As expected, Judge Sullivan’s lawyer has filed a brief defending his actions in refusing to dismiss the Flynn case
Just in, Sullivan’s response.
It’s almost 50 dense pages long, and I haven’t read it, but as expected it defends Judge Sullivan’s actions. I hope to say more about it later, but if you’re inclined to read it for yourself, there it is. I have no doubt that, whatever it says, the left and the lawyers of the left (who are legion) will vociferously support it.
I just took a look at a relevant video sent in by a reader, and it’s so good I’m posting it here:
I find it amusing that Judge Sullivan literally had nothing to do with this slick production of a brief, other than hire the outside help.
If the response was not authored by the judge himself, the appeals court should reject it as being from a party who has no connection with the case.
Edward:
Sullivan’s solutions are nothing if not creative.
Michael Towns is right. This man is a freaking Judge. If there was true justification for his actions, he should be able to articulate them himself, not hire someone to come up with 50 pages of horse manure.
Gee, and just think: The team had all weekend to read through their homework assignment, the Flynn-Kislyak Transcripts, before writing their report.
Lawless Judge, meet vigilante rioters. Case closed.
I heard this interview over the weekend. I was astonished that no one commented on Barnes discussion of the clerks maleducation in writing legal briefs:p (7m to 11m): find the conclusion, decorate the result needed with cites, SWJs as mindless tools.
Our country has no future. Decline is inevitable and inexorable. SWJ dogma in MedSchools, Lawschools, B-schools, propaganda degrees from top to bottom. Give up pretending that this madness can be reformed by reason. It can’t.
The American experiment is on its Death Bed. A corpse cannot be resuscitated. China’s CCP is celebrating their riots throughout our land.
Ive been a fan of that Canadian lawyer for a while…
and i mentioned a short while back that Barnes really does well explaining
Those 50 pages were composed by four lawyers (none of the Judge Sullivan).
Barnes confirms the self-evident; that besides being clearly biased, Sullivan is incompetent.
What he refrains from declaring is that Sullivan is evidentiary proof of the all too common results of affirmative action with exhibit a being Barry Obama.
Drag it out. Delay. So that Flynn can twist in the wind for as long as they can keep him there.
And then take him down from the public gallows and let wild horses drag him through the dirt and mud.
So that his supposed, cunningly-framed guilt can be made even more obvious for all those who are already convinced of it, those who “know” that he’s a criminal adjunct of a criminal regime foisted by an evil—and unrepentant racist, supported by evil and unrepentant racists—upon the fair land.
Keep him hanging and twisting so that the Trumpian regime can be seen to perniciously mount attack after attack on Black judges (and Black presidents) for nothing other than his aversion to their color.
Even as the MSCM blare it from their sleazy ramparts that White Supremacists are ravaging, burning, looting and destroying the land and its inhabitants from coast to coast.
These are evil times.
How is this submission responsive to the appeals court? They tasked Sullivan to respond, yet this brief was not filed by him, or even “in his name”. Had his clerks drafted it, Sullivan would have been the named person who filed it, not the clerk’s, correct? (as a “brief”? Not a lawyer here, so not sure the proper term for his response is). Shouldn’t this just be ignored by the appeals court?
PVilch, its much the same with some great paintings… the students painted them, the teacher signed them… 🙂
“…responsive…”
Essentially, it’s “legal” obstruction of justice.
It’s using the rationale of—rather, the excuse of—“justice” to deny justice.
It’s exploiting the justice system to perpetuate injustice (often accompanied by an earnest invocation on the need to uphold the law and—even transcending the law—“morality”) .
(But then, the entire Obama-driven Flynn fiasco has been “legal” obstruction of justice of the first order; and one could say that about most if not all of Obama-administration corruption.)
It’s not a new ploy, certainly. All tyrants and scoundrels have used it in the past and will continue to do so. Either they study their Orwell very carefully, or if, as is often the case, they have an instinctive sense of, and feel for, the perverse, so that it all comes naturally for them. Of course, a definite agenda (Yeats’s “passionate intensity” often cloaked in terms of “public welfare”) coupled with a generous disposition towards malevolence and a talent for prevarication—usually with a smile—is also usually on the menu. Paranoia also usually comes as standard equipment and is handy for feeling victimized and persecuted while providing the justification for destroying one’s opponents, if only doing so “by the book”….)
Scammers and grifters. And charming rogues(?)….
Wow. Barnes is great. Somehow I was not familiar with him. A quick internet search tells me I have missed so much.
This interview of him by Rubin a year ago is fantastic. And resonates even stronger today. Covington Lawsuit and Tucker Carlson (Pt.2) | Robert Barnes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA2JII6TG4o
Sundance makes an excellent point – and Sullivan may have bitten off way more than he can chew.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/06/01/flynn-judges-lawyer-files-response-to-district-court-says-flynn-can-defend-himself-against-independent-accusations-by-court/
And then this, by a commenter:
Followed by:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/06/01/u-s-solicitor-general-noel-francisco-responds-to-dc-district-court-refutes-arguments-presented-by-flynn-judge-emmet-sullivan/
Note, however, that all of this can—and likely will—be spun by Sullivan as “proof” of the corrupt “politicization” of the Flynn case; “proof” that he (Sullivan) was forced to release Flynn purely for political reasons, or—even better—only on a sheer TECHNICALITY (or, ideally for the Narrative, for both reasons).
That is, solely because the Trump-corrupted DOJ tried to pressure him (Sullivan), which pressure he (Sullivan) mightily, valiantly, heroically withstood, even to the point of being “creative” and “going outside” the usual legal channels…. In the end, however, in spite of his valiant efforts to resist a rigged system, he (Sullivan), alas, couldn’t stand up FOR justice—wasn’t permitted to do so—such is the power and level of corruption of the TRUMP-infected DOJ.
…which may well be the whole point of this Baroque exercise in (supposed) futility:
Viz., merely more horse manure for the Narrative to digest, ruminate over, and regurgitate. More nutritious toxins for the outraged masses to consume.
More reasons to get red in the face, become vitriolic, go nuclear. Riot.
Remember: Mueller, no matter how hard he and his goons tried, couldn’t find any evidence of Trump’s “collusion” with Russia…
“…but Mueller didn’t have to find any evidence since when it comes down to it, WE ALL KNOW that Trump is guilty…” (In fact, we know he’s guilty PRECISELY BECAUSE no proof was ever found….)
And so, with Flynn.
My fantasy – Trump wins and Reps win House in 2020.
Sullivan gets impeached.
FISA judges get impeached.
Obama gets indicted (ha! fat chance) — can an ex-President be impeached for crimes he committed while President? I think not; only tried as a criminal.
Fantasy off. With a bit of sadness.
If Sullivan’s goal is to play for time, to block, to delay, to drag out the proceedings so that Flynn cannot go free; and if he doesn’t care what the consequences are for him, then the game is on and he and his “legal” team will continue to use every trick in the book to delay and block and sabotage to the extent that they are allowed to.
Because every extra day that Michael Flynn remains an unfree person is a victory for Sullivan and whomever and whatever he is representing. Every extra day that Flynn is unfree means he cannot be a threat (even supposing he wanted to be) to those who planned to destroy him but have not yet succeeded in doing so.
Flynn knows too much. He cannot be let loose. Moreover, it has become a matter of “honor” for those who have caused him all this hardship. Obama does not like to lose.
And so, the game continues apace.
But only, it seems, if the Courts allow it. Why they should decide to enable someone whose goal is to deny Michael Flynn justice and freedom is something I personally don’t understand, but maybe they are legally compelled to give Sullivan “his day in court” even though he doesn’t have a leg to stand on; or maybe they feel bound as “honorable” people that Sullivan must be granted his rights (even while denying Flynn his).
That is, IF they decide to play Sullivan’s game. It would be a gross farce; but it’s their call….
That is, unless it’s not their call and Sullivan has them over a “legal” barrel. In which case it would become (just another) grotesque outrage.
Noel Francisco’s brief is compelling.
Sullivan is trying to run out the clock. Once Flynn is free and clear, he can speak truth to Obama and his hench-people.
Time for Sullivan to get a taste of Constitutional law.
Time for the rioters to get a taste of Martial law.
What he refrains from declaring is that Sullivan is evidentiary proof of the all too common results of affirmative action with exhibit a being Barry Obama.
See Steven Sailer and William Dyer on Obama’s background. There is reason to believe that he had the LSAT scores apposite for the law school he attended and that his honors there were earned. He just manifested no interest in practicing law, or, really, much of anything beyond college basketball and golf. The ‘affirmative action’ was manifest 15 years later in the complete breakdown of the peer review function among the Democratic Party’s movers and shakers, which breakdown made him a viable candidate for the presidential nomination. You can look north of the border and see the same breakdown at work in Justin Trudeau’s trajectory. (Actually even more pronounced, as there isn’t much indication in Trudeau’s history of any more ‘g’ than you’d see in a run-of-the-mill high school teacher. Obama, though unoriginal and incurious, is smarter than that).
Alas, the poor judge needs TIME….
https://www.theepochtimes.com/flynn-judge-asks-higher-court-to-let-him-prolong-case_3372815.html?__sta=vhg.uosvpxjouqolvebbsw%7CHYH&__stm_medium=email&__stm_source=smartech
Key graf:
‘ Sullivan has so far refused to affirm the dismissal and has instead laid out a schedule that would prolong the case for possibly months. He’s appointed former federal Judge John Gleeson as an amicus curiae (friend of the court) “to present arguments in opposition to the government’s Motion to Dismiss,” as well as to “address” whether the court should make the defense explain why “Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury.”
‘He’s also signaled he may allow more amici to join the case. ‘
This has the Obama SOP all over it:
Earnestly execute, subvert, destroy and assassinate for all the best, most judicious reasons… One must be very thorough and leave no stone unturned…to get at “THE TRUTH”.
As I understand it, the “logic” in his brief is that since the DoJ is not willing to prosecute Flynn, he has a duty to do so.
Of course, such an approach is antithetical to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
“…antithetical…”
“Habeus corpus” be damned. (Flynn’s already been languishing in this Orwellian purgatory for over three years.)
But as long as we’re talking “antithetical”, it’s also antithetical to established precedents—the “TRUE INTERPRETATION” of which could conceivably be argued over until Doomsday, which is the whole point of Sullivan’s “judicial activisim” cum agitprop…except that the meaning of those precedents has already been well established.
The only question here is whether he and his merrye crewe of injudicious Jesuitical jesters are going to be allowed to split hairs while Flynn continues to twist.
(Clearly, Dershowitz has a new definition of “Chutzpa”…)
I will be fascinated to see the Appeals Court’s response
“No justice, no peace” is a selectively applied slogan.
Supposedly it means “when there is justice there will be peace” — which is hard to argue with.
In practice it means “when we (Democrats et al.) achieve justice (by our definition), we will give you peace (so long as you agree with us on everything).”
Therefore, in reality, it means “we do not ever intend to deliver either one.”
I agree with Kate. The Court of Appeals’ answer or response (or non-answer or non-response) will be fascinating to behold.
Now this from the Party of the Unhinged:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nadler-calls-for-slashing-ag-budget-in-latest-swipe-at-barr
Disgusting and obscene have become the Democratic Party norm.
The party of unrepentant criminality.
It’s as though they can’t help themselves, so intoxicated are they by perversity, so subsumed are they by hatred.
It’s disheartening to see but they’ve gone totally bonkers.