it is part of the official record. to be fair many judges are overruled without acting out of any bias or animosity. however this judge is clearly showing bias and should know any conviction he tries to impose won't stand up on appeal. i imagine he doesn't care. and he should have recused himself if he simply hate Trump and/or Flynn for any reason.

Despite Robert's denial, who as president appointed whom has mattered since President John Adams via his "Midnight Appointments" elevated Justice John Marshall to Chief Justice on the Supreme Court.



Sullivan wants to charge Flynn with contempt of court or perjury for what has happened in Sullivan's courtroom -- which is a separate matter from the charges Mueller's team brought against Flynn: those charges are dead -- Flynn has been exonerated of those charges. Furthermore, AG Jensen predicated his recommendation that Mueller's charges against Flynn be dropped because there was no predicate cause to investigate Flynn in the first place.

Ergo, Flynn shouldn't have been in Sullivan's courtroom to begin with -- and wouldn't have bee except for government malfeasance.

Therefore, for Sullivan to argue that Flynn committed a crime in his courtroom now is much like the FBI unjustly investigating Flynn to begin with. Government malfeasance is at the root of Sullivan's case just as it was at the root of Mueller's case against Flynn. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

interesting tactic. i've certainly heard of people being charged with perjury from the sworn court testimony but that's usually an add on to an actual conviction. since this judge has no conviction and won't get one that will stand up under review what could he make of Flynn's testimony for a perjury charge? very slim shady by this judge.

Different courts in each and every case. His current seat is solely because Slick Willie put him there.



E.g., the Central Park Five. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That was the case I was referring to but there are so many cases of people pleading guilty when they didn't do it to make your head spin.

I love it when hypocrisy can be proven and here is the latest victim.


The new judge, so eager to tell Sullivan why Flynn should still be sentenced and disregard the motion of the DOJ previously said this.

Former prosecutor and federal judge John Gleeson, who was appointed by Judge Emmet Sullivan to submit a brief opposing the Justice Department's (DOJ's) motion to dismiss former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s case, recently went public defending Sullivan’s decision not to sign off on dropping the case -- but his own judicial history undermines that position.



In a July 1, 2013, memo and order in the case of U.S. v. HSBC, then-U.S. District Court Judge Gleeson seemed to side with the idea that prosecutors have “near-absolute power” to drop a case.



“The government has absolute discretion to decide not to prosecute,” Gleeson wrote at the time. “Even a formal, written agreement to that effect, which is often referred to as a 'non-prosecution agreement,' is not the business of the courts.”
Gleeson went on to say that “the government has near-absolute power under [the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] to extinguish a case that it has brought." He cited Rule 48(a), which says: “The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information or complaint.”


In a Washington Post op-ed published Monday, Gleeson and two co-authors wrote that the DOJ’s motion to dismiss “is actually just a request -- one that requires ‘leave of the court’ before it is effective.”
That position takes a much softer stance on the prosecution’s power than the one Gleeson had in 2013.

Gee, I wonder why?

“A court is generally required to grant a prosecutor’s Rule 48(a) motion unless dismissal is ‘clearly contrary to manifest public interest,'" he wrote.


Now Gleeson indicates that he believes the Flynn case is the rare exception and claims that having amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs -- like the one he will be filing -- is just one of "many tools" the court has to serve the public interest.


So far, Sullivan has not appointed anyone to oppose Gleeson's brief.

Gee, I wonder why?


So this guy thinks it serves the public interest to lock up somebody that never actually committed a crime but admitted he lied under duress to save his son who was being threatened with prosecution according to Flynn. Considering the FBI set Flynn up and we have the proof of that, what was more heinous, malfeasance by the FBI or admitting guilt for something they can't prove you did, lie to FBI agents? To me, once you have shown malfeasance by law enforcement in any case, it should be dismissed. Dismiss without prejudice if you must but the DOJ has said they will not retry Flynn so he goes free, free to sue the pants off James Comey and the FBI.

So in the case of U.S. v. HSBC, then-U.S. District Court Judge Gleeson said.



“The government has absolute discretion to decide not to prosecute,”



And in U.S. v Sineneng, Justice Ginsberg said on the matter of bringing in outside counsel.



In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for dragons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them. As J. Ginsburg put it: “[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government … They ‘do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties.”


This is a very good read if you are really interested in this case.



https://www.forbes.com/sites/markchenoweth/2020/05/14/judge-sullivan-disregards-two-controlling-precedents-by-appointing-amicus-in-flynn-case/#79da5b3b6f0a



Judge Sullivan Disregards Two Controlling Precedents By Appointing Amicus In Flynn Case



Judge Sullivan’s actions this week raise serious doubt whether he paid attention to this recent, unanimous decision. Let’s rehearse. First, the Ninth Circuit solicited specific amici. So too, J. Sullivan has now appointed former prosecutor and judge John Gleeson to oppose DOJ’s effort to drop the case and essentially represent DOJ’s former view of the case. And he has opened the door to a flood of amicus curiae briefs from special-interest groups hostile to Flynn. Second, the Ninth Circuit suggested particular arguments for amici to make. Likewise, J. Sullivan has instructed Mr. Gleason to explore a possible perjury charge. Last, the Sineneng-Smith panel decided the case on an issue not presented by the parties. J. Sullivan has not issued a ruling yet, but if he does anything other than accept dismissal of the charges, he will duplicate the Ninth Circuit’s violation of the party presentation principle. Hence, he is coming perilously close to completing the very trifecta that drew the Supreme Court’s wrath against the Ninth Circuit.



So this Judge is setting himself up for a big fall. The question is, why?

So this Judge is setting himself up for a big fall. The question is, why?
Originally Posted by HedonistForever

2 possible reasons.

1. he's a never trumper and on the side of the deep state, to fuck flynn over. so he falls on a sword on their behalf.

I don't think he's that stupid.

2. he's being blackmaled in to doing this. Pedo maybe?

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1...emmet-sullivan

Judge Sullivan: A Prosecutor in Robes
by Alan M. Dershowitz
May 14, 2020 at 3:30 pm

In the Flynn case, the prosecution and defense both agree that the case should be dropped. Because there is no longer any controversy between the parties to be resolved, there is no longer any case properly before the judge. His only job is to enter an order vacating the guilty plea and dismissing the case with prejudice.

Under our constitutional system of separation of powers, the new prosecutor has no standing.... the separation of powers.... allocates the power to prosecute to the executive not judicial branch.

It makes no constitutional difference that Flynn pleaded guilty — even if his plea was voluntary, which is questionable in light of the threats against his son.

The Justice Department has the constitutional authority to dismiss a prosecution that it has brought at any time and for any reason, without being second-guessed by the judicial branch.

[Sullivan] is endangering our system of separation of powers and he should be stopped by a writ of mandamus or a motion to recuse. Judges, too, are not above the law or the Constitution.


Judge Emmet Sullivan is exceeding his authority by turning his courtroom into a three-ring partisan circus, designed to allow him to get his way despite the agreement of the actual parties before him. Pictured: Michael Flynn, former National Security Advisor, departs the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse following a pre-sentencing hearing on July 10, 2018 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images)

Judge Emmet Sullivan's decision to appoint a retired federal judge to argue against the Justice Department's entirely proper decision to end the criminal prosecution of General Michael Flynn is designed to circumvent the constitutional limitation on the jurisdiction of federal judges. The Constitution limits this jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. There must be disagreement between the parties that requires resolution by a judge. If the parties agree, there is nothing for the judge to decide.

In the Flynn case, the prosecution and defense both agree that the case should be dropped. Because there is no longer any controversy between the parties to be resolved, there is no longer any case properly before the judge. His only job is to enter an order vacating the guilty plea and dismissing the case with prejudice.

But Judge Sullivan does not want to do that. He apparently thinks Flynn belongs in prison. He has as much as said that. So, he has manufactured a fake controversy by appointing a new prosecutor because evidently he does not like what the constitutionally authorized prosecutor — the Attorney General — has decided. The new prosecutor has been tasked to argue for the result that Judge Sullivan prefers. But under our constitutional system of separation of powers, the new prosecutor has no standing to make such an argument. He is not a member of the executive branch, which is the only branch authorized to make prosecutorial decisions. He was appointed by a member of the judicial branch to perform an executive function — a clear violation of the separation of powers, which allocates the power to prosecute to the executive, not judicial, branch.

It makes no constitutional difference that Flynn pleaded guilty — even if his plea was voluntary, which is questionable in light of the threats against his son.

The Justice Department has the constitutional authority to dismiss a prosecution that it has brought at any time and for any reason, without being second-guessed by the judicial branch.

Judge Sullivan is basing his unconstitutional actions on Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides that: "The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant's consent." This judge-written rule was designed to protect the defendant against manipulation by the government to circumvent the protection against double jeopardy. It is not properly employed to hurt the defendant by empowering the judge to act as both prosecutor and decision-maker. It rarely if ever results in a judge denying leave to the government to drop a prosecution that it believes is unjustified.

Judge Sullivan is exceeding his authority by turning his courtroom into a three-ring partisan circus, designed to allow him to get his way despite the agreement of the actual parties before him. He is taking judicial activism to a new and grossly improper level, to the disadvantage of a defendant he does not like.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg recently wrote for a unanimous Court: "Courts are essentially passive instruments..." It is not within their legitimate authority to "sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right." Their role is to "decide only questions presented by the parties." Judge Sullivan is improperly exceeding that role in the Flynn case and should be chastised for it, whether one agrees or disagrees with the Justice Department's decision on its merits.

There is a joke lawyers who practice in Federal Court like to tell. Angel Gabriel summons Sigmund Freud in heaven and tells him God is having delusions of grandeur. Freud asks how God can have delusions of grandeur: There is no one grander than Him. To which the Angel Gabriel responded, "he thinks he's a federal judge." But what Judge Sullivan is doing is no joke. He is endangering our system of separation of powers and he should be stopped by a writ of mandamus or a motion to recuse. Judges, too, are not above the law or the Constitution.

not that I disagree

but I kept having deja vu all over again in reading professor dershowitz' editorial

he repeated himself more than several times and I thought my eyes had wandered to a previously read line


is he getting old too?

either that or in copying the article something went awry

..clearly this judge has a corncob up his ass over Flynn... Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Seems like our gal, Sidney Powell is shoving a corn cob up OBammy's poop-pipe.

Open Memorandum to Barack Obama
by Sidney Powell May 13, 2020

Re: Your Failure to Find Precedent for Flynn Dismissal

Regarding the decision of the Department of Justice to dismiss charges against General Flynn, in your recent call with your alumni, you expressed great concern: “there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.”

Here is some help—if truth and precedent represent your true concern. Your statement is entirely false. However, it does explain the damage to the Rule of Law throughout your administration...

She goes on to list out a seven point rebuttal to the former interloper-in-chief. It's a quick read, well worth the time. She don't take no guff from nobody.

Seems like our gal, Sidney Powell is shoving a corn cob up OBammy's poop-pipe.

Open Memorandum to Barack Obama
by Sidney Powell May 13, 2020

Re: Your Failure to Find Precedent for Flynn Dismissal

Regarding the decision of the Department of Justice to dismiss charges against General Flynn, in your recent call with your alumni, you expressed great concern: “there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.”

Here is some help—if truth and precedent represent your true concern. Your statement is entirely false. However, it does explain the damage to the Rule of Law throughout your administration...

She goes on to list out a seven point rebuttal to the former interloper-in-chief. It's a quick read, well worth the time. She don't take no guff from nobody. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Moochele, look here what this White bitch wrote about me! Don't she know I use to be the most powerful man in the world until that White cracker Trump destroyed everything I worked for.