The Flynn Court Drifts Dangerously Outside Judicial Navigational Beacons

Der Untergang der TitanicBelow is my column in USA Today on concerns over the recent orders of U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan. As leading lawyers, including a former Clinton U.S. Attorney openly advise Sullivan on how to “make trouble” for the Administration, these calls only magnify concerns over the purpose of these proceedings and whether they are increasingly detached from the merits of the pending motion. While many seem to relish the improvisational element, they risk undermining the judicial element of the proceedings. Flynn’s team has sought the removal of Sullivan (a very difficult proposition, particularly in the D.C. Circuit).  The intense opposition in the bar and teaching academy to Trump seems again to have greatly distorted the legal analysis, which fails to address the most troubling aspects of these orders.  As I have previously acknowledged, there are good-faith arguments to be made but much of the analysis has ignored the strong precedent against a denial of the motion and rarely even acknowledge the serious implications for the rights of defendants in such action. I address some of the countervailing (and in my view controlling) authority in a separate posting.

Notably, the D.C. Circuit gave Judge Sullivan ten days to respond to the motion seeking his removal. Thus, these issues will presumably be addressed by Judge Sullivan before any hearing is held.

Here is the column:

The case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn is rapidly moving from the dubious to the preposterous. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan is being widely applauded for resisting the dismissal of a case that the Department of Justice insists cannot be ethically maintained. 

Faced with no dispute between the parties, Sullivan decided to create a contested case by inviting in third parties to create a conflict and now is suggesting that he may substitute his own criminal charge rather than let Flynn walk free. In the past, I have publicly praised Sullivan. However, this is fast becoming a case of gross judicial overreach as the court appears to assume both judicial and executive powers. Sullivan can disagree with the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, but he cannot substitute his own judgment for it.

“At the appropriate time, the court will enter a scheduling order governing the submission of any amicus curiae briefs,” Sullivan wrote. Never has a more innocuous line left a more ominous meaning. After that order, the judge proceeded to appoint retired Judge John Gleeson to argue against dismissal in the absence of a dispute between the parties. He is effectively outsourcing the argument to introduce a dispute. This move is nothing to celebrate.

A punishment by plebiscite

Amicus briefs are allowed by courts when outside parties want to be heard on some contested issue facing a court. Such filings are common in civil cases. This, however, is a criminal case. There are serious questions about the propriety of such third parties being asked to brief uncontested motions in a criminal case. The lives and liberty of individuals generally are protected from public demands for punishment. We do not do punishment by plebiscite in this country.

While courts have discretion to grant amicus or third-party arguments in civil cases, there is no counterpart under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In fact, Judge Sullivan rejected such a request on Dec. 20, 2017, stating that “the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal cases. … Options exist for a private citizen to express his views about matters of public interest, but the court’s docket is not an available option.”

Sullivan’s earlier order was the correct one. It is dangerous to open up criminal cases for citizens to argue for convictions or enhanced punishments, particularly when prosecutors seek dismissal in light of prosecutorial error or abuse.

Indeed, former President Bill Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, warned Congress against courts intruding on Justice Department decisions, stressing that “our Founders believed that the enormity of the prosecutorial power — and all the decisions about who, what, and whether to prosecute — should be vested in one who is responsible to the people.”

That is particularly the case where the motion benefits a criminal defendant. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any basis that Sullivan could deny this motion without facing a rapid reversal.

However, the Flynn case has proved to be the defining temptation for many in discarding constitutional protections and values in their crusade against President Donald Trump. Experts are asking a court to consider sending a man to prison after the Justice Department concluded it can no longer stand behind his prosecution. Under this same logic, any defendant could face public outrage over an unopposed motion to dismiss, and a court could invite third parties to make arguments against him. Rather than protecting an unpopular criminal defendant from those outside clamoring for his head, the court is inviting them inside to replace the prosecutors.

Judges are not prosecutors

If Sullivan’s invitation for third parties to argue in a criminal case is unnerving, his suggestion that he might substitute a perjury charge is positively terrifying. Sullivan has compounded this judicial overreach by asking Gleeson to explore the issue, despite his public criticism of the administration’s handling of the Flynn case.  

Under Sullivan’s theory, any time a defendant seeks such a dismissal (even with the support of the prosecutors) he could face a judicially mandated perjury charge. Faced with evidence of prosecutorial wrongdoing (which often arises after a trial), defense counsel (like myself) would have to warn clients that the court might just swap one crime for another. 

The chilling implications of such a theory are being brushed aside by those eager to see Sullivan mete out his own form of justice. However, such an unsustainable decision would quickly careen out of control. 

Consider the scenario. Sullivan knows that such a charge would not be prosecuted by the Justice Department. However, Criminal Procedure Rule 42 states that such cases are to be prosecuted by the government, but “if the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.” 

So what is Sullivan going to do? He cannot force the Justice Department to prosecute a case that it considers to be unethical. He would have to enlist his own outside prosecutor after creating his own dispute with outside parties. If Flynn is convicted, Sullivan will have to order the Bureau of Prisons to incarcerate someone who was convicted by judicial design.

Sullivan Record Remains Controversial In The Case

Ironically, Sullivan is largely responsible for the current posture of the case. Flynn was supposed to be sentenced in December 2018 before the hearing took a bizarre turn. Using the flag in the courtroom as a prop, Sullivan incorrectly accused Flynn of being “an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser to the president of the United States. Arguably, that undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably, you sold your country out.” He then questioned whether Flynn should have been charged with treason.

Flynn faced a relatively minor single count of false statements with the likelihood of no jail time — but Sullivan was suggesting that he could have been charged with treason, subject to the death penalty.

Sullivan then gave Flynn a menacing choice: “I cannot assure you that if you proceed today, you will not receive a sentence of incarceration. … I’m not hiding my disgust, my disdain.”

Flynn, unsurprisingly, opted to wait. Had Sullivan simply sentenced him, Flynn would have been formally convicted and sentenced — making any later motion more difficult while the case was on appeal.

Fortunately, while H. L. Mencken once described a judge as “a law student who marks his own examination papers,” our system allows for appellate review, and few judges would give such decisions a passing grade. The fact is, such a judicially constructed case would be effectively dead before it could be properly captioned for docketing. The problem is that Flynn would be left twisting in the wind as others use his case to make extraneous points.

I previously discussed how Michael Flynn has the curse of being useful. He was useful to investigate for officials like FBI special agent Peter Strzok, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and former FBI Director James Comey, though investigators found no underlying criminal conduct. He was useful to special counsel Robert Mueller, even though the same investigators apparently did not believe he intentionally lied to them. He now is useful to a court that seems intent on staging a criminal case of its own making.

Of course, at some point, when Flynn stops being so useful, justice might be served with the dismissal of this abusive case.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley

48 thoughts on “The Flynn Court Drifts Dangerously Outside Judicial Navigational Beacons”

  1. OK, I have rewritten and edited my Legal Opus on the group of highly-esteemed legal minds supporting Judge Sullivan. Sir Laurence Tribe leads the pack of attention-seeking legal whores, and frankly, he is beginning to remind me of William Jennings Bryan, at the Scopes Monkey Trial. Speaking of monkeys, their brief is proof of that theory that if you sit and infinite number of monkeys down at an infinite number of typewriters, you can end up with an Amicus Brief that sucks as badly as this one does!
    ———–
    OK, sooo Sir Laurence Tribe and some other eminent Legal Kleagles came out with an Amicus Brief, and what a Total Failure! Here is the link:

    https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Amicus-Barr-Flynn-Draft-5-22-20-final-final.pdf

    What a laugher of a Brief! Dang near half the 28 pages are blurbs describing what a bunch of high legal mucky-mucks the authors are. Like Laurence Tribe who has become a DNC whore-for-hire.

    Here’s one huge whopper from that brief! Footnote 7: “The D.C. Circuit’s decision in Fokker Services supplies no authority for the government’s motion to dismiss; it involved a deferred prosecution agreement rather than a guilty plea (let alone two).

    Wow, talk about some conclusory argumentation! Believe it or not, that is all the Legal Brainiacs thought necessary to dismiss Fokker! What a hoot! They lay out a bunch of wordage about “separation of powers”, and then when it comes to the case that overrules a district judge tryomh yfor exactly that reason – separation of powers – what do these Einsteins of the Bar write??? Pretty much, “It don’t apply!” and off they go!

    What a kewl trick to dispose of a case that straddles the straits of your argument like the Colossus of Roads,( Who was actually next to a harbor, not a road. 🙂 ).

    Criminy, when a mere slip-of–a-girl part time legal assistant can spot something like that, it looks me like these goobers are being overpaid. But I guess we aren’t supposed to see that once we know what a bunch of high-powered of shysters they are! Perhaps we are supposed to be sooo impressed by WHO they are, that we forget WHAT their argument is, or more precisely, WHAT their argument wasn’t.

    But not to worry! These Judicial Jerkoffs have a good case to back them up! The 1872 SCOTUS case of U.S. v. Klein! Which seemed confusing since it dealt with ex-Confederates, so I went to tat quick legal website, wikipedia, and found this:
    ————–

    “In 1871, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1870 statute was unconstitutional and that Congress had exceeded its power by invading the province of the judicial branch by prescribing the rule of decision in a particular cause. The Court also ruled that Congress had impermissibly infringed the power of the executive branch by limiting the effect of a Presidential pardon.

    Broadly speaking, Klein stands for the proposition that the legislative branch cannot impair the exclusive powers of another branch. Put another way, Klein recognizes and supports the fundamental value of separation of powers defined by the Constitution. Specifically, Klein means that Congress may not direct the outcome of a case by prescribing the rule of decision, nor may Congress impair the power and effect of a Presidential pardon. Read more broadly, Klein suggests, but does not state, that Congress may not use the Exceptions Clause to cripple the Court’s ability to be the final arbiter of what the Constitution means; this conclusion is strengthened by the Court’s holdings in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, and especially Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Klein
    ————–
    Hmmm. So to support a “separation of powers” argument against the Good DOJ dismissing a case, they find an 1872 SCOTUS case involving the legislative branch usurping judicial power. Okay, so that is interesting, but how come that is one of the cases they use, when they got a perfectly good case from a Federal Appeals Court called Fokker, that is a whole bunch more recent and which deals exactly precisely the issue at bar??? Oh, that’s right! Because Fokker don’t apply because, well, it don’t apply!

    And what else does this Kiddy Klub forget to talk about??? Here’s a hint! It is the same number as there are states in the continental U.S. And it is a rule. Of criminal procedure. In Federal court. Give up??? They must have too, because they forgot to bring it up in any meaningful way. Sooo, I will:
    ———–

    Rule 48. Dismissal

    (a) By the Government. The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant’s consent.
    ————
    Now they make a big effing deal about it being too late for the case to be dismissed, arguing that it is now like a game of Sorry or Parchesi where once a man makes it “Home”, he can’t be brought back onto the board.

    But Rule 48 don’t say that. It don’t make no time schedules. Oh Contraire! It recognizes the right of the Prosecution to dismiss the whole dang complaint. Sooo, I wonder how come this high-powered bunch didn’t bother to get into all that???

    And speaking of Rule 48, OH! If there was only a SCOTUS case to tell us what “leave of court” means in the rule. Well, there is, and it is called Rinaldi v. Unioted States. It was a SCOTUS case and it even told us what “leave of the court” means in Rule 48. Which, Tribe makes a stab at:

    “In order to grant the government’s motion under Rule 48(a), this Court must make an independent determination that dismissal would be in the “public interest”and issue an order to that effect. Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S.22, 29, n. 15 (1977)(citing United States v. Ammidown, 497 F.2d 615, 620 (D.C. Cir. 1973)).”

    No, that is not what Rinaldi holds at all. In fact, Rinaldi hold that the “leave of court” language is PROTECT THE DEFENDANT. The GOP State Ags cited this case too, with all its implications that are inconvenient to the Tribe Crew: Here it is from their brief:

    “So it is perhaps unsurprising that the Supreme Court, in describing the purpose of the leave-of-court requirement, explained that the requirement was never intended to be used to override the government’s decision not to prosecute. “The principal object of the ‘leave of court’ requirement,” the Court explained, was “apparently to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment, e.g., charging, dismissing, and recharging, when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant’s objection.” Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 29 n.15 (1977). In other words, the rule exists to stop the government from prosecuting a defendant in an abusive manner. Applied that way, the rule is consistent with the judicial role: it gives courts a negative power to stop abusive prosecutions that are “clearly contrary tomanifest public inter-est,” United States v. Pimentel, 932 F.2d 1029, 1033 n.5 (2d Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d 504, 513 (5th Cir. 1975)),but it does not confer a positive power to compel prosecutions.”

    And speaking of Rules, the Rules of Criminal Procedure is Plural! There is more than one rule sitting out there. How about we revisit Tribe’s argument that once the case is set for sentencing, the Prosecution is out of it.

    They sort of make a line of demarcation and say that once the case has entered the sentencing phase, the Prosecutors are SOL. But they present no real legal basis for imposing this time restraint. They have imagined it up in the same conclusory manner in which they dismissed Fokker. They sort of scoot away from anything like having a final, signed order, or an actual sentence, and all that sort of inconvenient truth. Because there is Rule of Federal Criminal Procedure that addresses the whole sentencing thing, Rule 32. Specifically, Rule 32(I) to wit;
    ——–
    i) Sentencing.

    (1) In General. At sentencing, the court:

    (A) must verify that the defendant and the defendant’s attorney have read and discussed the presentence report and any addendum to the report;

    (B) must give to the defendant and an attorney for the government a written summary of—or summarize in camera—any information excluded from the presentence report under Rule 32(d)(3) on which the court will rely in sentencing, and give them a reasonable opportunity to comment on that information;

    (C) must allow the parties’ attorneys to comment on the probation officer’s determinations and other matters relating to an appropriate sentence; and

    (D) may, for good cause, allow a party to make a new objection at any time before sentence is imposed.</b)

    (2) Introducing Evidence; Producing a Statement. The court may permit the parties to introduce evidence on the objections. If a witness testifies at sentencing, Rule 26.2(a)–(d) and (f) applies. If a party fails to comply with a Rule 26.2 order to produce a witness's statement, the court must not consider that witness's testimony.

    (3) Court Determinations. At sentencing, the court:

    (A) may accept any undisputed portion of the presentence report as a finding of fact;

    (B) must—for any disputed portion of the presentence report or other controverted matter—rule on the dispute or determine that a ruling is unnecessary either because the matter will not affect sentencing, or because the court will not consider the matter in sentencing; and

    (C) must append a copy of the court's determinations under this rule to any copy of the presentence report made available to the Bureau of Prisons.

    (4) Opportunity to Speak.

    (A) By a Party. Before imposing sentence, the court must:

    (i) provide the defendant’s attorney an opportunity to speak on the defendant’s behalf;

    (ii) address the defendant personally in order to permit the defendant to speak or present any information to mitigate the sentence; and

    (iii) provide an attorney for the government an opportunity to speak equivalent to that of the defendant’s attorney.

    (B) By a Victim. Before imposing sentence, the court must address any victim of the crime who is present at sentencing and must permit the victim to be reasonably heard.

    (C) In Camera Proceedings. Upon a party’s motion and for good cause, the court may hear in camera any statement made under Rule 32(i)(4). –
    ——
    So does all this sound to you like the whole Court process has come to a screeching halt PRIOR TO SENTENCING like the Amici argue? To such a screeching halt and bright line that the Prosecution can no longer dismiss the complaint?

    Nope, in fact Rule 32 provides all manner of chance for further input, and I have bolded some of it for you. So for Flynn, we are still at a point PRIOR to the sentencing hearing. And yet, the Amici brief argues that NOPE, the process is dead now for the Defendant and the Prosecution. Based on what??? Nothing. They pretty much just holler “separation of powers” and never connect it all up, and try to ignore Fokker, Rinaldi, and the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

    In short, this brief is probably proof that committees should not write briefs. I mean this is the kind of legal argumententation thatt one might expect from One L’s. Who, I bet actually wrote this bunch of drivel. The authors ought to be hiding their faces in shame. But they probably won’t! They are too busy eating cake in an Ivory Tower and getting awards for being sooo smart.

    ———–
    You are welcome! I read this mind-rot so you guys did not have to!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  2. On what planet would this be justice, where the prosecutor desires to drop the case because of prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant agrees, but the judge wants to force the case to continue?

    Once again, someone in a position of power and authority is abusing it in order to strike out at a Trump target, in this case, General Flynn.

    The government has done enough wrong to the man. Apologize sincerely and let him go.

    1. Karen, the “prosecuots(s)” did not desire to drop the case, a political appointee already known to try and intervene in another case for the interests of his boss and crony, is intervening in this one, and possibly for the same reason. No one on the prosecution team or in the line DOJ would sign the motion. If you read this abstract and accompanying study you’ll see that it was exactly this type of situation which led to the writing of the oft mentioned Rule 48.

      https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3599674

      1. Why do you keep on pumping the Rule 48 argument when even Litman didn’t touch it. Besides that:

        When Good DOJ pulls the Bad Prosecutors off Flynn, you think that should be investigated. And is cronyism. In spite of the fact that a subsequent INVESTIGATION is why Good DOJ has dismissed.

        When Biden forces the Bad Prosecutor off his son’s employer, Burisma, you do not think should be investigated. And is not cronyism.

        Nope, you are a shill for the DNC.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

  3. Both the FBI, and now some members of the Court have become weaponized to strike out at the Trump administration, and those associated with it, for political purposes.

    General Flynn was wronged.

    Justice should be blind to politics, but it is not.

  4. Juxtaposition: Professor Turley – Alexander Hamilton
    __________________________________________

    “The Flynn Court Drifts Dangerously Outside Judicial Navigational Beacons”

    – Professor Turley
    _______________

    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “…men…may…not…[do]…what their powers do not authorize, [or] what they forbid.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

  5. Hate does terrible damage to the mind and then it spreads in a ripple effect to others which can cause immense damage, we see this with Judge Sullivan and his quest to promote his own power.

  6. We all know Flynn never lied to the FBI, so we don’t care what the corrupt prosecution, the corrupt court, the corrupt judge, the corrupt democrats, and their corrupt whining amounts to, including any and all Flynn corrupt I swear it lies.
    Justice is the FBI, the DOJ, Sullivan the also corrupt and in cahoots with the prosecution, the Obama administration, Schiff and other members of Congress, the corrupt MSM, and many various attaches to the matter being removed from any of their remaining posts, indicted, jailed with no bail after the mandatory swat raids, entire homes and offices ransacked as is the usual case, then the most rabid right wing ideologues sicked upon them in farmed judicial courts and special counsels and flyover courts to be certain the most severe punishments are meted out with extra vision and twisted excuses and theories.
    After all, things should be fair on both sides.

  7. “”Sullivan then gave Flynn a menacing choice: “I cannot assure you that if you proceed today, you will not receive a sentence of incarceration. … I’m not hiding my disgust, my disdain.” ”

    Professor,

    Anyone familiar with the “wrongful conviction” business in the US knows that such threats are, in spirit, if not specifically, common in US courts.

    They often take the form of a judge offering something such as this: “if you don’t take the deal the prosecutor is offering you, and you come into **my** court and get convicted at trial, you are going away for a long time”…as if any court belongs to anyone *other* than “the people” (well, in practice they do not belong to “the people” but that is the point of my rant).

    It has long ago gotten so alice-in-wonderlandish”, that evidence of innocence often/usually means less than nothing in today’s “justice ” business, especially on appeal, where a whole matter can end up taking years if not decades, limping along at the whims of black robed people who long ago fell in love with wearing robes, rather than loving what they are supposed to represent.

    I admire what you are doing and saying about the Flynn matter. Indeed, I literally wonder if sullivan has some serious emotional issues…and began to suspect as much when he made such in appropriately vitriolic statements about Flynn. In a way, and to stretch the point, he is acting like a psychiatrist that ends up hating his own clients.

    Otherwise, I cannot imagine what he expects to gain by all this, even if he no longer cares about justice…if he ever did.

    But, respectfully, there is one more important point is to be made here beyond all the good ones you have been making. That is, that even if one is wrongfully convicted of a crime in america, it is very easy to get ensnared in the system and ending up buried because people such as sullivan see power, maneuvering to maintain it, arrogance and an inappropriate disdain for defendants, rather than a quest for justice, as the point of it all.

    After all, look what is happening in this case, which is under a huge microscope now, and compare it to what happens to “nobodies” who run out of money to defend themselves, etc., etc.

    IOW, and beyond sad to say, it is not a stretch to wonder if sullivan represents the state of the art, much more than he does not.

    In your admirable desire to dissect the Flynn matter as you have so wonderfully done, I hope you won’t forget to make the point that the disease sullivan has, has long ago infected much of the entire system.

    neil

    1. What kind of corrupt fool allows any of this proceed without the original 302 ?
      I mean from the very beginning.
      No original 302, no case.
      The entire system has lost track of this, the simplest of the obvious corners of justice.

      1. Not only that, but a text trail admitting that an agent not even in the room with the interview materially altered it.

        Will anyone be held to account?

  8. The summary of this judge’s behavior is appalling. He should have recused himself early in the process because he was not only biased but tainted in his hatred for Flynn. You have to wonder with whom he was socializing given his absurd and disgusting comments I have to believe that the judge was cavorting with the rest of the cabal – Brennan, Shiff, Comey, Obama, Holder, Rice, Powers, etc. to so blantantly abuse his power this way.

  9. Democrat corruption has reached a proportion that makes the word “epic” seem like a synonym for “Lilliputian”.

  10. Paul Mirengoff has noted in a recent Power Line blog that perhaps Judge Sullivan is simply aggravated (“pissed off”) because Flynn either lied to the FBI or to the Judge himself. There is some wisdom to that.

    1. The original FBI interviewers and subsequent reviewers found Flynn didn’t lie. It’s just silly to argue he lied to the judge by agreeing to a plea bargain.

      1. The original 302 is “still missing”, so judgement in the court cannot be properly made. Period.
        The clown world is full blown and bathing amidst inglorious ignorance.

    2. That happens regularly in courts all across this country at every level. Municipal, county, state, and federal. The only thing that makes this “different’ is that the media is involved.

  11. Judge Sullivan seems intent on making a strong case for his own impeachment. He is a disgrace to his position and while he may have been a fine jurist at some time in the past, it is time for him to go.
    I see that the Appeals Court has given him till June 1 to justify his failure to dismiss. I e pect an order of Mandamus shortly thereafter.
    What is wrong with these people like Sillivan?

  12. Sullivan is running up Flynn’s attorney bills and should be personally responsible for it at this point. Sullivan has over reached and I hope is going to get spanked by the DC Circuit.

    1. That would be nice. I think they tend to look after their own.

      One possibility that Turley hasn’t alluded to in re Sullivan is early-stage dementia. Do you remember Prof. Jeffrey Hart? He was a literary scholar at Dartmouth College, on the masthead at National Review, and a peripheral figure in Republican politics. (He was a speechwriter for Richard Nixon and held some minor position in the Reagan Administration having to do with the National Humanities Center, IIRC). In 2004, he endorses John Kerry (followed by endorsements of Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012) and begins chowing down on conspiracy literature while at the same time writing specious articles for The American Conservative making the ‘Burkean’ case for voting Democratic. It all seemed quite puzzling. Then, he fell silent. At his death in 2019, his family admitted he was suffering from “advanced dementia’. A tour of Alzheimer’s lasting 15 years is atypically long, but not so long as to count as a statistical outlier.

      We’re confronting this problem in our household now. At the time the subject was diagnosed, family members had been noticing troublesome behavior for > 3 years. The man in question was a professional; and his practice revenue had begun to decline precipitously a half-dozen years prior to that, so I’m guessing his clients noticed something before his relatives did.

      1. DSS – sorry to hear about your relative. I have a friend whose father is 103 and been dealing with dementia since he was 95. He is staying in a lovely facility about a mile from me where no one can visit him. He is healthy as hell. 😉

  13. JUDGE SULLIVAN is a member of the Trump Haters – he lost his way- now the DC Circuit Court will lead him to Dismiss the case- in the end Judge Sullivan has ruined his good name and allowed the Trump Haters and misguided legal ideas into the court which DC Circuit will throw out.

    JUDGE SULLIVAN you should RESIGN/RETIRE NOW

    1. currency, most Americans and most humans hate Trump, so it’s a good chance he does. Better than 50-50. However, the idea in a democracy is that we abide by laws and standards, not cult status in administering the law and operating the government. Hopefully that is what Sullivan will do, and nothing he has done so far indicates otherwise.

      1. Most Americans want to shoot people like you because you undermine our nation. You hide behind sockpuppets whilst spewing anarchy and hate. Thus your end is near and knowing your ilk, you wouldnt dare take a bullet for your cause because you have no cause other than just anarchy.

        Lucky for you we are armed and are chomping at the trigger if only you stopped hiding.

        No offense. All is fair in war.

        😘

        1. Does it concern you that your goofy rhetoric is almost identical to that spread by foreign enemy propaganda to weaken and tear our nation apart?

  14. Pamela Landy: “You start down this path, where does it end?”
    Noah Vosen: “It ends when we’ve won.”
    (Scene from The Bourne Ultimatum when dirty CIA guy Vosen issues a kill order on Bourne and Nicky Parsons)
    The Flynn Ultimatum is a perfect case of life imitating art, in a bad way. But 20 years ago when the first Bourne movie came out, the public, left, right, and center, were on Bourne’s side. Now, the most vocal part of America is on the side of the dirty cops and the dirty judge.
    This whole thing is a national humiliation. We have put ourselves on the same level as North Korea and China.

  15. Prominent law faculty have for 40 odd years been arguing in all seriousness that the Constitution prohibits states from regulating abortion and, presto chango, does not allow then to enact and administer conventional matrimonial law either. Get it through your head: your “colleagues” are frauds, and they’re projecting their essential mendacity on you among others.

  16. Plus, if Flynn is guilty of perjury, for saying that he lied to the Court about being guilty, then he is INNOCENT of lying to the FBI. Why would the Court, or the Democrats, want to punish an Innocent man???

    Think about it!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    * This is a twist on the Logic Puzzle:

    A logic problem: What question should the princess ask?

    A princess visits an island inhabited by two tribes. Members of one tribe always tell the truth, and members of the other tribe always lie.

    The princess comes to a fork in the road. She needs to know which road leads to the castle so as to avoid the fire-breathing dragon and rescue the prince from the wizard holding him captive in the castle. (Although the princess doesn’t know it, the south road leads to the castle and the north road leads to the dragon.)

    Standing at this fork in the road is a member of each tribe, but the princess can’t tell which tribe each belongs to. What question should she ask to find the road to the castle?

    http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.liar.html

    ** – Yes, I was that Fair Princess, and I obviously figured it out and avoided the Dragon! And, I am living happily ever after! Thank you for asking!

    1. if Flynn is guilty of perjury, for saying that he lied to the Court about being guilty, then he is INNOCENT of lying to the FBI.
      _______________________________________________________________________

      First of all nobody can lie to the court about being guilty. Everybody is entitled to their own personal belief on whether someone is guilty or not.

      Flynn previously swore under oath to the judge that a statement of facts that described the FBI interview was true and correct under penalty of perjury. Now he is saying that statement of facts is not true and correct. So was Flynn lying before or is he lying now?

      If Flynn is now telling the truth about the facts of the case then that means the DOJ has been lying to the judge for 2 years about the facts of the case.
      Don’t you think the judge is entitled to maintain law and order in his own courtroom?
      Or do you think it is OK for prosecutors to bring fraudulent cases and the judge as no recourse to prevent it from happening in his courtroom?

      1. Silly person! If Judge Sullivan wanted to hold the Bad DOJ actors to account, he could dismiss Flynn, as required by law, and issue a Show Cause Order to the DOJ for the bad actors.

        No, Sullivan is not delaying things for “justice” – he is delaying things because he has an open animus against Flynn!

        Now, go crawl back into your bottle, even though it is too early to be drinking.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. If Judge Sullivan wanted to hold the Bad DOJ actors to account, he could dismiss Flynn, as required by law
          ________________________________________________________________
          Then the case is closed and there is no opportunity to do anything including determining whether the DOJ has withheld exculpatory evidence.

          The judge has to first address the question was Flynn lying before or is he lying now.

          ___________________________________________________________________
          Sullivan is not delaying things for “justice” – he is delaying things because he has an open animus against Flynn!
          ________________________________________________________________
          You base that solely on your obvious animus for the judge.
          It is also obvious that you have no idea what the judge will do.

    2. As I pointed out to you the other day (but mistakenly clicked on “post comment” without entering my name, so it posted as “Anonymous”), Flynn has made many statements under penalty of perjury, not just statements about whether he was guilty or innocent of “lying to the FBI.” It’s entirely possible for him to be guilty of lying under penalty of perjury without it being a case of “[lying] to the Court about being guilty.” Your conclusion is unfounded, and if you’re aiming for honest discussion, you’ll stop making this argument.

      Maybe you should read some of the many other statements Flynn has made under penalty of perjury, such as those in his 1/29/20 declaration and his 12/18/18 sentencing conference.

      1. Everything you just said makes no difference. There was ONE count of fibbing to the FBI before the Court, and that is ALL the Court has before it and that is ALL it can deal with. Perhaps Flynn is a horrible person who writes off his used undies as a charitable deduction, but guess what? That ain’t before the Court.

        So, STFU! You don’t have a clue what you are talking about!

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. “that is ALL the Court has before it and that is ALL it can deal with”

          That’s false. Judge Sullivan even specified relevant law to bringing an additional charge of perjury: “amicus curiae shall address whether the Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 401, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42, the Court’s inherent authority, and any other applicable statutes, rules, or controlling law.”

          Whether Flynn lied to the court in his declarations to the court is indeed one of the things before the court.

          “So, STFU!”

          RME. You sound a little triggered, that you’d respond so strongly to being challenged. Look, I get it: you don’t like me pointing out your erroneous reasoning, but adults should be able to deal with things they don’t like without plugging their ears and telling the other person to shut up.

Leave a Reply