Posted on 05/13/2020 7:48:03 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
Sixteen former Watergate prosecutors this week asked to file a friend-of-the-court brief weighing in on the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
"The Watergate Prosecutors ... are uniquely suited to help ensure a fair presentation of the issues raised by the government’s motion" to dismiss the case, the group's request states.
Flynn's attorneys oppose the request.
The group's motion was temporarily denied by the judge, who will determine whether to grant a request by the Department of Justice to drop charges against Flynn.
SNIP
5 page letter:
Watergate prosecutors notice to file brief
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Suing the judge is almost never an option. Judicial immunity isn’t absolute, but it’s nearly impossible to overcome. If the judge is performing a judicial act, and has jurisdiction, there is no suing him. Ruling in a case is a judicial act, and there’s not a jurisdictional issue in the case that I’m aware of, so appeal would be the only remedy for a bad decision.
Remember that case decided unanimously by the USSC slamming the 9th Circus CoA, I wonder if this “judge” read it and ACTUALLY thinks his decision will hold on appeal.
“...Since when do people get to weigh in on a DROPPED CASE??...
When a Clinton is anywhere remotely involved, and when it specifically shows that OBunghole has his fingerprints all over it as well.
That’s when.
Oh, and this particular judge also happens to be a Clinton appointee...
Interesting that the lawyer who filed this did not mention that the Defendant’s Constitutional rights were violated by the Government, that his family was illegally threatened, or that the prosecution failed to provide timely Brady material.
This is nuts. Part of the Sedition.
The government wants to dismiss the case because it’s SO obvious that the FORMER government officials completely screwed Flynn and YET the judge won’t just end the trial??
I was amused by the fact that Powell noted that Sullivan had already denied such efforts to intervene on multiple occasions.
...But, hey, for old friends, just this once, I could exercise my judicial discretion to make an exception and allow some political grandstanding. After all, if at the end of the day I dismiss, what difference does it make?
Is the judge accepting briefs only from HIS “amici”? Or can both sides submit briefs?
Interesting that the lawyer who filed this did not mention that the Defendant’s Constitutional rights were violated by the Government, that his family was illegally threatened, or that the prosecution failed to provide timely Brady material.
This is nuts. Part of the Sedition.
Dems are claiming it is was not Brady material.
Once again the Demofascists are fighting for every inch. Meanwhile, the “Trump” DOJ does the minimum required or even less. So here we are 3 1/2 years into the Trump admin and the ongoing coup rages.
“Judge Sullivan has already slapped down Judge Sullivan on the amicus brief thingee 24 times, as Sidney Powell points out in her filing.”
That can’t be repeated enough. When Flynn’s side wanted amicus briefs, Sullivan said no. But now ...
24 times, plus amicus is unheard of in criminal TRIAL cases.
Judge is out to lunch, and he knows it. He’s counting on the public not knowing it, the same way the public fell for SC lie and ICIG whistleblower lie. Totally outside the rule of law, but hey, wave arms and say if you oppose you are against the rule of law, and voila, people fall for it.
Amusing, yes, and amazing too.
We know d*mn well what one well known Watergate staff alumnus thought about the Nixon administration’s actions. Hillary, “AMATEURS!”
“Judge Sullivan is a communist Democratic piece of shi!. One of the first things in Trumps second term is to impeach this rat face fool.”
Judge Sullivan was first appointed to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan. He was appointed to the District of Columbia Appeals Court in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush. In 1994 he was appointed to his current position by President Clinton. If Judge Sullivan is a communist, apparently his clandestine activity was not uncovered by the three presidents who appointed him.
If Donald Trump is reelected, he will not have the power to impeach Judge Sullivan. Under the Constitution, all impeachments occur in the House of Representatives. If the Democrats control the House after the 2020 election it is very doubtful there will be an impeachment of Judge Sullivan. Given that historically House Republicans have shown no stomach for impeaching liberal Democrat judges, particularly minorities, the chance of a Republican Congress impeaching Judge Sullivan is close to zero.
“”Watergate was SO long ago that by now the Left has changed the narrative.””
That’s the first thing that hits is since when do “has beens” on a case that was famous a long, long time ago get to weigh in on a current case against a US Citizen? Their day in the sun came and went - only one name on that whole list is even remembered - Ben-Veniste. Why oh why on earth can’t people who were once involved in DC politics just disappear from the scene? What is it that makes them hang on forever and ever? Is that what defines their lives? How shameful!
“”scroll down to see Sydney Powell’s brilliant response to this crap.””
Do you have a link - went to the site but don’t see it..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.