It's going to be a really big shoe....
Superb reasoning. Definitely worth publishing. I would send it to the WSJ op-ed page.
DPA = Deferred Prosecution Agreements
Yeah, let's just overlook the negative op-ed Gleeson recently wrote about the DOJ dismissal, and the declassified documents that prove FBI and prosecutorial malfeasance. Like everything else in this case...they, and Judge Sullivan want all that covered up too.
In any event, Gleeson is not going to issue his opinion for another MONTH. This is nothing but a ploy to get Trump to pardon Flynn, which Dems hope will damage him. It’s also Sullivan throwing his weight around, just because.
I have zilch in the way of legal knowledge, and I do appreciate the presentation of a thought process outside of what we are accustomed to hearing or seeing on the public facing side of it.
But I think (and I feel you agree to at least some degree with your final sentence) that is abhorrent for this judge to use the Flynn case to make any kind of judicial statement meant to garner more power or authority to the job of a judge.
This case against Flynn should have been tossed years ago, and like the Judge did in the case against Ted Stevens where he finally did the right thing but only after the damage had already been catastrophically done to Ted Stevens’ campaign and he lost the election.
What possible judicial logic is there now to keep Flynn under a gag order?
and the Judge has a timeline - must not be adjudicated before November 4th!
Is he really that smart?
Cutting to the chase and you made a logical argument and I thank you for it - it is solid, we are left with the Comey and Mueller standards and that is outside the law.
Comey - “she (HRC) really screwed up but nobody will prosecute it”. That was not his role and the DOJ does not publicly excoriate people under investigations when they choose not to pursue charges - the FBI should NEVER publicly make any recommendation nor does the director have authority to do so.
Mueller - “we did not find any collusion by Trump or others, but we cannot exonerate him either.” A farce on its face - you either found it or the person is presumed innocent.
Judge Sullivan - “I think it was perjury, but since higher courts have said it is not, nor can it be, I am forced to grant the motion to dismiss.” This is legal reasoning with no foundation in law, precedent, or the facts of the case.
What did these three things have in common? No foundation to do what they did, yet they did it anyways because “Orange Man Bad.” These are all prime examples of the type of judicial activism that is destroying the rule of law in our nation. It existed in the FBI and DOJ. It existed throughout the special counsel investigation. Once again, as many decisions tied to Trump by district court judges, it now rears its ugly head again at a district court.
I have a different desire for the Flynn matter. I think US Atty Jensen should appear personally before Judge Sullivan and lay out his motion to dismiss verbally before the bench because Judge Sullivan is NOT addressing the motion to dismiss on the merits.
Judge Sullivan is NOT addressing the malfeasance documented in the motion to dismiss by DOJ. Instead, he is looking strictly at the case as it occurred at the podium in his courtroom. Is there a precedent for this? A judge is supposed to view the entire case from start to finish far beyond the courtroom. Do all facts of the case matter before a court?
i do not think the judge has standing in this case or any case actually...
The DOJ needs to go to the circuit court and get a writ of mandamus then drop the charges and reassign the case to another judge. End of problem. So why aren’t they doing it?
Here’s how I thought it worked. A complaint is made and the investigators, in this case the FBI, investigate. The FBI then goes to the DOJ and presents their case. The DOJ decides whether to prosecute. The case goes to a court for judgement.
It seems to me that if the DOJ determines that the original prosecution was in error, that the judge should have no say. His role is to render a judgment based on the facts and arguments presented by the prosecution and the defense. If the prosecution agrees with the defense, what then does the role of the court become? I would think that the moment the two parties in contention agree, then the judge has no further role to play.
The judge in this case is attempting to usurp the role of the prosecution.
Bttt.
5.56mm
This is not a DPA. The case mas motioned to be dism8sses with prejudice. It can no longer be brought one dismissed.
Judicial discretion under rule 48, as I understand it, is aimed to prevent serial prosecution with charge dismissal.
Sullivan must have skeletons in his closet. Time to put him under a microscope.
It's going to be a really big shoe....
Looks to me like Sullivan has not read any of the documents the prosecution has hidden for nearly 3 years. He has continually ignored the blatant violation of Brady by the prosecution.
If he thinks his desire to have more power over the prosecution trumps his duty to uphold his rulings, re. Brady, he is in for very rude awakening.
He either has no regard for the rights of the defendant, in which case he should be removed from the bench
OR
he is negligent in his duty as a judge to the point he is depriving the accused of his civil rights, in which case he should be removed from the bench
OR
he is simply corrupt or incompetent, in which case he should be removed from the bench.
Judging by this, Sullivan smells like long-dead fish: https://threader.app/thread/1261480070683688967
Judge Sullivan will probably do the same thing in the Flynn case that he did in the Saena Tech case – He will write a long and detailed decision explaining that Judges should have more authority, but he will ultimately hold that the law requires him to grant the DOJ’s motion to dismiss.
Yeah, no. Almost certainly Sullivan is channeling Roberts on Obamacare here. He’s looking for any fig leaf he can to stick it to Flynn and Orange Man (TM).