Judge Sullivan says the Flynn case isn’t over yet and the fat lady hasn’t sung
There’s so much breaking news these days that for this story I’ll rely on someone who knows a great deal more about the legal angle than I do. So please read Professor William Jacobson’s take on it at Legal Insurrection.
ADDENDUM: More here from Andrew C. McCarthy. I really can’t do justice to it by summarizing or excerpting. So I strongly recommend you read the whole thing.
I will add, however, that although this case is about getting Flynn and always was, it is about a great deal more than Flynn and it always was. Originally, it was about bringing Trump down in addition to harming Flynn. Now it’s still about those things, but the focus this time is on the November 2020 election. To have a chance in November, it is absolutely vital to the left to preserve the somewhat-shaky facade of respectability of the Flynn prosecution, and to continue to accuse the Republicans of being the ones motivated by politics in their opposition to what happened to Flynn at the DOJ’s and FBI’s hands. To do that, the left must preserve the fiction that Flynn is guilty of something. Otherwise, the entire edifice might crumble – which not only could lead to Trump’s re-election, but to the further tarnishing of Obama’s reputation and the rise of #Obamagate as a thing.
That must be protected at all costs. I cannot emphasize that enough.
There really should be a pathway to force Sullivan to recuse. He has behaved atrociously.
Thank you for the link to Prof Jacobson’s post. I’m glad to learn there is a possible reason the judge didn’t order Flynn’s immediate release. Really! I mean it! I was thinking the only explanation is that the judge is a hyper-partisan. I still think that’s highly likely, but at least there’s a slight chance there’s an alternate explanation.
Andy McCarthy rips the judge a new one at NR.
stan:
I added an ADDENDUM about that.
Thanks for the link to LI, I found it informative. Especially the discussion about Pardon vs. fighting on. It occurs to me that the media can rig it that we lose either way: a Pardon can be played in the obvious manner. But even fighting on, with the media in control of what is shown to the average citizen, and what is not, can be played against Trump / Flynn.
National Omerta Radio (as I predicted) jumped back into the Flynn case this morning after days of silence. I will concede that they did not tell a single lie… they just left out dozens of relevant facts!
This inspires my to try a new tactic the next time someone wants to “discuss” things like this with me – which usually means getting angry as soon as I say something they have not heard before or don’t agree with. Instead I am going to say something like:
“Okay, let’s play lawyers… you summarize the Dem’s side of the argument, and I will summarize Flynn’s side, okay?”
Their summary of the Dem’s side will probably be something like:
A) Flynn pled guilty
B) Trump is asshole
At that point I should be able to come back with several points for Flynn. Hopefully the shallowness of their understanding will dawn on them in a more positive way than with my usual approach:
“Discuss the Flynn case? With you? Sure, right after I finish the discussion on quantum mechanics I’m having with Rover!”
Neo:
Agree with your update completely; Captain Obvious here (the royal we) thought the Judge’s motivation was and is to protect BHO.
I have a hard time believing that this will be a major issue come November. Most people have tuned out this entire thing (if they ever really cared) long ago as proven by the complete indifference to impeachment. Doesn’t mean this story shouldn’t be investigated and written about but I just don’t think it has much electoral impact one way or another.
The election will most likely come down to two things Trump hatred and the economy and whether on the fence independents blame Trump and/or believe he can end the depression.
The Fat Lady vs Sullivan in a Sumo Showdown.
Don’t bet against Brunhilde.
I appreciate McCarthy’s bluntness in NRO but I’m still waiting for him to take the next step. Maybe he has and I just missed it but the next step is to accept and publicly state “Donald Trump MUST be re-elected.” If Trump loses this November, not only will ALL of this bad behavior go unpunished but there will almost certainly be more of it as the both Trump and his supporters will likely be targeted for legal persecution.
It was possible to examine the “Flight 93 election” rhetoric in 2016 and conclude it was a little overblown. I don’t think that’s possible this time around. None of this stuff is theoretical or esoteric any more. The American political/media establishment has DEMONSTRATED they believe that the only thing wrong with a “banana republic” is having the wrong sort of people in charge.
Mike
All caps always makes a point much more persuasive. Is there anything else Andy has to do to earn your favor? I thought fighting in the Twitter sewer was the key to Andy’s rehabilitation. Goalposts keep shifting?
Andy McCarthy has been resolute in criticizing specific actions but not the agencies.
Yet, no individuals have come forward. No FBI agents have testified against McCabe, Strzok, et al. None against Sally Yates. And on and on. Mr McCarthy has shown a lack of insight on this point. And, IMO, it’s a super important point. All these gov’t employees have chosen loyalty to the Dem Party over loyalty to America and the oath they swore.
Wonder if Sullivan is holding Flynn “hostage” now that the s*** has—FINALLY—hit the fan.
Trying to find ways to delay sentencing ad infinitum.
Letting Flynn continue to twist in the wind—and enabling the wild, savage, salivating Democratic dogs to bark hysterically—until Sullivan can arrange for Obama to get what that crook needs…a bit of quid pro quo…from Trump
All this, of course, would appear to go against the principle/rule/law of habeus corpus (let alone justice or morality); but I don’t think that that would bother this particular judge all that much.
Unless Trump can pardon a person who hasn’t yet been sentenced…. But I’m not sure he can. Hope I’m wrong.
Can he?
BarryM…I’m of the mind that this IS a delaying tactic.
Gives the D-Media the chance to shift the public attention away from 0 & back to OrangeManBad.
Like the whole circus wagon shampeachment…an effort to tie POTUS’s hands so his administration can do nothing but fighr fires.
For one of THE best covers of this incident go here:
Michael Flynn Scandal Explained – Robert Barnes Live Stream Highlight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKQG1lM0gvU
VERY VERY VERY good..
the channel is run by a Canadian lawyer, and he invites Barnes to explain American law (and their coverage of Arbory incident is great as well)
What Griffin said
And just when you thought Judge Sullivan couldn’t go any crazier:
“May 13, 2020
LUNATIC LAWLESS “JUDGE” EMMIT SULLIVAN ENLISTS HIS OWN PRIVATE PROSECUTOR TO PRESS CASE AGAINST FLYNN;
CONSIDERS IMPOSING HIS OWN CHARGES OF PERJURY AND CONTEMPT ON FLYNN
—Ace”
http://ace.mu.nu/
The all caps are Ace’s BTW. He gave it the Red Flaming Skull treatment too.
Too bad obviously biased Judge Sullivan can’t be Impeached, but as in the case of the President, the Constitution gives the sole power of bringing Impeachments to the House, with the Senate trying the case.
Sullivan enlisting his own private prosecutor removes all doubt as to his bias and unfitness.
‘…Even if he’s convinced Flynn is as guilty as the day is long, one might expect Judge Sullivan to be disturbed by the FBI’s perjury trap, by its editing of and misrepresentations about the “302 report” of Flynn’s interview. By the prosecution’s withholding of exculpatory evidence and concealment from the court of its threat to prosecute Flynn’s son. By the derelictions of Flynn’s original counsel, who took the case notwithstanding a deep conflict-of-interest, and who appear to have counseled Flynn to plead guilty without ever reviewing rudimentary discovery — we know they never inspected the 302 (which is mind-boggling in a false-statements case); did they ever demand that Mueller’s prosecutors produce the recording of the Flynn–Kislyak “sanctions” conversation that is the heart of the case?
‘Those are the kinds of questions a responsible judge would be posing, not, “How do I sentence this guy if DOJ won’t prosecute?”’
We keep using this word “Judge” I don’t think he thinks it means what we think it means.
Jonathan Turley is not a happy camper.
He has several posts out on the subject, which are getting play in the VRWC press.
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/14/judge-sullivan-orders-review-of-possible-perjury-charge-against-flynn/
“I have practiced in front of Judge Sullivan for many years. I have repeatedly praised him and expressed my respect for his demeanor and directness. However, these orders raised deeply troubling questions of judicial overreach and enmity. Despite my admiration for Judge Sullivan, I believe he is moving well outside of the navigational beacons for judicial action and could be committing reversible errors if he denies the unopposed motion or moves forward on this perjury claim.
…
Judge Sullivan would not only ignore the agreement of the parties, the judgment of the Department of Justice, but effectively create a new case of his own making. At some point, the court risks the appearance of assuming both prosecutorial and judicial functions. A perjury charge leaves the appearance of a court imposing its own notion of justice through a dubious judicially-mandated criminal charge.”