https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/12...ase-252725

This is bizarre.

"...Minutes after lawyers for Flynn urged Judge Emmet Sullivan to "immediately" toss the matter, Sullivan indicated he wasn't ready to act just yet, instead signaling he'll set a schedule to accept briefs from outside parties who might have an interest in the case....

"A criminal case is a dispute between the United States and a criminal defendant,” Flynn defense lawyer Sidney Powell and her co-counsel wrote in a court filing later Tuesday. “There is no place for third parties to meddle in the dispute, and certainly not to usurp the role of the government’s counsel."

Powell argued that such friend-of-the-court briefs are not permitted in criminal cases under local court rules and Supreme Court precedent.

"This travesty of justice has already consumed three or more years of an innocent man’s life — and that of his entire family,” she wrote. “No further delay should be tolerated or any further expense caused to him and his defense....""

Anyone know if there is precedent for such an action?

(05-13-2020 08:47 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Anyone know if there is precedent for such an action?

Not sure. But if there is one, you can bet your life you’ll hear about it today from NYT, WaPo, etc.

Reposted from the other thread:

Flynn’s lawyer Sidney Powell with a Motion opposing the amicus briefs, following Sullivan’s order. Powell’s motion includes a brutal (in this context) 2017 quote *from Judge Sullivan* explaining why amicus briefs are inappropriate in criminal matters.

(05-13-2020 08:40 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 07:07 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 06:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  In your opinion, what would happen next if Sullivan denied the motion?

Impeachment? I don’t think he will want to go there. He’s just like all those who are never Trumpers. He probably sees race somewhere in this since it’s looking very bad for Barry. He can’t make the DOJ continue the case so I don’t think he has any power other than give the left a platform to skyscream some more.

As long as the House is majority-Democrat, Sullivan will never be impeached for any political reason.

I think Sullivan wants to hold on to Flynn’s guilty plea and pass sentence. To say that the legal basis for doing so is weak would be an understatement. But if there is any plausible way to do it, I think Sullivan will do it anyway, and make the Court of Appeals reverse him. The challenge (for Sullivan) is to find a way to do this that doesn’t damage his reputation with other judges and the Appellate Court. Other litigants (now and in the future) would have him recused from their case if he does something that overtly proclaims his political bias. So he’s got to be careful.

(05-13-2020 08:57 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Reposted from the other thread:

Flynn’s lawyer Sidney Powell with a Motion opposing the amicus briefs, following Sullivan’s order. Powell’s motion includes a brutal (in this context) 2017 quote *from Judge Sullivan* explaining why amicus briefs are inappropriate in criminal matters.

(05-13-2020 08:40 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 07:07 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 06:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  In your opinion, what would happen next if Sullivan denied the motion?

Impeachment? I don’t think he will want to go there. He’s just like all those who are never Trumpers. He probably sees race somewhere in this since it’s looking very bad for Barry. He can’t make the DOJ continue the case so I don’t think he has any power other than give the left a platform to skyscream some more.

As long as the House is majority-Democrat, Sullivan will never be impeached for any political reason.

I think Sullivan wants to hold on to Flynn’s guilty plea and pass sentence. To say that the legal basis for doing so is weak would be an understatement. But if there is any plausible way to do it, I think Sullivan will do it anyway, and make the Court of Appeals reverse him. The challenge (for Sullivan) is to find a way to do this that doesn’t damage his reputation with other judges and the Appellate Court. Other litigants (now and in the future) would have him recused from their case if he does something that overtly proclaims his political bias. So he’s got to be careful.

I may be wrong but I think the house has no part in judicial impeachment. If I’m wrong, let me know.

(05-13-2020 09:05 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 08:57 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Reposted from the other thread:

Flynn’s lawyer Sidney Powell with a Motion opposing the amicus briefs, following Sullivan’s order. Powell’s motion includes a brutal (in this context) 2017 quote *from Judge Sullivan* explaining why amicus briefs are inappropriate in criminal matters.

(05-13-2020 08:40 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 07:07 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 06:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  In your opinion, what would happen next if Sullivan denied the motion?

Impeachment? I don’t think he will want to go there. He’s just like all those who are never Trumpers. He probably sees race somewhere in this since it’s looking very bad for Barry. He can’t make the DOJ continue the case so I don’t think he has any power other than give the left a platform to skyscream some more.

As long as the House is majority-Democrat, Sullivan will never be impeached for any political reason.

I think Sullivan wants to hold on to Flynn’s guilty plea and pass sentence. To say that the legal basis for doing so is weak would be an understatement. But if there is any plausible way to do it, I think Sullivan will do it anyway, and make the Court of Appeals reverse him. The challenge (for Sullivan) is to find a way to do this that doesn’t damage his reputation with other judges and the Appellate Court. Other litigants (now and in the future) would have him recused from their case if he does something that overtly proclaims his political bias. So he’s got to be careful.

I may be wrong but I think the house has no part in judicial impeachment. If I’m wrong, let me know.

It's the same impeachment process as for a President.

Thinking about this again. He can’t just allow only democrats to weigh in. Time to put the actual evidentiary trail together and pound the idiots into submission. I could see a lawyer from John Solomon eviscerating the prosecution right in from of Judge Sullivan. They better get on it. Time to spike the ball

If democrats think this is a good thing, think again. It would blow up in their face and basically put COmey and the Obama administration on trial in a court room.

Second, Techno Fog laid out a few days ago how Sullivan can not allow Van Grack to simply walk free. Van Gracks filings led Sullivan to make many wrong conclusions.

Third, Sullivan has already made a Rule 12 error, which states that the guilty plea can not be accepted unless it is valid. Sullivan himself admitted twice in a filing that there was no material finding that the plea was valid.

Fourth, Sullivan is getting lit right now by all sides. And rightly so. Why he is deciding that this is the hill he wants to destroy his career on is beyond me, but he has gone super idiot on this. It will not end well for him. It has not even started well for him.

Fifth, Sullivans own words are coming back to haunt him. He wrote about how judges had a responsibility to shut down rogue prosecutors. He's failed his own words.

Sixth, in the end, this changes nothing. It simply allows Sullivan to look like an biased idiot. There is a rule 12 error that will get any sentencing Sullivan decides to pass tossed.

(05-13-2020 09:11 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 09:05 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  I may be wrong but I think the house has no part in judicial impeachment. If I’m wrong, let me know.

It's the same impeachment process as for a President.

All federal impeachments are conducted by the US House.

Alcee Hastings was a federal judge accused of taking bribes. He was impeached by the US House and convicted by the US Senate. He was later elected to the US House and is still there (FL-20) after 28 years.

(05-13-2020 09:24 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  If democrats think this is a good thing, think again. It would blow up in their face and basically put COmey and the Obama administration on trial in a court room.

We've seen multiple times how TDS clouds their judgement leading to mulitple bommerangs. This may very well turn out to be yet another.

Think this judge got a call from a former President. The Swamp is deep.

(05-13-2020 09:53 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  Think this judge got a call from a former President. The Swamp is deep.

Although he has been independent in the past. He let Stevens off.

Of course, TDS is really, really nasty now. He could fear consequences if he doesn't give them their say.

If he sentences Flynn, I can't see any way it doesn't get at least 8 votes to overturn in the Supreme Court.

(05-13-2020 08:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/12...ase-252725

This is bizarre.

"...Minutes after lawyers for Flynn urged Judge Emmet Sullivan to "immediately" toss the matter, Sullivan indicated he wasn't ready to act just yet, instead signaling he'll set a schedule to accept briefs from outside parties who might have an interest in the case....

"A criminal case is a dispute between the United States and a criminal defendant,” Flynn defense lawyer Sidney Powell and her co-counsel wrote in a court filing later Tuesday. “There is no place for third parties to meddle in the dispute, and certainly not to usurp the role of the government’s counsel."

Powell argued that such friend-of-the-court briefs are not permitted in criminal cases under local court rules and Supreme Court precedent.

"This travesty of justice has already consumed three or more years of an innocent man’s life — and that of his entire family,” she wrote. “No further delay should be tolerated or any further expense caused to him and his defense....""

What? Are you kidding. Friend of the court briefs for a criminal trial where the prosecution seeks to DROP charges? Whats next---celebrity Hollywood guest jurors? At this point its pretty clear the judge simply needs to be tossed off the case for unreasonable bias and incompetence. There is no dispute for the judge to solve. In the case before the judge---both the prosecution and the defense AGREE. It takes a special kind of idiot judge to screw that up. This circus needs to come to a conclusion. We dont need judges like this in America.

I don't doubt one iota that a certain Kenyan got his nose into this case. Of course, in a big way his, ahem, reputation is on the line as the most corrupt president ever.

(05-13-2020 10:34 AM)olliebaba Wrote:  I don't doubt one iota that a certain Kenyan got his nose into this case. Of course, in a big way his, ahem, reputation is on the line as the most corrupt president ever.

I think that reputation is now sealed.

(05-13-2020 10:23 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 08:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/12...ase-252725

This is bizarre.

"...Minutes after lawyers for Flynn urged Judge Emmet Sullivan to "immediately" toss the matter, Sullivan indicated he wasn't ready to act just yet, instead signaling he'll set a schedule to accept briefs from outside parties who might have an interest in the case....

"A criminal case is a dispute between the United States and a criminal defendant,” Flynn defense lawyer Sidney Powell and her co-counsel wrote in a court filing later Tuesday. “There is no place for third parties to meddle in the dispute, and certainly not to usurp the role of the government’s counsel."

Powell argued that such friend-of-the-court briefs are not permitted in criminal cases under local court rules and Supreme Court precedent.

"This travesty of justice has already consumed three or more years of an innocent man’s life — and that of his entire family,” she wrote. “No further delay should be tolerated or any further expense caused to him and his defense....""

What? Are you kidding. Friend of the court briefs for a criminal trial where the prosecution seeks to DROP charges? Whats next---celebrity Hollywood guest jurors? At this point its pretty clear the judge simply needs to be tossed off the case for unreasonable bias and incompetence. There is no dispute for the judge to solve. In the case before the judge---both the prosecution and the defense AGREE. It takes a special kind of idiot judge to screw that up. This circus needs to come to a conclusion. We dont need judges like this in America.

Does the Chief Justice have any say over Federal Judges. We have got to change the power judges have in America. This could be bad precedent going forward. If a Judge is on the same side as Congress he can do anything he wants?

(05-13-2020 08:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/12...ase-252725

This is bizarre.

"...Minutes after lawyers for Flynn urged Judge Emmet Sullivan to "immediately" toss the matter, Sullivan indicated he wasn't ready to act just yet, instead signaling he'll set a schedule to accept briefs from outside parties who might have an interest in the case....

"A criminal case is a dispute between the United States and a criminal defendant,” Flynn defense lawyer Sidney Powell and her co-counsel wrote in a court filing later Tuesday. “There is no place for third parties to meddle in the dispute, and certainly not to usurp the role of the government’s counsel."

Powell argued that such friend-of-the-court briefs are not permitted in criminal cases under local court rules and Supreme Court precedent.

"This travesty of justice has already consumed three or more years of an innocent man’s life — and that of his entire family,” she wrote. “No further delay should be tolerated or any further expense caused to him and his defense....""

Odd, the word "democrat" appears nowhere in your story.

(05-13-2020 11:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 08:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/12...ase-252725

This is bizarre.

"...Minutes after lawyers for Flynn urged Judge Emmet Sullivan to "immediately" toss the matter, Sullivan indicated he wasn't ready to act just yet, instead signaling he'll set a schedule to accept briefs from outside parties who might have an interest in the case....

"A criminal case is a dispute between the United States and a criminal defendant,” Flynn defense lawyer Sidney Powell and her co-counsel wrote in a court filing later Tuesday. “There is no place for third parties to meddle in the dispute, and certainly not to usurp the role of the government’s counsel."

Powell argued that such friend-of-the-court briefs are not permitted in criminal cases under local court rules and Supreme Court precedent.

"This travesty of justice has already consumed three or more years of an innocent man’s life — and that of his entire family,” she wrote. “No further delay should be tolerated or any further expense caused to him and his defense....""

Odd, the word "democrat" appears nowhere in your story.

Neither were the words "human rights" "civil liberties" "quick and speedy trial" or "Spygate"---but they are all certainly major components of this issue. Lets be honest---what are the chances that a right leaning group wants to send Fynn to prison. The really odd thing---where is the Civil Liberties Union in all this? Their silence is upsetting. While I often disagree with their politics---I respect their fight. The fact they are silent is a sad statement on where we are as a nation.

(05-13-2020 12:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 11:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 08:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/12...ase-252725

This is bizarre.

"...Minutes after lawyers for Flynn urged Judge Emmet Sullivan to "immediately" toss the matter, Sullivan indicated he wasn't ready to act just yet, instead signaling he'll set a schedule to accept briefs from outside parties who might have an interest in the case....

"A criminal case is a dispute between the United States and a criminal defendant,” Flynn defense lawyer Sidney Powell and her co-counsel wrote in a court filing later Tuesday. “There is no place for third parties to meddle in the dispute, and certainly not to usurp the role of the government’s counsel."

Powell argued that such friend-of-the-court briefs are not permitted in criminal cases under local court rules and Supreme Court precedent.

"This travesty of justice has already consumed three or more years of an innocent man’s life — and that of his entire family,” she wrote. “No further delay should be tolerated or any further expense caused to him and his defense....""

Odd, the word "democrat" appears nowhere in your story.

Neither were the words "human rights" "civil liberties" "quick and speedy trial" or "Spygate"---but they are all certainly major components of this issue. Lets be honest---what are the chances that a right leaning group wants to send Fynn to prison. The really odd thing---where is the Civil Liberties Union in all this? Their silence is upsetting. While I often disagree with their politics---I respect their fight. The fact they are silent is a sad statement on where we are as a nation.

Alan Dershowitz on this issue, which he appears to agree is very much a partisan play:

Quote:Federal judges don’t have “roving commissions” to do justice as they see fit. Judge Sullivan’s role doesn’t include inviting outsiders with no standing or cognizable interest in the case to advise him how to decide a matter over which he has no constitutional jurisdiction. Outsiders can write op-eds criticizing the decision to drop the case. Congress can hold hearings. Professors can conduct seminars or sign open letters. But judges may not turn courtrooms into political platforms from which partisans can espouse their criticism of the administration. And that’s what these briefs will be. They will be written by academics for whom the Trump administration can do no right, even when its actions further civil liberties, as in this case.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/judges-are-...opin_pos_1

(05-13-2020 10:10 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-13-2020 09:53 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  Think this judge got a call from a former President. The Swamp is deep.

Although he has been independent in the past. He let Stevens off.

Referring to Ted Stevens, the Senator from Alaska.

Sullivan ruled against Stevens’ motion for mistrial (based on prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence) about one month *Before* the Nov. 2008 election, and then only *After* the election (which Stevens narrowly lost and could not be overturned) did Sullivan cut Stevens some slack. And besides, the evidence of prosecutorial misconduct was so incredibly outrageous/overwhelming that Sullivan’s own “independence” really had nothing to do with it.