Barr Installs Outside Prosecutor to Review Case Against Michael Flynn, Ex-Trump Adviser

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:👀 Judge Sullivan hires high powered attorney - the one who represented Kavanaugh in his confirmation battle - to argue his case for not immediately tossing Flynn guilty plea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-judge-hires-high-powered-dc-attorney-to-defend-his-actions-in-flynn-case/2020/05/23/9cae4d5e-9d0c-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html#click=https://t.co/1z9KLuCMbi

He's not appearing to be the neutral arbiter that judges are supposed to be at this point.

Hiring a lawyer isn't partisan. What do you see as not a neutral arbiter?

DP--being a judge is his job. Why does he need to hire a lawyer to argue his position with the appeals court? This is just weird. He chose the position--he should be able to defend it.
Maybe, this is not to argue for him, but for some other legal problem he may have.

Is it against the rules? No? Then what is the problem?

Maybe not against the rules. Maybe it is. That is up to the appeals court to determine.

WapPo in article today:
"A federal judge doesn’t typically hire private counsel to respond to an appeals court"

He is essentially a participant in this case now. Perhaps it's time for a new judge.

Well, actually they typically do. When it happens.

WaPo isn't always right. Imagine that. When they write about your area of expertise, then you'll see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe not against the rules. Maybe it is. That is up to the appeals court to determine.

WapPo in article today:
"A federal judge doesn’t typically hire private counsel to respond to an appeals court"

He is essentially a participant in this case now. Perhaps it's time for a new judge.

A federal judge usually isn't asked to provide an argument in person by a partisan and unqualified judicial appointee like Judge Rao.

"Partisan and unqualified?" LOL
There were two other judges, pal. And, they seem to think there is something to the brief that was filed.

And, a federal judge usually doesn't object to dropping a case when both sides agree that is what needs to be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe not against the rules. Maybe it is. That is up to the appeals court to determine.

WapPo in article today:
"A federal judge doesn’t typically hire private counsel to respond to an appeals court"

He is essentially a participant in this case now. Perhaps it's time for a new judge.

A federal judge usually isn't asked to provide an argument in person by a partisan and unqualified judicial appointee like Judge Rao.

"Partisan and unqualified?" LOL
There were two other judges, pal. And, they seem to think there is something to the brief that was filed.

And, a federal judge usually doesn't object to dropping a case when both sides agree that is what needs to be done.

The case isn't ripe for the action taken. Flynn made the plea and is thus guilty of the crime. He needs to serve the time. DOJ had NO business intervening at this juncture, and particularly with a flawed document with no new facts, mis-signed by an attorney who isn't even at the DOJ anymore.

[Anonymous]

The case isn't ripe for the action taken. Flynn made the plea and is thus guilty of the crime. He needs to serve the time. DOJ had NO business intervening at this juncture, and particularly with a flawed document with no new facts, mis-signed by an attorney who isn't even at the DOJ anymore.

Go read the filings to dismiss from Flynn and DOJ. Please note that both filings include documentation. Exculpatory information was withheld. There was misconduct on the part of the investigators and the prosecution. Both reasons for dismissal. Again, there are real documents included in the filings which support dismissal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe not against the rules. Maybe it is. That is up to the appeals court to determine.

WapPo in article today:
"A federal judge doesn’t typically hire private counsel to respond to an appeals court"

He is essentially a participant in this case now. Perhaps it's time for a new judge.

A federal judge usually isn't asked to provide an argument in person by a partisan and unqualified judicial appointee like Judge Rao.

"Partisan and unqualified?" LOL
There were two other judges, pal. And, they seem to think there is something to the brief that was filed.

And, a federal judge usually doesn't object to dropping a case when both sides agree that is what needs to be done.

The case isn't ripe for the action taken. Flynn made the plea and is thus guilty of the crime. He needs to serve the time. DOJ had NO business intervening at this juncture, and particularly with a flawed document with no new facts, mis-signed by an attorney who isn't even at the DOJ anymore.

There is plenty of evidence that the case should have never begun.
Did you read the article by Eli Lake?
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/eli-lake/michael-flynn-gets-railroaded-by-the-fbi/

[Anonymous]

For those who are interested:

As we have recognized before, mandamus actions such as the one involved in the instant case "have the unfortunate consequence of making the [district court] judge a litigant, obliged to obtain personal counsel or to leave his defense to one of the litigant [appearing] before him" in the underlying case. Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, supra, at 346 U. S. 384-385, quoting Ex parte Fahey, supra at 332 U. S. 260.

426 U.S. 394, 403.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The case isn't ripe for the action taken. Flynn made the plea and is thus guilty of the crime. He needs to serve the time. DOJ had NO business intervening at this juncture, and particularly with a flawed document with no new facts, mis-signed by an attorney who isn't even at the DOJ anymore.

Go read the filings to dismiss from Flynn and DOJ. Please note that both filings include documentation. Exculpatory information was withheld. There was misconduct on the part of the investigators and the prosecution. Both reasons for dismissal. Again, there are real documents included in the filings which support dismissal.

Those motions are both pretty weak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe not against the rules. Maybe it is. That is up to the appeals court to determine.

WapPo in article today:
"A federal judge doesn’t typically hire private counsel to respond to an appeals court"

He is essentially a participant in this case now. Perhaps it's time for a new judge.

A federal judge usually isn't asked to provide an argument in person by a partisan and unqualified judicial appointee like Judge Rao.

"Partisan and unqualified?" LOL
There were two other judges, pal. And, they seem to think there is something to the brief that was filed.

And, a federal judge usually doesn't object to dropping a case when both sides agree that is what needs to be done.

The case isn't ripe for the action taken. Flynn made the plea and is thus guilty of the crime. He needs to serve the time. DOJ had NO business intervening at this juncture, and particularly with a flawed document with no new facts, mis-signed by an attorney who isn't even at the DOJ anymore.

Ted Stevens was found guilty. While he was awaiting sentencing, AG Holder requested that the case be dismissed because....the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe not against the rules. Maybe it is. That is up to the appeals court to determine.

WapPo in article today:
"A federal judge doesn’t typically hire private counsel to respond to an appeals court"

He is essentially a participant in this case now. Perhaps it's time for a new judge.

A federal judge usually isn't asked to provide an argument in person by a partisan and unqualified judicial appointee like Judge Rao.

"Partisan and unqualified?" LOL
There were two other judges, pal. And, they seem to think there is something to the brief that was filed.

And, a federal judge usually doesn't object to dropping a case when both sides agree that is what needs to be done.

The case isn't ripe for the action taken. Flynn made the plea and is thus guilty of the crime. He needs to serve the time. DOJ had NO business intervening at this juncture, and particularly with a flawed document with no new facts, mis-signed by an attorney who isn't even at the DOJ anymore.

Ted Stevens was found guilty. While he was awaiting sentencing, AG Holder requested that the case be dismissed because....the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence.

That didn't happen here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe not against the rules. Maybe it is. That is up to the appeals court to determine.

WapPo in article today:
"A federal judge doesn’t typically hire private counsel to respond to an appeals court"

He is essentially a participant in this case now. Perhaps it's time for a new judge.

A federal judge usually isn't asked to provide an argument in person by a partisan and unqualified judicial appointee like Judge Rao.

"Partisan and unqualified?" LOL
There were two other judges, pal. And, they seem to think there is something to the brief that was filed.

And, a federal judge usually doesn't object to dropping a case when both sides agree that is what needs to be done.

The case isn't ripe for the action taken. Flynn made the plea and is thus guilty of the crime. He needs to serve the time. DOJ had NO business intervening at this juncture, and particularly with a flawed document with no new facts, mis-signed by an attorney who isn't even at the DOJ anymore.

Ted Stevens was found guilty. While he was awaiting sentencing, AG Holder requested that the case be dismissed because....the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence.

That didn't happen here.

Same sequence. Why is this case not ripe, but the Stevens case was ripe?

[Anonymous]

Not exactly the crime of the century. OMG he lied! Only partisan hacks care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not exactly the crime of the century. OMG he lied! Only partisan hacks care.

He lied about our national security. His lies effect us all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not exactly the crime of the century. OMG he lied! Only partisan hacks care.

He lied about our national security. His lies effect us all.

No, he didn't. Not even close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not exactly the crime of the century. OMG he lied! Only partisan hacks care.

The bigger story is DOJ's lawless flip flop.

This isn't a policy flip flop like DOMA or churches. It's a flip flop on crime by a president's associate.

Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not exactly the crime of the century. OMG he lied! Only partisan hacks care.

He lied about our national security. His lies effect us all.

No, he didn't. Not even close.

He lied to Pence about national security. Yes, he did.