The Perpetual Impeachment: House Democrats Tell The Supreme Court That They Are Preparing For A New Impeachment

HouseofRepSealOn Monday, the House Democrats filed a brief that with the Supreme Court that the House was actively pursuing new articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump including “the possible exercise of improper political influence over recent decisions made in the Roger Stone and Michael Flynn prosecutions, both of which were initiated by the special counsel.” The argument is meant to justify the continued demand for redacted grand-jury material from the now closed Special Counsel investigation into the Russian collusion investigation.

I have long supported the congressional demands for documents withheld by the Trump Administration as well as witnesses, including in my testimony during the House impeachment.  The ability to acquire grand jury material turns on whether an impeachment is a “judicial proceeding” under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 (e).  The district court and the court of appeals ruled that it does and that the House is entitled to the material. However, the House is arguing that this request is not moot after the acquittal of President Trump at the Senate impeachment trial.

Thus, the House is arguing that

“The [House Judiciary] Committee’s investigation did not cease with the conclusion of the impeachment trial. … The withheld material remains central to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the President’s conduct. If this material reveals new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the articles adopted by the House, the committee will proceed accordingly — including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment.”

The House specified its continuing impeachment inquiry:

“The Committee’s investigation continues today and has further developed in light of recent events. For example, the Committee is investigating the possible exercise of improper political influence over recent decisions made in the RogerStone and Michael Flynn prosecutions, both of which were initiated by the SpecialCounsel.
See Letter from Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, et al. to Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (May 8, 2020), The Committee has announced its intention to hold a hearing with the Attorney General—who has failed to appear before the Committee at any point on any topic during his tenure—on these issues as soon as possible.”
The inclusion of the Stone and Flynn cases blurs the line between what is an oversight and an impeachment interest.  It is hard to see a credible impeachment claim arising out of either case.  The Stone case involves a change in a sentencing recommendation while Flynn involves a motion to dismiss the case entirely. However, both cases garnered criticism long before the actions of the Justice Department and fall squarely within the area of prosecutorial discretion.  While the House has strong claims to evidence sought by committees, its claim of a perpetual impeachment are forced and artificial.  It also raises the uncomfortable prospect for the Court of a claim of impeachment authority to trump executive privileges and challenges.  The position of the House seems to be that we are able to claim the ultimate level of deference in such demands simply because we say that we have seeking a possible impeachment.  This concern is magnified by the position of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in long refusing an impeachment vote, that she could unilaterally trigger such powers in a simple press conference.
I have previously criticized the House for its slipshod and abbreviated impeachmentprocess.  That record could become more relevant in this litigation where justices may generally support the right of the House to such evidence but remain skeptical of the fluid use of impeachment to justify such demands.

Here is the House filing to the Supreme Court

197 thoughts on “The Perpetual Impeachment: House Democrats Tell The Supreme Court That They Are Preparing For A New Impeachment”

  1. Proverbs, written by the wisest man that ever lived: King Solomon
    Proverbs chapter 3 verses 3 thru 6:
    “Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart: So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man. Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.”

    Thanks again.

  2. seems not one soul understands or even considers the absolute principle of building on a ROCK SOLID foundation.

    Not like our so-called ‘current times’ where the rumored ‘foundation’ admires, even willingly participates in the alleged right to freely express themselves has become the many facets of the crumbling foundation of politics.

    The latter IS the precise and accurate description of building his house upon the sand.
    And great will be the fall of it!

    Please read Matthew chapter 7, verses 22 thru 29.
    Yep. You can bet the entire clown farm the current scribes are waddling around in Washington DC.

    If you hear the knock, please open your door.
    Philippians chapter 4 verse 8: “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”

    And trust & accept my friendly reminder: satan the devil rules this world, yet is quickly running out of time, comparable with the many adversaries against President Trump.
    (satan the devil is intentionally left lower-case, as that is exactly what satan the devil really is!).

    Thank You

  3. Since the biggest violaters of the Oath of Office are the leftists of the Socialist Party (sorry they are in no way democratic) just answer me this question. Who impeaches the Pelosites? All those rats in one nest should be targets of opportunity at least for the one jury they can’t control. US Citizens armed with their votes!

  4. Well ya, Trump has blocked all oversight of him, and ignores subpoenas, claims executive privilege over everything. A formal impeachment inquiry is all the House has left, and their power over that is clear. So yes they will open an impeachment inquiry because that is the only way they have left to get documents and witnesses.

  5. The Perpetual Impeachment: House Democrats Tell The Supreme Court That They Are Preparing For A New Impeachment

    Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. ~ Euripides, Greek playwright

    So much for House Democrats putting the needs of the nation before their petty partisan biases.

  6. Oh for God’s sake. They are preparing to act in the eventuality they may lose the 2020 election. They can’t respect the vote.

    Improper influence over Michael Flynn? That ignores a mountain of evidence of wrongdoing against the general.

    The Democrat Party has lost its way. I used to find much more in common between the parties, but that common ground has been salted and burned.

  7. You got to hand it to the dims, always doing the people’s business.

  8. Maybe the House should be careful what they wish for, it may come back to bite them.

  9. William Barr Really Cares About His Credibility

    Trump’s Dependable A G Tosses Cold Water On Obamagate

    Attorney General William P. Barr said Monday that he did not expect the prosecutor he handpicked to review the 2016 FBI investigation into President Trump’s campaign would investigate former president Barack Obama or former vice president Joe Biden — an assertion likely to dismay Trump and his conservative allies.

    Barr’s comment came at a news conference to discuss last year’s shooting at a U.S. military base in Pensacola, Fla. A reporter asked about Trump suggesting publicly in recent weeks that top officials in the Obama administration, including the former president, had committed crimes.

    While noting he was not taking aim at Trump’s comments specifically, Barr lambasted what he called the “increasing attempts to use the criminal justice system as a political weapon.”

    “The legal tactic has been to gin up allegations of criminality by one’s political opponents based on the flimsiest of legal theories,” Barr said. “This is not a good development.”

    “As to President Obama and Vice President Biden, whatever their level of involvement, based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man,” Barr said. “Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.”

    He declined to say who Durham was focused on.

    Edited from: “Barr Says He Does Not Expect Obama Or Biden Will Be Investigated By Prosecutors Regarding 2016 Russia Probe”

    The Washington Post, 5/18/20

    1. Does anyone know if this is posted under Mr. Shill’s novel nom de deguisement?

      1. a) The prosecutor wasn’t “endangering hunter biden’s company burisma”
        b) Congress was briefed on Biden’s actions at the time and didn’t object. Not only that, some also wrote a letter of support saying “We similarly urge you to press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General’s Office and judiciary,”

        1. “a) The prosecutor wasn’t “endangering hunter biden’s company burisma”

          How do you know that and what proof do you have?

          1. Unlike you, I take burden of proof seriously, so I’ll provide evidence. But I given that you’ve shown that you won’t always provide evidence when asked and will also resort to insults, I’m not going to continue this exchange.

            Evidence of what I claimed:

            “Vitaliy Kasko, a former deputy prosecutor general who had worked under Shokin and resigned in frustration at his stymying of corruption investigations, told Bloomberg News (in a May 2019 interview) that the [Shokin] office’s probe into Burisma Holdings had been long dormant by the time Joe Biden issued his ultimatum in 2016. ‘There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against’ Burisma owner Zlochevskiy, Bloomberg quoted Kasko as saying. ‘It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015,’ Kasko said. ‘Shokin was not investigating. He didn’t want to investigate Burisma,’ Daria Kaleniuk a leading Ukrainian anti-corruption advocate, told the Washington Post. ‘And Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation.’”

            Also, Burisma wasn’t “hunter biden’s company.” He was on the Board, but Board members need not be owners, and he wasn’t an owner: “Burisma is completely owned by another Cypriot offshore company, Brociti Investments Limited, which, records show, belongs to Mykola Zlochevsky, who was energy minister and deputy national security council chair under Yanukovych” (Buzzfeed).

            1. “Unlike you, I take burden of proof seriously”

              How insulting CTHD from a person that complains about insulting comments. I take proof very seriously and He-said She-said arguments are not proof even though they seem to be the basis of your arguments.

              “Also, Burisma wasn’t “hunter biden’s company.” He was on the Board, but Board members need not be owners, and he wasn’t an owner:

              Money transferred hands in large denominations. If the company was closed down those checks would stop. Biden was VP. Burisma needs to be investigated and any money we provide to Ukraine should be evaluated for illegal use. I’m not going to reargue this entire situation where significant evidence was provided. I don’t care if you don’t know the facts. But if you care you can self refer to John Solomon who provided extensive linkage to the actual documents and transcripts of sworn statements.

              1. me: “Unlike you, I take burden of proof seriously.”
                you: “I take proof very seriously.”

                That’s great, but the phrase “burden of proof” is not a synonym for the word “proof.”

                I take BOTH proof AND burden of proof seriously.
                Learn the meaning of “burden of proof” so you don’t conflate them. Then you can decide whether what I actually said — which was a claim about “burden of proof,” not a claim about “proof” — is insulting to you.

                1. “Learn the meaning of “burden of proof”

                  The burden of proof rests with the accuser something you continuously seem to forget. ‘Burden of proof’ is a subset of proof. I take all of that seriously so perhaps instead of referring other people to the books you should learn who has the ‘burdenof proof’.

                  1. “The burden of proof rests with the accuser something you continuously seem to forget.”

                    Wow, you’ve been misinterpreting what I wrote all this time. You seem to think that “burden of proof” only exists when there is an “accuser.” All this time I’ve been talking about **philosophic burden of proof** ( ), which exists any time a factual claim is made, most of the time with no “accuser.” If person A makes factual claim X, then person X has the burden of proof for showing X is true. It’s the context for the common logical fallacy of misplaced burden (, when person A makes claim X but then insists that it’s true unless person B disproves it, shifting the burden onto person B.

                    “‘Burden of proof’ is a subset of proof.”

                    No, it isn’t, but that explains why you substituted “proof” for “burden of proof” earlier, since you think the latter is a subset of the former.

                    1. “Wow, you’ve been misinterpreting what I wrote all this time.”

                      No CTHD, I was just short circuiting all the BS. Get to the meat. You claim that Flynn lied. Tell us the lie made by Flynn in context.

                      To date you haven’t done that but I like your dance moves.

    2. I think all multi billionaire/business owners should buy a national newspaper to promote their personal business and political propaganda, like Jeff Bezos did when he bought the Washington Post.

  10. When I was a kid Americans used to laugh about banana republic countries like Cuba. They said my country of Cuba fell because we were idiots who did not know how to run a country

    Funny how those idiot Americans look today now that America looks like a banana republic

    The Covid-19 Emergency in Cuba, Days 56 to 58: Our Sputnik Runs on Coal

    14ymedio, Yoani Sanchez, Havana, 18 May 2020 –

    Since the Covid-19 crisis has been unleashed in Cuba, the days and nights have passed with a cleaner sky due to the few vehicles that circulate on the streets and the closing of polluting industries. Except in Havana, unfortunately, because of the dirty column of smoke that the Ñico López refinery releases into the air every day.

    To enjoy this clear panorama, it is best to climb on a rooftop. The one over our heads in this concrete block has the advantage that it is wide, has almost no television antennas since the advance of the digital signal and, in addition, at more than 14 floors above the ground, it is not suitable for those who are afraid of the heights, which is why it is little visited. If you add that birds nest in it, it looks like a paradise, but instead of the apple tree there is a huge water tank.

    On this roof, Rei and I started our long journey together 27 years ago, so we have a special affection for each corner, each tile and even the lightning rod that has never worked. But what we like the most is the view that is achieved if one lies face up on the roof during a moonless night. After seeing something like this, even the most decorated chapel and the most exquisite ceiling seem small.

    In these days of so much stress derived from the pandemic, a few long hours looking towards infinity can help calm the most distraught tempers and renew some hopes. When I was a little girl the future seemed inextricably linked to the stars. It was the time of the space race and in Cuba we lived surrounded by stories of Soviet cosmonauts, details about the Soyuz spacecraft, and constant allusions to Sputnik.

    Back then, many children on this Island dreamed of being part of some crew that was heading towards space. We believed that, without a doubt, we were going to be adults in a world of supersonic ships accessible to everyone and that the boring meals of each day would be replaced by a couple of pills or a tube of cream, just a little bit of which would give us nutrients for long days. It was a time to dream…

    Now, when I look back, I realize that in 1991 when the USSR disintegrated our astronaut chimeras were also pulverized. Almost three decades later, space has been filled with satellites, ships with crews of various nationalities and even trash. The pills to feed us, so we might resist without having to find something to put on our plates, did not arrive.

    After so long, in my life the word Sputnik only means the name of a magazine that did not survive the end of the socialist camp, or of the homonymous official press agency which, founded in the last decade, now repeats everything that the Kremlin finds agreeable. This would be the case, except for the fact that an ingenious neighbor has helped us to manufacture a nice coal stove from the framework of an old gas cylinder. As soon as we laid eyes on it we nicknamed it after that satellite launched in 1957.

    Sputnik would not win a design contest, nor does it measure up to the sophisticated grills advertised on classified sites, but it has something of that crude presence of objects that populated my Sovietized childhood. Maybe that’s why I got a smile on my face when I saw it finished, with one of its grills made of a fan casing, a small openwork door in the metal itself and a firepit that reminds us of the cartoons of wolves, steppes and tears with which we grew up.

    These days, the cooking gas piped into our home sometimes arrives only weakly. The confinement imposed by the pandemic keeps families inside their homes longer and the stoves stay on longer. But there is Sputnik to save us. It squeaks when opened, emits fumes from its small firepit, and spreads the smell of burning coal throughout the apartment.

    Today, we have put in Sputnik some sweet potatoes, a piece of chicken from the rationbook and some small capsicum peppers. The result was not like those extraordinary pills that I imagined when I was a child but – in the end – nor I did become a cosmonaut.

    1. I agree Estovir, it’s an embarrassment that we have a president who is constantly threatening his domestic adverasaries with jail, his AG bails out presidential cronies numerous times. and now, we are not only not leading the world effort on the virus as we have in the past, we don’t have a president who will use the tools only at his disposal to grab hold of the problem and lead us out of it. He’s too busy playing Twitter and threatening to “lock him up” and whoever has his ire.

      It’s beyond embarrassing and the world is taking notice. We can take solace in the fact that the American people did not elect this clown, the EC did.

      1. Book, can you believe Estovir admits we look like a Banana Republic..??

        Sometimes people have these moments of total honesty where they hit the nail on the head.

        Yes, indeed, with a buffoonish, wanna-be dictator in The White House, America now looks like a ridiculous Banana Republic.

  11. Turley Has Yet To Write About Inspector General Firing

    The State Department inspector general fired by President Trump on Friday was in the final stages of an investigation into whether the administration had unlawfully declared an “emergency” last year to allow the resumption of weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for their air war in Yemen.

    Employees from the office of the inspector general, Steve A. Linick, presented preliminary findings to senior State Department officials in early March, before the coronavirus forced lockdowns across the United States. But it was not clear whether that investigation, or others that Mr. Linick had underway, led to his dismissal.

    Mr. Trump, speaking about the latest in his series of firings of inspectors general around the government, said on Monday of Mr. Linick: “I don’t know him. Never heard of him. But I was asked by the State Department, by Mike” to terminate Mr. Linick. He apparently was referring to a recommendation he received from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

    “I have the absolute right as president to terminate,” Mr. Trump added. “I said, ‘Who appointed him?’ and they say, ‘President Obama.’ I said, ‘Look I’ll terminate him.’”

    Democratic leaders in Congress and several Republican lawmakers said on Monday that Mr. Trump had not given sufficient justification for the firing and that they wanted answers during the 30-day review period.

    Mr. Linick’s office, which has hundreds of employees assigned to look into fraud and waste at the State Department, was also examining the potential misuse by Mr. Pompeo of a political appointee to do personal errands for him and his wife, Susan Pompeo.

    The inspector general’s office conducts multiple, simultaneous investigations into the activities of the State Department and its officials.

    The State Department did not respond to a request for comment. Mr. Pompeo said in a telephone interview with The Washington Post that he had recommended to Mr. Trump that Mr. Linick be fired because Mr. Linick was “undermining” the department’s mission. Mr. Pompeo did not give details.

    He also said his recommendation to fire Mr. Linick could not have been an act of retaliation to end an investigation because he had not been briefed on any inquiries.

    However, top department officials had clearly received briefings from Mr. Linick’s office and been asked to comply with investigations.

    Mr. Linick is widely seen as competent, though sometimes reluctant to wade into the most politically charged issues.

    Nonetheless, he issued a harsh report in 2016 on the use of a private email server by Hillary Clinton, who served as Mr. Obama’s secretary of state, and played a minor role in the impeachment inquiry against Mr. Trump last fall. He issued two reports last year that criticized political appointees at the State Department, some of whom work closely with Mr. Pompeo.

    Mr. Trump has appointed Ambassador Stephen J. Akard, the director of the Office of Foreign Missions, for the role of acting inspector general. Mr. Akard, an associate of Vice President Mike Pence, failed to get congressional support for a top State Department job under Mr. Pompeo’s predecessor but was eventually confirmed for the lesser post at the foreign missions office.

    Edited From: “State Department Investigator Fired By Trump Has Examined Weapons Sales To Saudis And Emirates”

    Today’s New York Times

    1. It looks like the nail salon let out early today since we see the Paint Chips crew. So far Paint Chips has let two of his personalities out Pike Bishop and Will Kane. It’s only a matter of time that we see some of the rest.

      1. Alan is just finishing his shift as the Men’s Room Attendant at Midtown hotel. That’s Alan’s business, by the way; he sells a small line of products at his concession stand near the sinks. Combs, condoms, lighters and breath mints are the staples of Alan’s mini store.

        1. Now we have Paint Chips anonymous saying hello from the men’s room. I wonder who else is in there with him. Is that Will Kane or maybe John Elder? I may own a mini store so I’ll have to check on that. In the meantime control yourself.

          1. Mr. Shill will soon be inducted into the internet troll “Hall of Shame.”

    2. “Turley Has Yet To Write About Inspector General Firing” is mistaken. He wrote about it here:
      But he hasn’t said anything more now that more info has come out underscoring the need for Congress to investigate.

      It’s unsurprising that Trump’s statement “’I don’t know him. Never heard of him. But I was asked by the State Department, by Mike [Pompeo],’ to terminate Mr. Linick” undermines his ostensible reason for the firing, which was “It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as Inspectors General. That is no longer the case with regard to this Inspector General.” How does he lose confidence in someone he’s “never heard of”? If it’s “no longer the case,” that implies that it was once the case that he had full confidence in Linick, who — again — he says he’d “never heard of.”

      Trump’s endless lying often undermines his arguments. He says whatever he feels is convenient in the moment. He doesn’t care what’s true.

      “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e. the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e. the standards of thought) no longer exist.” (Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism)

      1. Committ, the willingness to accept constant lies and bragging from their leader is staggering and unforgivable.

        Hey, vote for him 3 years ago, OK, you thought you’d give it a ride. Now? WTF man?

        1. Trump’s endless gaslighting is one of the things I most detest about him.

          I honestly wonder whether he’s lying (knowingly make false claims with the intent to deceive) or if he’s in such mental decline that he can no longer keep hold of what’s true and what isn’t, the flip side of a toddler who hasn’t yet reached the object permanence stage.

          But I agree that it’s much more disturbing how many people are willing to accept this kind of talk and behavior in a president, as long as they get something(s) they desire (for some, it’s huge tax-cuts or other financial benefit; for some, it’s him harming people they want harmed; for some, it’s conservative judges; …).

          1. I think it is clear that Trump makes no distinction between lies and truths – doesn’t care. He uses what works for the next short term goal and his followers don’t care either. They have to notice. It’s very disturbing.

    3. That investigation continues, even without the IG, who serves at the pleasure of the President. Nce try though, Scooter.

    4. Since when do inspector generals ever initiate investigations into anyone, or indeed do the investigating ? You are obfuscating the issue here by claiming he was investigating Pompeo.

      1. Investigations are what Inspectors General jobs are all about: “Inspectors General conduct independent and objective criminal, civil, and administrative investigations related to the employees, programs, operations, grants, and contracts of their agencies. …” –

  12. Sydney Powell has just filed a request for a Writ of Mandamus.

    Perhaps Judge Sullivan’s role as judge, jury and prosecutor is about to end.

    I think the one person in that courtroom who deserves to go to jail is the judge.

    1. Young, remember, you’re supposed to be a lawyer. That was how established yourself two months ago. Yet here you are demanding that a Reagan-appointed judge be jailed for irritating Trump. And curiously you can’t begin to tell us what this judge should be jailed for. Which means the likelihood of you being an actual lawyers is barely worth discussing.

      1. Will kane:

        It was humorous hyperbole, Will. Who excised your sense of humor? Does your JD stand for “Joking Deplored.”

        1. Mespo- Thanks! I was afraid I was going to have to go to the Joke Diagram for a moment. You did it well.

        2. Mespo, it’s not easy to discern ‘who’ the serious Trumper is. They write crazy sh!t all day on these threads.

          1. But you should be able to recognize a joke without party affiliation.

            But the left is often humorless..

      2. And poor, kindhearted Ronald Reagan fell for unconstitutional affirmative action in the cases of Emmet Sullivan and Colin Powell, each of whom insidiously betrayed him.

    2. Full paper covers history of the commission which with SC input wrote Rule 48. In conflict with Barr’s motion in Flynn and SC dicta from 1970’s case, it was all about checking for corrupt prosecutors protecting connected defendants. This is the rule in most state courts – including those 15 GOP AGs – where the “leave of the court” is mandatory. Sullivan will have earned of this paper by now if he didn’t already know it. He’s on firm and righteous ground.

      The conventional view of Rule 48(a) dismissals distinguishes between two types of motions to dismiss: (1) those where dismissal would benefit the defendant, and (2) those where dismissal might give the Government a tactical advantage against the defendant, perhaps because prosecutors seek to dismiss the case and then file new charges. In United States v. Flynn, the Department of Justice argues that Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement applies exclusively to the latter category of motions to dismiss; where the dismissal accrues to the benefit of the defendant, judicial meddling is unwarranted and improper. In support, the Government relies on forty-year-old dicta in the sole U.S. Supreme Court case interpreting Rule 48(a), Rinaldi v. United States. There, the Court stated that the “leave of court” language was added to Rule 48(a) “without explanation,” but “apparently” this verbiage had as its “principal object . . . to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment.”

      But the Government’s position—and the U.S. Supreme Court language upon which it is based—is simply wrong. In fact, the “principal object” of Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement was not to protect the interests of individual defendants, but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants. In other words, it was drafted and enacted precisely to deal with the situation that has arisen in United States v. Flynn: its purpose was to empower the Judiciary to limit dismissal in cases where the district court suspects that some impropriety prompted the Executive’s decision to abandon a case.

      To be clear, there may be good reason for the district court to grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in United States v. Flynn. But the fiction that Rule 48(a) exists solely, or even chiefly, to protect defendants against prosecutorial mischief should be abandoned. This brief Essay recounts Rule 48’s forgotten history.”

      1. Yawn, this is pro forma. the government has abandoned the case, ergo, there is no case. the dismissal is a formality. the federal blackrobe has shown himself to be a fool. but there will be berth for him in Biglaw if he wants to step down after this preposterous interference with prosecutorial discretion.

        clearly the judge is a partisan against Flynn and lacks impartiality. nor does he respect Flynn’s fifth amendment rights. but, a lot of them are that way, we can be sure of that.

        1. “after this preposterous interference with prosecutorial discretion. ”

          The prosecution in this case has been concluded the defendant was found guilty.

    3. More likely the petition will be denied.

      In the meantime, Darren Samuelsohn (Politico): “NEWS: Judge Sullivan just set a series of deadlines in the Michael Flynn case and the government’s motion to dismiss the Mueller-era guilty plea, with in-court oral arguments set for July 16.”
      An image of the order is included in his tweet, for anyone who wants the details:

      1. Commit– Apparently you aren’t a lawyer or you would know that you don’t know until you know.

        1. I’m not a lawyer, and I didn’t claim to know what the DC Circuit will decide, only asserted my belief about what’s more likely.

          But if you want opinions from lawyers, here are a couple:

          Steve Vladeck (Dalton Cross Professor in Law at UT Austin): “The D.C. Circuit has just about the highest bar to this kind of emergency (‘mandamus’) relief of any court in the country—and there’s no precedent that Sullivan is “clearly” violating by taking his time and entertaining amici in reviewing DOJ’s motion. Other than that, though…” (ellipses in the original)

          Joyce White Vance (Professor, U of AL Law School): “At the bottom of Flynn’s motion there’s a request to remove Judge Sullivan, citing his “manifest confusion about the facts.” It’s extremely rare, even on remand following a ruling, for a district judge to be recused. Here, especially ahead of his ruling, the rationale is slim.”

          Since we’re discussing the case, I’ll add that yesterday Andrew Crespo (Harvard Law School) tweeted: “I usually litigate against federal prosecutors. But today – especially today – I’m proud to represent over 960 of them challenging DOJ’s politically driven move to drop Michael Flynn’s case. The law is clear: J. Sullivan must deny the motion if it’s not ‘in the public interest.’ You can read our draft brief, which we will file after Judge Sullivan sets a briefing schedule, here: A real privilege to co-counsel with @protctdemocracy on this.”

          1. Committ – I am not sure that Sullivan can deny the motion, which is why he is going for criminal contempt on the perjury.

            1. *Can* Sullivan deny the Motion to Dismiss? Yes.
              *Will* he deny it? We don’t know, and it would be good to see what the various amici have to say about it.
              If Sullivan does deny the Motion to Dismiss, odds are that Flynn’s lawyers will appeal the ruling, unless Trump has already pardoned him.
              If he instead grants the Motion to Dismiss, will he grant it “with prejudice,” as they asked? Don’t know that either, but I’d certainly hope not.

              1. Don’t know if you read it, but convincing though I’m sympathetic. Started Powell’s but need to finish for comparison and I will. The assault on our system this Flynn motion – along with Stone – represents is staggering. I’ll have to read;s JT on it again, though something tells me there will be more. DK how he stomachs the rank favoritism, sabotage of procedures, and basic concepts like materiality unless his histry as a defense attorney makes him another attorney who thinks those on the other side are evil. That self righteousness is more common than one might expect among a profession us non-lawyers all consider to be hired liars and spinners.

    4. The appropriate remedy to a rouge judge violating separation of powers of our Constitution. Let the courts take care of the court empires.

      1. The case has been pled out and awaits sentencing. That is a judicial responsibility, including ruling on a request to reverse, not executive.

  13. Dr Turley, I respect your views and your integrity. I only wish you read the comments on your excellent blog. I cannot square your views with your continuing participation in the Democrat Party. At least, I’d think you’d become an Independent. I’m baffled. It seems there is nothing the Democrats won’t do to regain power, and you are eloquent and consistent in pointing out their shady and often despicable moves, and yet…here you are.

    1. Bob Lawblaw – I don’t know if this will make you feel any better, but I think Tim Pool and Joe Rogan are now going to vote for Trump and probably Republican down the line. 😉 Someone is listening.

Comments are closed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks