[Hoot Gibson]

3 paragraphs of semantics.

Flynn was delaying sentencing to work toward a lighter sentence not weaseling to delay the upcoming trial. Chronologically, the next step was the sentencing phase.

When he walks back in court the prosecutor (because only one would put his name to it) will pull the charges during what should be the sentencing phase of his guilty plea. You remember that right? He pled guilty. Twice.

Judge has to sign off the plea removal.
Has he done that yet?

No amount of repeating Democrat talking points will change the facts. There can be no sentencing without a conviction. The case was in the pretrial stage when the DOJ decided to drop the case. Accept the facts. You have twisted them long enough. Let them rest.

[TheRealThing]

"I expect Judge Sullivan to sign off on the DOJ finding on the first of the week."---Sidney Powell "The judge will follow the law on this one."

Question; How far up does this go, does it go all the way up to Barack Obama?

"Yes it does, absolutely." ---Sidney Powell


This country still has it's share of courageous patriots. Whenever the gloom of the left begins to ominously gather, there is comfort in that reality.

[Cardfan1]

No amount of repeating Democrat talking points will change the facts. There can be no sentencing without a conviction. The case was in the pretrial stage when the DOJ decided to drop the case. Accept the facts. You have twisted them long enough. Let them rest.

—-NOLO.com
“Once the deal is worked out, the prosecution and defense will arrange a court hearing and inform the judge about the agreement. Assuming the judge accepts the deal or suggests changes that are satisfactory to both sides, the judge will hear the guilty or no contest plea in open court so that it becomes part of the record. (Late 2017) Then, the defendant will be sentenced, either at the same time (which is typical in some less serious cases) or at a later sentencing hearing.”


https://www.npr.org/2020/05/08/852582068...he-charges

“ Nearly everyone, including Trump, expected Flynn to be sentenced in late 2018 when he appeared before Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington. Flynn and prosecutors invited family members to be with them in court.

But the judge yielded surprises and headlines with his spirited remarks about the case.

"I'm not hiding my disgust, my disdain, for this criminal offense," he said.

Sullivan asked prosecutors whether Flynn might have committed "treason," raising the prospect that Flynn might get prison time after all. No, the government said, it didn't consider that part of the case.

Ultimately, Sullivan deferred the sentencing because he said he had more questions about the matter, adding more months to Flynn's legal saga.”

NPR is just solidifying the timeline.

You may want recheck your sources, Hoot.

[Hoot Gibson]

—-NOLO.com
“Once the deal is worked out, the prosecution and defense will arrange a court hearing and inform the judge about the agreement. Assuming the judge accepts the deal or suggests changes that are satisfactory to both sides, the judge will hear the guilty or no contest plea in open court so that it becomes part of the record. (Late 2017) Then, the defendant will be sentenced, either at the same time (which is typical in some less serious cases) or at a later sentencing hearing.”


https://www.npr.org/2020/05/08/852582068...he-charges

“ Nearly everyone, including Trump, expected Flynn to be sentenced in late 2018 when he appeared before Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington. Flynn and prosecutors invited family members to be with them in court.

But the judge yielded surprises and headlines with his spirited remarks about the case.

"I'm not hiding my disgust, my disdain, for this criminal offense," he said.

Sullivan asked prosecutors whether Flynn might have committed "treason," raising the prospect that Flynn might get prison time after all. No, the government said, it didn't consider that part of the case.

Ultimately, Sullivan deferred the sentencing because he said he had more questions about the matter, adding more months to Flynn's legal saga.”

NPR is just solidifying the timeline.

You may want recheck your sources, Hoot.

I don't need to check any sources. There was no judgment, the plea was withdrawn, and no sentencing was done. The case ended in what is known in the legal world as the pretrial phase. Those are the facts. Deny those facta if you choose, but it just makes you look foolish, IMO.

[Cardfan1]

I don't need to check any sources. There was no judgment, the plea was withdrawn, and no sentencing was done. The case ended in what is known in the legal world as the pretrial phase. Those are the facts. Deny those facta if you choose, but it just makes you look foolish, IMO.

nicker:

[Hoot Gibson]

nicker:

Brilliant retort. One of the most intelligent things that you have posted on this forum.

[Cardfan1]

Brilliant retort. One of the most intelligent things that you have posted on this forum.

We are going in a circle. You think it was in pretrial. I provided sources that proved Flynn thought he was being sentenced in 2018.

Nothing else I can say until the courts open back up and Judge Sullivan participated in this quagmire.

[Hoot Gibson]

We are going in a circle. You think it was in pretrial. I provided sources that proved Flynn thought he was being sentenced in 2018.

Nothing else I can say until the courts open back up and Judge Sullivan participated in this quagmire.

Flynn was not sentenced. There was no "sentencing phase" and there was no finding of guilt. What you are saying is no different than saying a suspect was tried because his trial was docketed (that means scheduled, FYI), despite the fact that the charges were dropped before the trial. People are not sentenced before they are found guilty and the court enters a judgment.

We are not going in circles. You are. You lack a moral compass to guide you through an honest debate.

[jetpilot]

RUSH: Let’s go to audio sound bites on Trump. Trump was on Fox & Friends today. He was on for an hour talking about all this. Steve Doocy said to him, “So it was a jaw-dropping announcement that the DoJ is dropping the case against Flynn. You’ve been talking about a Russia hoax for years. Is this proof that you were right?”

THE PRESIDENT: Most people knew it from the beginning, and they knew it was just a total hoax. It was a made-up story, a disgrace to our nation. These are dirty politicians, and dirty cops and some horrible people and hopefully they’re going to pay a big price some day in the not too distant future. And there’s more to come from what I understand and they’re going to be far greater than what you’ve seen so far. And what you’ve seen so far is incredible, especially as it relates to President Obama because if anyone thinks that he and Sleepy Joe Biden didn’t know what was going on, they have another thing coming.



RUSH: Yeah, exactly right. But it’s worse than that. It’s worse than Trump’s characterizations here. It’s worse than dirty cops. It’s worse than dirty politicians. It’s worse than just being a hoax. It’s worse than just being a coup. It’s worse than just to call it a disgrace to our nation. These are worse people than dirty cops and dirty politicians. They’re worse than horrible. They are the kind of people — well, this is where I run out of ways to describe ’em. They’re just the kind of people that destroy every ideal this country was established on.

Every purpose this country has, every reason this country exists, these people have just spat on it, they have just trashed it. And they have their associates, they have their acolytes, they’ve got their sycophants, all of these people in the media. Have you noticed, too, ladies and gentlemen, not one member of the media throughout any of this period of revelation where this has been exposed is a total nonevent. There was no collusion. There was no evidence. There never has been. You know the drill.

Has anybody at the New York Times, from the owner, publisher, editor on down to a single reporter apologized to the readers of the New York Times for getting it wrong? No. Has anybody at CNN ever apologized? Has James Clapper, will James Clapper apologize? And will he be forced to explain what the hell did you tell us on our air when you’re testifying the exact opposite before the committee? Have you noticed that not one Democrat has broken ranks and is talking about what a lowdown, rotten deal Michael Flynn got? Not one Democrat.

We’ve got our Romneys. We’ve got our McCains. We’ve got our Jeff Flake Flakes. They don’t have a single break in their ranks. Yeah, I addressed this while you were screening calls in the first hour. CNN did the same thing yesterday. The New York Times editorial today, “But Flynn pled guilty twice, he pled guilty twice.” That’s why dropping the case is so monumental. This doesn’t happen. The reaction to this ought to be instinctive in everybody, “Man, this must have been an abomination, for them to drop this?”



The United States Department of Justice never humiliates itself like this. They never drop a case. They never, ever do this. At worst, they would ask a judge to dismiss it, making it look like it was out of their hands. This just doesn’t happen. And on top of it, it happened with the defendant having pled guilty. So CNN yesterday, the New York Times today are all saying, “He pled guilty. It proves that he did it. It proves he’s a skunk. It proves that Flynn’s a reprobate He did it. And it proves that Trump is turning the DOJ into his personal law firm.”

No. I asked in the first hour, are these people really this dense and stupid? Are they this incurious? Do they not know why Flynn pled guilty? Why did Manafort cop a plea? They’re destroying these people. This is not just the way things happen. It happens this way in banana republics. It happens this way in communist dictatorships where if you’re disloyal to the regime they can kill you and wipe you out, put you in jail for the rest of your life. It doesn’t happen the United States of America, except that it did. They destroyed Paul Manafort. They tried to destroy Michael Flynn.

And who is “they”? Let’s start with Barack Obama, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Strzok Smirk, Lisa Page, Bill Priestap, Jim Baker, Robert J. Mueller III, and 15 hyper-partisan Democrat lawyers he hired as his investigators. They tried to ruin an American citizen who had not done anything other than support Donald Trump and accept an offer to become his National Security Advisor. And for that he had to be destroyed.



Do you know that the FBI, do you know that Mueller never told the court, when they submitted his plea deal, they never told the court that they had promised Flynn they would destroy his son, too? Never told the court. That was not in the filings. We know this now, because Flynn has revealed it. That’s why he pled guilty, to stop the destruction of his family. They’d already wiped him out with legal bills. They had destroyed every nest egg he had accrued in life. He’s never made a lot of money. And they took it all from him in the form of legal bills.

And then Robert J. Mueller III, Mr. Integrity, Mr. Honorable and his 15 Hillary Clinton acolytes are promising Flynn to destroy his son, who didn’t do anything either. That’s why Flynn pled guilty. To stop the destruction, stop the bleeding. He had a bunch of establishment lawyers who were telling him this is only way you can go here, Mike. There’s nothing else we can do. You gotta limit the damage. It wasn’t until he got Sidney Powell as his lawyer that all of this began to turn around.

[TheRealThing]

LOL, ^^ this is the record of the facts. Of course it cannot be denied but going by the left playbook, diverting attention away from the truth is a simple matter; you just have to slam the person quoting or reading the record as a liar or an idiot.

The idea is, I guess, the slobbering morons which evidently comprise the voting base bearing witness to all of this, will focus on the name calling rather than the cascading calamity which has become the US Ship of State. If you will notice That ploy is certainly all that Cardfan has in his toolbox.

Here's a little clue for the confused among us-- If the facts line up with the news being presented, that most likely will turn out to be the truth. On the other hand if the news being presented does not line up with the facts, what you're hearing is most likely a pack of lies. But this is why Dems can stand up and lie without so much as a blink, ie Rep Adam Schiff. Since the power actually lies with the voter, it is their heart for which they vie.

Thus the endless parade of increasing freebies to buy them with, the disdain for established law to slake them with, and the elevating of the tenets of social justice above this nation's founding and heritage to salve their misguided consciences with. And I can tell you that for those who deal in the truth, the action of just putting that truth out there, does not at times seem to be powerful enough to defeat the liars. But it is and those who love the truth should never allow themselves to become discouraged in that effort.

When FOX News came on the scene and began to challenge the status quo left leaning media, at first those left media were taken back. They soon recovered and decided (after colluding with their Dem overlords) that a joint attack on the integrity of FOX and the Rush Limbaugh's of this world, was the best offense. And the tactic has only gotten more abusive and more patently dishonest.

[TheRealThing]

Atty Solomon L Wisenberg elicited Clinton's most infamous answer during federal grand jury questioning in the Lewinsky Investigation. Wisenberg asked Clinton: "The statement that there was ‘no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, [between Lewinsky and] President Clinton,’ was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?" Clinton responded: "It depends on what your definition of the word ‘is’ is." [WIKI]

LOL. Wisenberg appears/appeared on TV regularly to make comment on the Mueller Probe and other matters. I've heard him routinely withhold any form of praise for President Trump. But he dropped a bomb to that end today.

According to Wisenberg the Obama administration had a very good reason for getting rid of Lt Gen Michael Flynn. As National Security Advisor those now infamous 17 Federal intelligence agencies of oft mention, would have had no choice but to brief the NSA Chief on any and all ongoing investigations. That means Flynn would have gotten the skinny on Cross Fire Hurricane, and that means he'd have very unceremoniously stopped it. There would have went FBI Agent Peter Strzok's "insurance policy," there would have went Special Council Robert Mueller's witch hunt, there would have went four years of fishing expeditions under pretext of lawfully taxpayer funded investigations, there would have went the sham impeachment, and there would have went the resistance. Not to mention Hill et-al getting 'outed' in epic fashion.

Class dismissed.

[Cardfan1]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020...nt-dismiss

A federal judge has put the justice department’s decision to dismiss a criminal case against Michael Flynn, Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, on hold – opening the door for legal experts and other outside parties to oppose the administration’s motion to exonerate Flynn of lying to the FBI.

Rot-Ro, Shaggy.

[TheRealThing]

^^ Sorry, for the lucid minded the facts are not in dispute. Remedial submissions from La-La Land no longer being accepted.

And for future reference? that phrase's correct spelling is ruh-roh.

[Cardfan1]

^^ Sorry, for the lucid minded the facts are not in dispute. Remedial submissions from La-La Land no longer being accepted.

And for future reference? that phrase's correct spelling is ruh-roh.

Thanks. I’ll make sure I speak proper Scooby.

You guys had this as open and shut.
nicker:

[TheRealThing]

Thanks. I’ll make sure I speak proper Scooby.

You guys had this as open and shut.
nicker:

It is open and shut, not one thing has changed. Now, that doesn't mean some cur-judgeon would not seize upon the opportunity to air his particular neuroses. Heck, you do it all the time.

[Cardfan1]

It is open and shut, not one thing has changed. Now, that doesn't mean some cur-judgeon would not seize upon the opportunity to air his particular neuroses. Heck, you do it all the time.

Not exactly. Looks like it got WAAAYYY more complicated with Judge Sullivan looking at perjury or contempt charges for Flynn.

[TheRealThing]

It is open and shut, not one thing has changed. Now, that doesn't mean some cur-judgeon would not seize upon the opportunity to air his particular neuroses. Heck, you do it all the time.

Not exactly. Looks like it got WAAAYYY more complicated with Judge Sullivan looking at perjury or contempt charges for Flynn.

While you're giddy with anticipation with the prospect that a national hero will get shafted after all here. Let me put my statement in language even you can understand. Like a cur dog biting the hand that feeds it, the judge's lawless actions, and those who applaud those actions, that would be you, are showing their ill breeding.

[jetpilot]

Not exactly. Looks like it got WAAAYYY more complicated with Judge Sullivan looking at perjury or contempt charges for Flynn.

Just when you think it can't get more idiotic...then someone thinks a judge can bring his own charges after the prosecutor drops charges...It's going to get ugly for this corrupt, political hack "judge"

[jetpilot]

While you're giddy with anticipation with the prospect that a national hero will get shafted after all here. Let me put my statement in language even you can understand. Like a cur dog biting the hand that feeds it, the judge's lawless actions, and those who applaud those actions, that would be you, are showing their ill breeding.

People can overcome ill breeding but galactic stupidity is a life sentence.

[jetpilot]

People like CF, in a nutshell:


That’s why they populate their shows with NeverTrumpers—they gratify the stupidity of their viewers. They all stay in their lazy bubble ranting Orange Man Bad without doing any of the heavy lifting or critical thinking. And everything outside that sphere is a “conspiracy theory.”
Show this thread
Sean Davis Retweeted
Julie Kelly
@julie_kelly2
·
55m
If you’ve ever tried to have a convo with a Dem on Russia/FISAgate, you know what I mean. No clue about FISA, Fusion GPS, Carter Page, details of Flynn case (he lied!), dossier handling, illegal media leaks—nada. But they’re experts on Avenatti and the 25th amendment.
Show this thread
Sean Davis Retweeted
Julie Kelly
@julie_kelly2
·
58m
They don’t report it because their viewers don’t care. It’s pointless to try to inform 1/3 of the country that chooses to remain ignorant and brainwashed. 75% of Dems in recent poll think the dossier is legit—not even Christopher Steele believes it. Don’t waste any time on them:

[Cardfan1]

While you're giddy with anticipation with the prospect that a national hero will get shafted after all here. Let me put my statement in language even you can understand. Like a cur dog biting the hand that feeds it, the judge's lawless actions, and those who applaud those actions, that would be you, are showing their ill breeding.

nicker:

Just find it funny the wheels are falling off the Trump crony exoneration train even with a shameless AG.

That judge knows the law better than you or I. Don't hate on him because he won't participate in the cronyism you expect.

This stuff the FBI used on Flynn is pretty SOP. Defense lawyers across the country are salivating. Will you guys support the new wave of cases? hh:
Something tells me :Shaking:.

[Cardfan1]

Just when you think it can't get more idiotic...then someone thinks a judge can bring his own charges after the prosecutor drops charges...It's going to get ugly for this corrupt, political hack "judge"

People can overcome ill breeding but galactic stupidity is a life sentence.

:eyeroll:


A judge can charge someone with contempt and can even rule on it.

:google:

[jetpilot]

:eyeroll:


A judge can charge someone with contempt and can even rule on it.

:google:

LOL!!!
Except Flynn never showed any contempt or "judge" would have already brought it up. Contempt would be laughed out of court on appeal.
Take the L, this case is over except for the political hackery by the "judge"

[jetpilot]

nicker:

Just find it funny the wheels are falling off the Trump crony exoneration train even with a shameless AG.

That judge knows the law better than you or I. Don't hate on him because he won't participate in the cronyism you expect.

This stuff the FBI used on Flynn is pretty SOP. Defense lawyers across the country are salivating. Will you guys support the new wave of cases? hh:
Something tells me :Shaking:.

The "judge" is going against established law and the constitution.
But you will never hear that on Ray Maddow's show.

[Cardfan1]

LOL!!!
Except Flynn never showed any contempt or "judge" would have already brought it up. Contempt would be laughed out of court on appeal.
Take the L, this case is over except for the political hackery by the "judge"

"A finding of being in contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior, or publication of material or non-disclosure of material, which in doing so is deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial."

The "judge" is going against established law and the constitution.
But you will never hear that on Ray Maddow's show.

Really? Your Trump University law degree qualify you for that bit of expertise? nicker:

The only thing that is normal about this is the way the FBI acted.

[jetpilot]

"A finding of being in contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior, or publication of material or non-disclosure of material, which in doing so is deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial."



Really? Your Trump University law degree qualify you for that bit of expertise? nicker:

The only thing that is normal about this is the way the FBI acted.

Haha, your mommy must have taught you how to Google. But Flynn didn't do any of that. Hard to bring it up after the case is dropped, would never stick.

As far as the law, I do know what it is. Since you can Google now, Google "Fokker case"hh:

On May 13, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued a blatantly biased and unconstitutional order in the long-lasting Michael Flynn criminal case. To preserve the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers, the Department of Justice has no choice now but to seek a writ of mandamus from the D.C. Circuit Court ordering the criminal charge against Flynn dismissed and reassigning the case to another judge.

On Tuesday, Judge Sullivan shocked court watchers when he entered an order stating that, “at the appropriate time,” he intended to enter a scheduling order permitting “amicus curiae” or friend of the court briefs to be filed in Flynn case. Flynn, who more than a year ago pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI, was seeking to withdraw his guilty plea when the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charge against Flynn.


The government’s motion to dismiss highlighted new evidence uncovered by an outside U.S. attorney, Jeff Jensen, and detailed the government’s position that even if Flynn had made false statements to FBI agents about his conversations with the Russian ambassador, as a matter of law there was no crime because the false statements were not “material” to a legitimate investigation.

Another Jaw-Dropping Order
Soon after Judge Sullivan announced he would accept amicus briefs, a group of lawyers operating under the moniker Watergate Prosecutors filed a notice of its intent to file an amicus brief. That a group of left-leaning lawyers intended to relitigate Obamagate via the Flynn case wasn’t surprising. What was surprising—no, unbelievable—is what Judge Sullivan did on Wednesday: He entered an order “appoint[ing] The Honorable John Gleeson (Ret.) as amicus curiae to present arguments in opposition to the government’s Motion to Dismiss.”

This order was jaw-dropping for two reasons. First, the U.S. Constitution makes clear that the judiciary has no business second-guessing prosecutorial decisions. In fact, the very case Judge Sullivan cited for the proposition that he had the inherent authority to appoint an amicus curiae—United States v. Fokker—made clear Sullivan’s order was lawless.



In that case, the government had criminally charged Fokker Services with violations of export control laws. The government and defendant entered a deferred prosecution agreement, under which the government would dismiss the charges in exchange for Fokker Services agreeing to several compliance provisions. But when the parties went before a federal district court judge to formalize the arrangement and a waiver of the Speedy Trial Act, the presiding judge refused to accept the waiver—which in essence doomed the agreement—because he believed the agreement was too lenient on the business owners.

The government filed a “writ of mandamus” with the D.C. Circuit Court. A writ of mandamus is a procedural machination that allows a party to seek to force a lower court to act as required by law. The Fokker court explained that while mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, it is appropriate where the petitioner: (i) has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires”; (ii) “show[s] that his right to the writ is ‘clear and indisputable’”; and then “(iii) the court ‘in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.’”

‘The Executive’s Primacy Is Long Settled’
In analyzing the propriety of the district court’s refusal to approve the agreement, the appellate court summarized controlling principles of constitutional law: “The Executive’s primacy in criminal charging decisions is long settled. That authority stems from the Constitution’s delegation of ‘take Care’ duties, U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, and the pardon power, id. § 2, to the Executive Branch. Decisions to initiate charges, or to dismiss charges once brought, ‘lie[] at the core of the Executive’s duty to see to the faithful execution of the laws.’”

Indeed, “[f]ew subjects are less adapted to judicial review than the exercise by the Executive of his discretion in deciding when and whether to institute criminal proceedings, or what precise charge shall be made, or whether to dismiss a proceeding once brought.’”


“Those settled principles,” the court explained “counsel against interpreting statutes and rules in a manner that would impinge on the Executive’s constitutionally rooted primacy over criminal charging decisions.” The Fokker court then specifically addressed Rule 48(a) that “requires a prosecutor to obtain ‘leave of court’ before dismissing charges against a criminal defendant.”

The court explained that “that language could conceivably be read to allow for considerable judicial involvement in the determination to dismiss criminal charges.” However, and significantly, the court then stressed that “decisions to dismiss pending criminal charges—no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to bring—lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion.”

The “leave of court” requirement, the court stressed, “has been understood to be a narrow one—’to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment . . . when the [g]overnment moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant’s objection.’” Such review in that case is to guard against “a scheme of ‘prosecutorial harassment’ of the defendant through repeated efforts to bring—and then dismiss—charges.”

Fokker then concluded: “So understood, the ‘leave of court’ authority gives no power to a district court to deny a prosecutor’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority. For instance, a court cannot deny leave of court because of a view that the defendant should stand trial notwithstanding the prosecution’s desire to dismiss the charges, or a view that any remaining charges fail adequately to redress the gravity of the defendant’s alleged conduct. The authority to make such determinations remains with the Executive.”

This Is Mandatory Precedent

The Fokker decision was a 2016 decision from the D.C. Circuit Court and, as such, establishes “mandatory precedent,” i.e., precedent that must be followed, by all D.C. district court judges—including Judge Sullivan. Thus, Judge Sullivan’s directive that Judge Gleeson, as amicus curiae, should “present arguments in opposition to the government’s Motion to Dismiss,” cannot stand: It conflicts with controlling circuit court precedent, and more significantly with the U.S. Constitution.

While Judge Sullivan has not yet ruled on the government’s Motion to Dismiss, his mere attempt to usurp the executive branch’s authority must be addressed, and now. The government should, as it did in Fokker, seek a writ of mandamus from the D.C. Circuit, directing the charge against Flynn be dismissed.

The government should also seek reassignment of the case on remand, meaning that when the case returns to the lower court for dismissal of the charge, it goes to a different judge. While “reassignment is warranted only in the ‘exceedingly rare circumstance,’” such as where a judge’s conduct is “so extreme as to display clear inability to render fair judgment,” Judge Sullivan’s selection of Judge Gleeson as his “friend of the court” reveals Judge Sullivan’s irretractable bias.

The same day Judge Sullivan named Judge Gleeson to serve in the amicus curiae role, the Washington Post ran an op-ed co-authored by Gleeson, entitled, “The Flynn case isn’t over until the judge says it’s over.” “The Justice Department’s move to dismiss the prosecution of former national security adviser Michael Flynn does not need to be the end of the case—and it shouldn’t be,” he opened. Then, after misrepresenting the Rule 48(b)’s “leave of court” requirement, Gleeson suggests dismissal of the Flynn case would be inappropriate because “the record reeks of improper political influence.”

No, what reeks is Judge Sullivan’s selection of a clearly biased “friend of the court” who appears to have already pre-judged the prosecutor’s motive and found it improper. Judge Sullivan surely knew of Gleeson’s bent and just as surely shares it.

There were several earlier glimpses of Judge Sullivan’s bias, such as when he implied Flynn had committed treason and when he shrugged at the FBI losing the original 302 interview notes. But with his appointment of Judge Gleeson, Judge Sullivan has so far crossed the threshold of fairness, the case should be stripped from his courtroom.

[jetpilot]

From Forbes:
"Judge" Sullivan has really stepped in it.:popcorn:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markchenowe...28df046f0a

[TheRealThing]

people can overcome ill breeding but galactic stupidity is a life sentence.

lol

[Cardfan1]

From Forbes:
"Judge" Sullivan has really stepped in it.:popcorn:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markchenowe...28df046f0a

Maybe he has, but "it" was tracked in the courthouse by the Justice Dept.

The slew of cases that will need to be dropped because FBI "entrapment" will fill courtrooms for the next decade.

Irony is it took a Trump crony to get justice reform in this nation.

[jetpilot]

Maybe he has, but "it" was tracked in the courthouse by the Justice Dept.

The slew of cases that will need to be dropped because FBI "entrapment" will fill courtrooms for the next decade.

Irony is it took a Trump crony to get justice reform in this nation.

We finally agree on something. I don't care who it is, if they were entrapped by dirty cops I hope they go free.