Ex-Watergate prosecutors say judge has legal duty to review facts in Flynn case

reuters ^ | May 27, 2020 | Sarah N. Lynch

[sport]

They have no integrity.No principles and bad character.

[yarddog]

Yes they have a lot of character. Unfortunately it is all bad.

[Phil DiBasquette]

And that original judge was...?

[Phil DiBasquette]

Never mind I see Rudy Contreras

A 0 judge who couldn’t force a vote on
Garland

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Contreras

[Brilliant]

Seems like he should have done that before he accepted the plea.

[ImpBill]

Yes, pretty sure I knew that. Does the Executive Branch have any oversight of the Judicial? Or is all oversight delegated to the Legislative Branch?

As was done with Alcyee Hastings, in order to reel Judge Sullivan in, must he be Impeached by Congress?

Are their no other remedies for reigning in a Judge gone wild?

Thanks

[John S Mosby]

Many think that Sullivan is under threat of leverage and much more from his masters in the dirtiest deep state, out of the paedophilia acts of his son. Delving in the kind of dirt the Weissman & investigator/prosecutors of Mueller (who started all this on Flynn) wallow in daily, pervos that they themselves are given to be.

The need, with Trump elected is as McCabe said—”F...Flynn and then F Trump”... Since Flynn knows all, from the DIA perspective the kind of way outside of purview acts of the muzzie irish mobster— Brennan. The gun running, Benghazi, McCain, ISIS fraud and much else-— especially obamaumao the fake puppet president.

[Swordmaker]

And that original judge was...?

Judge Rudolph Contreras, an appointee of former President Obama, recused himself one week after General Flynn pleaded guilty. He’s the "Rudy" who was mentioned multiple times in the Strzok/Page emails who was part of their group who knew what was going on, and also one of the FISA court judges who signed off on at least one of the Carter Page FISA surveillance warrants.

He should never have been sitting on the Flynn case as the FBI agent at the heart of it was a first name basis personal friend, receiving emails on the case ex parte. The timing of his recusal is right when those Strzok/Page emails started being made public. Hmmmmmm.

[rlmorel]

THAT is VERY well done. I didn’t realize how much less impact that statement has, I suspect because your brain is tied up deciphering the handwriting, but when you see it like that, and then follow up with those graphics, well...nicely done.

[Swordmaker]

Um, usually when you put something in quotations it means they are not your words, but you are quoting from the article. As I was.

I was not defending Sullivan.

And i was seconding you... in full agreement6 that Sullivan doesn’t have that power.

[Swordmaker]

Strange! I would have thought the Judge had been given an order to drop all charges by the “Department of Justice”, his boss!

No, the judge doesn’t work for the Executive Branch under the Department of Justice.

Federal Judges, except for Article 2 Administrative Law Judges who interpret regulations promulgated by executive agencies, are employed by the Judicial Branch of our government. Their "boss" is essentially themselves, then their Circuit, but ultimately the US Supreme Court, who cannot fire them, but only Congress can fire them by removing them through House impeachment and conviction in a trial in the Senate.

[Swordmaker]

The judge certainly has an obligation to “review “ everything submitted to the court.

Uh, no, the judge is not entitled, without evidence, to delve into the motives of the state prosecutors for their decisions on charging, withdrawing charges, presenting a case, or bargaining a case. If he does so, then he’s stepped down from his Judiciary Branch role as impartial judge, and taken on an impermissible prosecution role in the case. This is what Judge Sullivan is doing. He is assuming the prosecution has a malignant motive at this late date, not against the defendant, but somehow a Malignant motive against the state! The judge has now added not only the weight of the state prosecution against the lone defendant, but also the tonnage of the entire Judiciary Branch on him, instead of remaining impartial in wielding blind justice’s sword. He’s put his thumb on justice’s scales.

[Williams]

And you are an attorney or a judge?

All I said and I’ll say it again, the judge has a responsibility to review everything submitted to his court.

That should be obvious.

[Swordmaker]

Have you ever thought about the names that Peter Strzok came up with for the FBI’s counterintelligence investigations on Trump’s campaign and presidency and their psychologically subconsciously revealing nature? Let’s look at them. CROSSFIRE HURRICANE: Retrospectively Strzok, or somebody, claimed it originated from a song lyric. Perhaps. But I think it was built on Strzok’s psychology.

The definition of the word "crossfire" is:

1. Lines of fire from two or more positions crossing each other at a single point: soldiers caught in crossfire. 2. A confrontational situation in which opposing factions, forces, views, or opinions converge.

It’s essentially an "ambush," where the target gets hit by an assault from multiple directions.

The second word "hurricane" is a violent spinning wind, "spin". . . The dictionary definition is:

1. (Physical Geography) a severe, often destructive storm, esp a tropical cyclone; 2. b. (as modifier): a wind of hurricane force; 3. anything acting like such a wind

The second word implies a chaotic, fast moving, destructive force made of "spinning" air. I.e. spin of nothing.

Now, let’s look at two more we know about.

CROSSFIRE RAZOR: This is the name used for the investigation of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. I’ve already analyzed "crossfire" as "Ambush from multiple directions," but "Razor" is interesting. What is a razor used for? It’s a very sharp cutting instrument primarily for removing unwanted hair from a body. The definition of "razor" in its transitive form:

1. A sharp-edged cutting instrument used especially for shaving or cutting hair, especially from the face or legs.
Transitive verb. ra·zor, ra·zored, ra·zor·ing, ra·zors, To shave, cut, or remove with a razor or similar cutting implement: razor off the mustache; razored pages from a rare book.

So Stroke named the Flynn investigation for cutting Flynn away from Trump? Removing him from the equation? Cutting him out by ambush investigation? Sure looks like it.

In the same FBI memo of January 4, 2017, where we learn about the names of these Crossfire Sub-investigations, the redacted copy mentions Flynn should be told about CROSS WIND If he is to be questioned. This is obviously the investigation into the Kislyak conversations of a few days before . . . and now we have the word "cross" implying the "Crossfire Razor cross" or a ‘double cross’ of Flynn, which Strzok is already planning!

That’s why on that afternoon, after this memo is written, and Strzok gets wind the higher-ups are closing "Razor," he Irrationally, against all evidence, sends desperate emails pleading, "Hey, DON’T close Razor!" and gets a one word "OK” then emails his lover Page, "At least the Flynn case is still open!"

Then there’s also mention of CROSSFIRE TYPHOON," which because of the Pacific Ocean reference, implies Australia, I think may refer to Papadoupolus due to the Australian ambassador connection. . . but could be Manafort for its close sound to tycoon. There’s another not named for Carter Page.

Strzok thinks he’s being cute with these investigation code names, but I think he Telegraph’s his intentions.

[Swordmaker]

Hillary was a very junior — just out of law school — lawyer for the House Judiciary committee. Look how old she is? Any “Watergate Prosecutor” out there, and still kickin’, was either a junior go-fer like Hillary, or is so old as to be senile.

She was 26 when she got fired for suborning perjury in the Watergate investigation. She was a piece of work even then.

[Swordmaker]

All I said and I’ll say it again, the judge has a responsibility to review everything submitted to his court.

And I just explained why your assertion is not true. He cannot, just because of his black robe, open cases to his own inquiries. He’s a TRIAL judge. His job is to facilitate the settlements of disputes between parties brought before him. When those disputes between the parties are settled, his job STOPS! He is not permitted to look into why or how they ended. . . Or the motives of the parties involved in ending them. In this case it was the government vs. Flynn. Those two parties now agree that, based on newly uncovered evidence AND bad behavior of the previous prosecution team hiding exculpatory evidence of that fact, no crime was committed. Since there is no longer a dispute, there is nothing for this judge to mediate.

The most he can do is refer suspicions of questionable dismissals to the District Attorney for investigation of malfeasance. HE can’t investigate on his own initiative! He cant step down from the bench and appoint a new prosecutor to seek new charges. He CAN appoint an attorney for a defendant. . . If there is none.

But there’s a reason why his circuit is calling him on the carpet to explain his actions which are completely outside the normal canons of a trial judge’s powers. He’s gone one step beyond what they ordered him to do. They told HIM to explain himself by filing briefs on the legal grounds he’s basing his extraordinary behavior on. It’s not an adversarial procedure. . . But HE hired a criminal defense attorney to argue for him.

That implies he hasn’t got a sound legal foundation for his behavior that he can brief. He should be able to cite pertinent cases and law that has not been superseded by later case rulings that somehow supports what he did, that he knew, when he did it, not found ex post facto.

Every attorney I know, and I’ve talked to several (my God son is an attorney admitted to the SCOTUS bar), say the panel is NOT going to like that. It’s not in the order they gave him; they didn’t tell him to get someone to do your homework for you! It’s in the same vein of him bringing in an Amicus into the trial! He’s doubled down! This should have been a battle of briefs and legal citations with him showing in law what Is his legal justification for not doing his statutory duty under judicial standards and circuit rules. He’s thumbing his nose at the circuit panel.

Judge Sullivan has ZERO evidence, except hearsay from the newscasters he watches that there is any untoward political pressure brought on the prosecution’s dismissal decision. Such hearsay should have no weight in any court of law!

[ImpBill]

Thank you. I finally got around to recalling civics classes and then we had the Impeachment of Alysee Hastings as an example.

Getting old and the grey matter doesn’t kick in as it used to.

[TXnMA]

"Strzok thinks he’s being cute with these investigation code names, but I think he Telegraph’s his intentions."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Whoa!

SM, you may very well be onto something with this analysis of the "Crossfire ............." FBI case nomenclature!

All you have to do is study the bizarre facial contortions of Peter Strzok when he was before Congress -- to "read" the guy as a blatant case of egocentrism & Narcissism.

Classic "Wise Guy" deportment... And, I have zero difficulty accepting that his "I'm smarter a than all you dummies" attitude would lead him to being "cute" with case codename symbolism...

~~~~~~~~~

(BTW, who is it that has referred to "symbols" & "symbolism" (as in, "[Symbolism will be their downfall]") thirty [30] times (of 4347 [so far])...?)

Thank you -- and "nicely done!"

TXnMA    
  

[TXnMA]

“Sullivan actually came into this case after the Trial judge recused himself without explanation, after Flynn pled guilty."

Contreras had to recuse -- IIRC, he was on the FISA Court, (and friends with Strozk) as well...

TXnMA    
  

[Rock N Jones]

Sullivan is suppose to address the appeals court Monday June 1.
We shall see what happens. Have to hand to Sidney Powell for her efforts. Must say it has been disgustingly entertaining.
https://twitter.com/SidneyPowell1/status/12665001971038289922