More on the Flynn case

[Rightguide]

2 minutes after the jury was empaneled and sworn it would be over.

Court: "Mr. Prosecutor, call your first witness."

DOJ Attorney: "Your Honor, we have no witnesses."

Flynn's lawyer: "Your honor, the defense moves the court for a directed verdict of Not Guilty."


At that point it's over.

Sullivan: I have to consult with Judge John Gleeson.

 

[Rightguide]

Stacking the courts with unqualified political hacks, as Trump has done?

So many judges ranked "unqualified" by the ABA (which you may or may not know is the American Bar Association).

But they do have the ideological "legislate from the bench" pedigree, as shown by their approval by the Federalist Society, which has long held that laws are too important to be enacted by elected representatives.

List the judges the ABA (a political organization) labeled as unqualified.

 

[HisArpy]

Stacking the courts with unqualified political hacks, as Trump has done?

So many judges ranked "unqualified" by the ABA (which you may or may not know is the American Bar Association).

But they do have the ideological "legislate from the bench" pedigree, as shown by their approval by the Federalist Society, which has long held that laws are too important to be enacted by elected representatives.

It's amazing how ignorant you can be sometimes. And yet at other times, you're actually pleasantly conversant.

I will leave you to figure out on your own which of the above applies in this case.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It's amazing how ignorant you can be sometimes. And yet at other times, you're actually pleasantly conversant.

I will leave you to figure out on your own which of the above applies in this case.

Modern meds ARE amazing.

When you remember to take your daily meds, the odds of you making a salient point increase exponentially.

Conversely, on days where you eschew your medications, you wallow in rhetorical depths usually plumbed by the likes of Coronager and his ilk.

 

[HisArpy]

Modern meds ARE amazing.

When you remember to take your daily meds, the odds of you making a salient point increase exponentially.

Conversely, on days where you eschew your medications, you wallow in rhetorical depths usually plumbed by the likes of Coronager and his ilk.

See, sometimes you can be so amazingly ignorant that you have to LIE in order to get the attention you desperately desire.


In other words:


PLEASE state what SPECIFIC FACTS you have to indicate that I take any medications which do as you state.

Or do you wish to be humiliated again like the last time you libeled me with false statements?

 

[phrodeau]

List the judges the ABA (a political organization) labeled as unqualified.

It’s amazing how ignorant you can be sometimes.

Google these names for a start.

• Jonathan A. Kobes
• L. Steven Grasz
• Sarah Pitlyk
• Lawrence VanDyke
• Charles Barnes Goodwin
• Justin R. Walker

 

[Rightguide]

Well now...maybe we need to look at 28 USC 455:

28 U.S. Code § 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

U.S. Code

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.



Appeals court tells parties in Flynn case to be ready for questions on judicial impartiality
The rehearing, before the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, is set for Aug. 11
By Tyler Olson | Fox News

The impartiality of District Judge Emmet Sullivan, who was the trial judge for former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, appears as if it will be argued before a panel of judges.

The Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals, told parties to be ready to answer questions about the effect of federal statutes on judicial impartiality in a brief order issued Wednesday in connection to the legal dispute over the Justice Department's move to drop charges against Flynn.

The order, which indicated that one court may be planning to question the impartiality of a judge on another court, is the latest twist in the years-long legal saga.

More here:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/appeals-court-flynn-sullivan-impartiality

 

[Lazaran]

Well now...maybe we need to look at 28 USC 455:

28 U.S. Code § 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

U.S. Code

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.



Appeals court tells parties in Flynn case to be ready for questions on judicial impartiality
The rehearing, before the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, is set for Aug. 11
By Tyler Olson | Fox News

The impartiality of District Judge Emmet Sullivan, who was the trial judge for former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, appears as if it will be argued before a panel of judges.

The Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals, told parties to be ready to answer questions about the effect of federal statutes on judicial impartiality in a brief order issued Wednesday in connection to the legal dispute over the Justice Department's move to drop charges against Flynn.

The order, which indicated that one court may be planning to question the impartiality of a judge on another court, is the latest twist in the years-long legal saga.

More here:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/appeals-court-flynn-sullivan-impartiality

This is the perfect way for the full appeals court to throw Judge Rao and Judge Henderson under the bus.

Judge Sullivan will easily prove his impartiality by pointing out the harm dropping the Flynn case would do to the public.

Judge Rao and Judge Henderson will flail around trying to defend their decision to not let Judge Sullivan rule on the case; seeing as how Flynn and his attorneys would still have been able to seek redress from the court if they disagreed with his ruling.

There's a price to pay for being a partisan on the bench, and Judge Rao and Judge Henderson are about to find that out first hand.

It would be poetic "justice" if both of them were removed from the bench.

 

[Rightguide]

This is the perfect way for the full appeals court to throw Judge Rao and Judge Henderson under the bus.

Judge Sullivan will easily prove his impartiality by pointing out the harm dropping the Flynn case would do to the public.

Judge Rao and Judge Henderson will flail around trying to defend their decision to not let Judge Sullivan rule on the case; seeing as how Flynn and his attorneys would still have been able to seek redress from the court if they disagreed with his ruling.

There's a price to pay for being a partisan on the bench, and Judge Rao and Judge Henderson are about to find that out first hand.

It would be poetic "justice" if both of them were removed from the bench.

You might want to read Goldilocks and The Three Bears next.

 

[HisArpy]

You might want to read Goldilocks and The Three Bears next.

Oh no, that would be too emotionally disturbing. HOW DARE those bears call the cops on that poor unfortunate girl who was peacefully occupying their house in the bears' absence.

Why anyone could have come along and slept in their beds, eaten their food, and done all sorts of nefarious things inside their dwelling had that poor misunderstood waif not prevented the home from being vacant.

 

[Rightguide]

Oh no, that would be too emotionally disturbing. HOW DARE those bears call the cops on that poor unfortunate girl who was peacefully occupying their house in the bears' absence.

Why anyone could have come along and slept in their beds, eaten their food, and done all sorts of nefarious things inside their dwelling had that poor misunderstood waif not prevented the home from being vacant.

The left lives a giant fairy tale.

 

[HisArpy]

The left lives a giant fairy tale.

For some reason their fairy tales all seem to have a happy ending. Until they crash into reality that is.


The notice from the court to the parties to be prepared to discuss judicial impartiality do not bode well for Sullivan.

We shall see at the hearing.

 

[phrodeau]

The left lives a giant fairy tale.

• Jonathan A. Kobes
• L. Steven Grasz
• Sarah Pitlyk
• Lawrence VanDyke
• Charles Barnes Goodwin
• Justin R. Walker

These are real judges on real benches, who were deemed really unqualified.

 

[Rightguide]

For some reason their fairy tales all seem to have a happy ending. Until they crash into reality that is.


The notice from the court to the parties to be prepared to discuss judicial impartiality do not bode well for Sullivan.

We shall see at the hearing.

I agree. It seems some of his behavior falls within the the statute I posted. Sidney Powell has stated, "Judge Sullivan’s stubborn disagreement with the Government’s decision to dismiss the case does not confer the right to contest it himself or through his amicus,"

"His actions smack of vindictive animus against General Flynn and judicial overreach that have no place in America’s justice system. No precedent even suggests a 'hearing' on a substantial government motion to dismiss. Not one."

I might add his groundless suggestion the General committed treason, might argue against his competence to judge the proceedings fairly as well.

 

[Conager]

The analysis I read somewhere suggested that they wanted Sulivan to do the right thing and throw in the towel without them deciding anything. If they have to decide that the case must be dismissed (and nobody serious suggests there is any other eventual outcome) then it is not just that they are backing up the precedent that says that, they are also deciding that the appeals court is the place to run to when a judge is not ruling, rather than ruling to be upheld or reversed. They cannot afford to have every plaintiff going over the judges head before a ruling.

So, my bet is they decide that Sullivan has made prejudicial statements and even if his heart is as pure as snow the defendant have the right to a new judge because they have every reason to not have confidence. It goes to a new judge who postures and preens in the limelight a week, then dismisses it.

 

[Rightguide]

The analysis I read somewhere suggested that they wanted Sulivan to do the right thing and throw in the towel without them deciding anything. If they have to decide that the case must be dismissed (and nobody serious suggests there is any other eventual outcome) then it is not just that they are backing up the precedent that says that, they are also deciding that the appeals court is the place to run to when a judge is not ruling, rather than ruling to be upheld or reversed. They cannot afford to have every plaintiff going over the judges head before a ruling.

So, my bet is they decide that Sullivan has made prejudicial statements and even if his heart is as pure as snow the defendant have the right to a new judge because they have every reason to not have confidence. It goes to a new judge who postures and preens in the limelight a week, then dismisses it.

One wonders what could possibly have motivated a prominent jurist to the edge of disrepute and personal shame. I wonder what that is.

 

[Conager]

Pride.

He wasn't paying attention to the facts, actually in evidence in his own courtroom. He like most of the lefties on the board was probably looking at Twitter had his Facebook feed was reading the Washington Post listening to Rachel Maddow and he "knew" things about this case that A) weren't true and B) had never been presented in his court.

He made a pronouncement or two that would have been a mistrial if there was an actual trial with a jury and Flynn had actual counsel, not compromised by Weissman threats.

At some point he realized he was wrong and rather than admit it, he doubled down.

. . or he's on the way to full Biden and doesn't know he was wrong. Never go full Biden.

 

[Rightguide]

Pride.

He wasn't paying attention to the facts, actually in evidence in his own courtroom. He like most of the lefties on the board was probably looking at Twitter had his Facebook feed was reading the Washington Post listening to Rachel Maddow and he "knew" things about this case that A) weren't true and B) had never been presented in his court.

He made a pronouncement or two that would have been a mistrial if there was an actual trial with a jury and Flynn had actual counsel, not compromised by Weissman threats.

At some point he realized he was wrong and rather than admit it, he doubled down.

. . or he's on the way to full Biden and doesn't know he was wrong. Never go full Biden.

The Judge should be removed and Weissmann should have lost his law license years ago.

 

[Lazaran]

I like Judge Sullivan's chances of explaining his decision to reject the DOJ decision to drop the Flynn prosecution a whole lot more than Judge Rao and Judge Hendersons chances of defending their decision to not let Judge Sullivan rule on the matter before the appeals court would get involved.

To suggest that Bill Barr hasn't been acting as Trump's personal attorney and behaving in a highly partisan manner is laughable. His DOJ is in near revolt over his actions. Judge Sullivan was fully justified in his skepticism about the rationale for the DOJ dropping the case after Flynn had admitted his guilt, and a plea deal had already been secured.

The "exculpatory" notes and the supposed lack of justification for prosecuting Flynn that Barr used as the basis for dropping the case are canards. It has gotten to the point that Flynns actions are no longer the only ones in question. Bill Barr"s actions will umdoubtably be investigated more thoroughly once Judge Sullivan is allowed to continue with his inquiry.

 

[Conager]

I like Judge Sullivan's chances of explaining his decision to reject the DOJ decision to drop the Flynn prosecution a whole lot more than Judge Rao and Judge Hendersons chances of defending their decision to not let Judge Sullivan rule on the matter before the appeals court would get involved.

To suggest that Bill Barr hasn't been acting as Trump's personal attorney and behaving in a highly partisan manner is laughable. His DOJ is in near revolt over his actions. Judge Sullivan was fully justified in his skepticism about the rationale for the DOJ dropping the case after Flynn had admitted his guilt, and a plea deal had already been secured.

The "exculpatory" notes and the supposed lack of justification for prosecuting Flynn that Barr used as the basis for dropping the case are canards. It has gotten to the point that Flynns actions are no longer the only ones in question. Bill Barr"s actions will umdoubtably be investigated more thoroughly once Judge Sullivan is allowed to continue with his inquiry.

He is not being asked to explain his "decision to reject the DOJs decision to stop the charges."

Especially since he has announced no such decision. He, so far, has only decided not to decide yet.

He is being asked to respond to defense allegations about his displayed bias. Not some rationale about why his bias is somehow justified by your fantasies about a decision he has not announced based on case law tvst does not exist.

His displayed bias.

He could always recuse himself.

If your fantastical legal theories have merit, any judge will do, and the defense always gets to have one free from any bias.

 

[Rightguide]

I like Judge Sullivan's chances of explaining his decision to reject the DOJ decision to drop the Flynn prosecution a whole lot more than Judge Rao and Judge Hendersons chances of defending their decision to not let Judge Sullivan rule on the matter before the appeals court would get involved.

To suggest that Bill Barr hasn't been acting as Trump's personal attorney and behaving in a highly partisan manner is laughable. His DOJ is in near revolt over his actions. Judge Sullivan was fully justified in his skepticism about the rationale for the DOJ dropping the case after Flynn had admitted his guilt, and a plea deal had already been secured.

The "exculpatory" notes and the supposed lack of justification for prosecuting Flynn that Barr used as the basis for dropping the case are canards. It has gotten to the point that Flynns actions are no longer the only ones in question. Bill Barr"s actions will umdoubtably be investigated more thoroughly once Judge Sullivan is allowed to continue with his inquiry.

You are too subject ignorant, intellectually compromised, and dishonest, to comment on the subject. So, please sneak off and crap your pants in private.

 

[Lazaran]

He is not being asked to explain his "decision to reject the DOJs decision to stop the charges."

Especially since he has announced no such decision. He, so far, has only decided not to decide yet.

He is being asked to respond to defense allegations about his displayed bias. Not some rationale about why his bias is somehow justified by your fantasies about a decision he has not announced based on case law tvst does not exist.

His displayed bias.

He could always recuse himself.

If your fantastical legal theories have merit, any judge will do, and the defense always gets to have one free from any bias.

Here, I'll explain it to you....

Judge Sullivan has to explain his UNBIASED rationale for rejecting the DOJ motion to drop the Flynn prosecution.

Judge Rao and Judge Henderson have to explain their UNBIASED rationale for not letting Judge Sullivan rule on the matter before the appeals court would get involved.

Judge Sullivan will easily meet his obligation.

Judge Rao and Judge Henderson will fail epically.

 

[Rightguide]

Judge Rao and Judge Henderson will fail epically.

They are not the subject of the order.

 

[HisArpy]

Here, I'll explain it to you....

Judge Sullivan has to explain his UNBIASED rationale for rejecting the DOJ motion to drop the Flynn prosecution.

No, that's NOT the issue here because Sullivan, as you were already told, has NOT MADE THAT DECISION YET.

Thus, your "argument" is no argument. It is instead, a fantasy construct inside your own head that is not based on reality or the facts of the matter.

Judge Rao and Judge Henderson have to explain their UNBIASED rationale for not letting Judge Sullivan rule on the matter before the appeals court would get involved.

Rao and Henderson are not at issue in the notice to council regarding judicial impartiality since they are not the ones questioning their own panel opinion. Nor have they made TWO statements regarding Flynn's guilt without charges, evidence, or facts being presented on those statements of guilt.

Judge Sullivan will easily meet his obligation.

Judge Rao and Judge Henderson will fail epically.

Again, a fantasy construct inside your own head rather than reality. But go on believing what you want, the hearing is, I believe, next Tuesday. We shall know the results either on Tuesday or Wednesday unless the order is sealed by the en banc panel.

 

[Lazaran]

WHEN the full US court of appeals overrules Judge Rao and Judge Henderson's partisan decision, it WILL be quite clear that they are biased and unfit to serve on the bench.

WHEN Judge Sullivan holds a hearing to determine the veracity of Bill Barr's justification for dropping the Flynn case, Bill Barr will be further exposed as a biased Trump crony who is incapable of administering justice fairly and is unfit to be the US attorney general.

The familiar pattern of corruption with everything involving Trump and the GOP is being put on public display......again.