It Is Time To Dismiss The Flynn Case

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the sentencing hearing of former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Unfortunately, in the hearing, Judge Emmet Sullivan fulfilled the expectations of the D.C. Circuit panel that ordered him to dismiss the charge without further delay. That decision was reversed en banc but only because the court decided (as many of us argued) that Sullivan should be allowed to issue a final decision before an appellant review of his handling of the case. The en banc court did not rule in favor of his controversial comments or orders. Yet, in the hearing, Sullivan declared “Suffice it to say, the case was remanded to me by the en banc court.” As argued below, the law is clear and, suffice it to say, Sullivan will be reversed if he follows the advice of John Gleeson.  Instead, Sullivan announced that he still “has questions” and indicated that he is not prepared to issue a final decision after two years.  Instead, he repeated the words of Gleeson as virtual fact like an alter ego. This is moving from the cathartic to the tragic. The Court is not just prolonging the inevitable for the ruling but the trauma for the defendant. Flynn should have been sentenced years ago and the charges dismissed months ago. A defendant should not be a vehicle of the court to express displeasure or satisfy its curiosity on public controversies. The court knows that it would be almost certainly reversed if it follows the advice of its self-appointed quasi-prosecutor Gleeson. Instead, it is continuing to refuse to rule while using the case to ask more questions about the internal decision-making at the Justice Department.

Here is column:

When Michael Flynn heads to court for his final sentencing hearing today, a lifetime of respected national service will hang in the balance on what is said and done. I am not talking about Flynn but of Judge Emmet Sullivan. There is no issue over the dismissal of the charge of Flynn lying to federal investigators. The only issue is whether, just before an election, Sullivan will use the hearing as a forum for injudicious commentary.

I have practiced law for years before Sullivan and praised him for his demeanor and record as a judge. He has served with distinction since 1994 in cases ranging from Guantanamo Bay detainees to the flawed prosecution of Ted Stevens to the emails of Hillary Clinton.

Then came the case of Flynn, who was charged with a single count of lying to federal investigators. Such a charge ordinarily would result in a short sentencing hearing. Flynn fought the charge but, after exhausting his assets and facing threats by prosecutors to target his son, he agreed to plead to one count. Even the uncooperative witness like Alex Van Der Zwaan received only 30 days in prison on a similar charge related to the investigation by former special counsel Robert Mueller.

Yet this is the third attempt at sentencing for Flynn, as what should have been the simple hearing two years ago was derailed by Sullivan himself. Both Flynn and the prosecutors believed they would have a perfunctory hearing and a likely sentence without jail time. After all, this was just one count, and Flynn pleaded guilty, then met with Mueller about 20 times as a cooperative witness. Furthermore, we know federal investigators at the time did not believe Flynn intentionally lied to them. Yet when Flynn went to court, he was given a scolding rather than a sentence.

Using the flag in court as a prop, Sullivan falsely accused Flynn of being an “unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser” who sold his country out. Sullivan even suggested Flynn should have been charged with treason, then suggested he might ignore any recommendations and send Flynn to jail when he declared, “I cannot assure you that if you proceed today, you will not receive a sentence of incarceration. I am not hiding my disgust and my disdain.”

Sullivan apologized for some of his comments, but the hearing led to a critical delay. During that time, new evidence emerged that cast further doubt on the investigation of Flynn, including the material showing that FBI agents wanted to close the case in 2016 due to lack of evidence. The investigation was kept open at the insistence of fired FBI special agent Peter Strzok, who showed intense animus for President Trump.

We also know that former FBI director James Comey told President Obama that conversations Flynn had with Russians as incoming national security adviser appeared legitimate. These and other revelations correctly led the Justice Department to seek dismissal of the charge. There is an ongoing investigation and various experts, including myself, have argued that the investigation and charge in the case of Flynn were flawed.

The law on this is clear and overwhelming. Sullivan should have dismissed the charge months ago. Instead, he again took a controversial position. He not only suggested he might charge Flynn himself, with criminal conduct for contesting his guilty plea, but he hired a former judge to argue against any dismissal. Enlisting such a third party to argue for prosecution is very unusual and deeply troubling. Sullivan seemed to be claiming the right to mete out his own version of justice with a criminal charge from the bench and an outsider playing the role of another prosecutor.

Sullivan chose John Gleeson, who has spoken about the case of Flynn and is also a critic of Trump. Gleeson was reversed as a judge for usurping the position of federal prosecutors in a case that involved a bank, in which the Second Circuit knocked him for magnifying his role in a way that “would be to turn the presumption of regularity on its head.” Gleeson filed a brief calling for the court to reject the motion and order the jailing of someone who prosecutors maintained was not properly charged.

His brief was filled with heated rhetoric and attacks on the “accusation of government misconduct.” It drew a sharp rebuke from an appellate panel for relying “on news stories, tweets, and other facts outside the record to contrast the government grounds for dismissal here with its rationales for prosecution in other cases.” The appellate panel held that time was up for Sullivan in the case of Flynn because “we need not guess if this irregular and searching scrutiny will continue” as “it already has.”

After that opinion, many predicted the full appellate court would reverse, not because of any discord on the law but because Sullivan must be given the chance to do the right thing. He had not made a final ruling and, while making note of the clear law in this issue, the panel should not have taken that decision away from him. There remains no doubt as to the outcome of this case. Sullivan either will dismiss this charge or be reversed by the same court that sent it back to him for a final ruling.

But as if determined to prove the panel right, Gleeson responded with another brief arguing the government position is evidence of “a corrupt and politically motivated favor unworthy of our justice system.” Gleeson still is arguing against overwhelming case law and advocating a certain reversal for Sullivan by convicting a person of a federal crime who the government maintains was improperly charged.

That is why the reputation of Sullivan instead of Flynn is at stake in this hearing. He can follow the law dispassionately and dismiss this charge without gratuitous commentary. Or he can use the hearing to lash out at the administration and the defendant just before an election. Many of us have already criticized the handling of this case. Others were thrilled by the comments from the bench. Those who reversed the panel did not do so in approval of handling of the case or prior orders.

Their opinion was a model of objective analysis, citing the need for a final ruling from Sullivan regardless of the controversies. I respect Sullivan and hope he brings an end to this cathartic record which has lasted two years. The law here is clear, and it is time for a decision that was never in serious doubt. It is time to dismiss the criminal case against Flynn.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.

257 thoughts on “It Is Time To Dismiss The Flynn Case”

  1. Sullivan is an Obama pawn. Obama and the Deep State hates Flynn for exposing US support of Syrian jihadis (including ISIS) when Flynn led the DIA… this is just another Obama vendetta.

  2. Guilty is guilty and once Guilty there is no reversal possible. From a viable unborn child to one born with no age limit to sentenced to what’s left of life in an old folks home or shelter the there is there cannot be found any reason to reverse any verdict regardless and then having your property stripped from kith and kin or assigns by death taxes as ‘found’ like it was buried under the old oak tree generationis ago.

    1. Your first sentence is patently untrue.
      Rule 11. Pleas
      (d) Withdrawing a Guilty or Nolo Contendere Plea. A defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere:
      (2) after the court accepts the plea, but before it imposes sentence if:
      (B) the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal

      Your second sentence appears to be created by a random word generator. I’ve read it forwards and backwards, it’s incomprehensible.

  3. I am certain that Powell is committing serious fraud, including in efforts to illegally mis-appropriate military assets through her representation of Flynn to cover up for MASSIVE crime committed by the Texas Insurance Commission. The Texas Insurance Commission, and especially Board of Insurance Commissioners (whose head is named Sullivan), has been in default for over a year now on its report on a request for investigation connected to acts of human trafficking (including the adult daughter of a former career member of the USMC who was investigating racketeering and “fraud”) as it uses OTHER cases as a means by which to create derivatives on the MICHAEL Flynn case. I believe a special Motion I sent TO THE COURT in the Flynn case in April of 2020 to attempt to bring awareness to these concerns was obstructed and disabused; I represent myself pro se. There are also concerns regarding private ventures of Flynn’s that I believe people who were in public office in Texas intended to manipulate for themselves, specifically ones that would require access to a “polygraph operators license” and qualify for the as-of 2017 newly designated “behavioral analysts license.” I contend the “licensing” scam in Texas is worse that it was in Illinois. The “fraud” claim of concern regarded KIDNAPPING under the auspices of “medical treatment” in March of 2017 and sabotaging attempts for certification in techniques used for industrial inspection. This is part of a much larger public corruption conspiracy.

  4. The subject of this post is the Flynn case. When you can’t think of a counter argument just switch to another subject, i.e. coronavirus. Honest discussion of the subject at hand should be welcomed by all. Obviscation is a dishonest and deplorable tactic.

    1. There is no counter argument. Just as coercion does not make being forced to sign an oath of office brought about by the draft laws the same is true for being forced to confess to a crime one didn’t commit. The difference is no one forced Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer and the rest to falsely sign and oath of office and in doing violate it four times. That is where the SQUAT is correct. The crime was Pelosi’s to seat them as valid members. Hers and hers alone.

  5. I am rereading the Gulag Archapeligo by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Why did he compare the Russian concentration camps to a chain of islands. At the time many isolated islands were not yet discovered. His book is important because it was the first to expose these concentration camps to the rest of the world. He reveals that one of the most effective tactics to extract confessions from the prisoners was to threaten charging their wives, sons, and daughters and to subject them to the same tortures they were experiencing. They pled guilty to protect their families. There have been no denials to this tactic by the investigators in the Flynn case. Chilling that this could be happening in the United States of America. Even more chilling is people explaining “He pled guilty didn’t he”. I’m sure that when the jailers in Russia were confronted with their acts in the concentration camps their response was “He pled guilty didn’t he”.

  6. Viva Frei, Fred Barnes, and Nate The Lawyer talk about the insane Flynn hearing[from 1:10:00 – 1:50:00]:

  7. This letter has over 1600 signatories:

    “DOJ Alumni Open Letter on Protecting Free and Fair Elections

    “We, the undersigned, are alumni of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) who have collectively served both Republican and Democratic administrations. Each of us took an oath to defend the Constitution and pursue the evenhanded administration of justice free from partisan consideration.

    “Many of us have spoken out in previous statements, motivated by an ongoing concern that President Trump and Attorney General Barr are weaponizing the DOJ in the service of Trump’s personal interests, thereby doing grave damage to the rule of law, to the foundational principle that the law should be applied equally to all Americans, and to the DOJ’s institutional credibility as an independent law enforcement agency.

    “We speak out again now because we fear that Attorney General Barr intends to use the DOJ’s vast law enforcement powers to undermine our most fundamental democratic value: free and fair elections. …”

    1. I hope Trump and Barr finally do something with the DOJ. Are party that is willing to burn cities down to try to influence an election isn’t going to be hesitant to engage in massive voter fraud and, frankly, they appear to be preparing for it any way they can.

    2. I claim these alleged DOJ signatories are in fact collectively exercising their own personal political interests. They have pretense when they pretend they do not. The pretense is false. Where we they when the winner of the 2016 election went through hell and high water for his whole term defending his victory against an illicit plot. I am sure some of them were actually participants. They are liars and we reject their false claim of goodwill and authority

      PS I guarantee Pheet Barfara has his peculiar name on that list. I couldnt find the list when I tried but you can bet Peculiar Peet Barfara is on it. formerly of SDNY

      1. It’s an absurd list that just shows how partisan the bureaucracy has become. It’s not surprising anymore that large swaths of official Washington are working to undermine a duly elected president.

        1. None of them are current DOJ employees and I bet that most aren’t in DC. How are they “official Washington” and “the bureaucracy”?

          1. What are they pretending to be to have authority on these issues? They are not a collection of ordinary citizens. They are claiming to have weight because of their careers, experiences and contacts and some of them probably do.

            1. Based on CTDHD there are 1,600 signatures from attorneys and possibly some others that have worked at the DOJ since the Eisenhower administration (includes law clerks and others). The total number is massive and only 1,600 signed. That means that hundreds of thousands didn’t sign. One would bet that a good number of them were asked to sign.

    3. “DOJ Alumni Open Letter on Protecting Free and Fair Elections”

      – Needs To Be Committed

      “Deep Deep State Functionaries and Sycophants Lonely Hearts Club Open Letter On Protecting Affirmative Action, Entitlements, Benefits and Various and Sundry Other ‘Free Stuff’ For the Takers”

    4. (over 1600 and you could nto bring yourself to mention one of them? With all that space you wasted?) As usual for the far left no facts no sources no credence REJECTED.

  8. Professor so why do you have respect for a judge that has gone off the reservation, injected himself into a case that the law clearly forbids. I on the other had think this Judge is more corrupt than a rusty pipe and I think the Appeals Court acted in a partisan fashion under the guise of letting the Judge rule on this case. By the time it got to the enbanc court it was obvious that Sullivan was playing games with a citizens life. Shame on the court. If you know of another case were a District Judge hired a former district judge to argue for prosecution please let me and everyone else know!!!

    1. Shoot all robocallers, and I wish someone would find those people trying to renew my car warranty.

    2. ha ha I admire the chutzpah of those persecutors bringing an audacious case like that which is 100% likely to fail on first amendment grounds

  9. There are no issues of law here other than for Sullivan to follow the law and dismiss the case. Sullivan is engaging in anti-Trump election politics. He has been hoping that Trump would look bad by making the political mistake of pardoning Flynn Good for Ms. Powell to take that off the table of the impetuous Trump..

  10. If the ‘ Flynn case ‘ were to be finally laid to rest, does that open the door to other avenues/questions of the persecution/investigation of Trump at the same time ??

    1. Keeping the case going has actually lead to many revelations…many doors have been opened. It has also brought much needed attention to this travesty of justice. Now it’s time to bring prosecutions against the perps.

  11. Turley claims: “When Michael Flynn heads to court for his final sentencing hearing today, a lifetime of respected national service will hang in the balance on what is said and done. I am not talking about Flynn but of Judge Emmet Sullivan. There is no issue over the dismissal of the charge of Flynn lying to federal investigators.”

    If there were NO issue, then why is leave of Court required before the case can be dismissed? Cite to us, Turley, the statute you claim REQUIRES the Judge to grant dismissal. You can’t, because there isn’t one. Just like the situation in a criminal case in which the prosecution and defense agree to a plea bargain, despite the fact that the parties both agree to the plea, the Court may still refuse to approve it. This happens all of the time, and it is usually because the Judge doesn’t think that the crime to which the Defendant is pleading is harsh enough. That’s because the Judge is a neutral, required by oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Everyone knows that Barr’s belated attempt to avoid having Trump pardon someone who not only pleaded guilty, but IS guilty, is politically-motivated. Flynn did lie, he pleaded guilty to doing so, and he deserves to pay the price. Oh, and today’s post by Turley, wherein he tries to justify Republicans’ “investigate the investigators” waste of resources, has no bearing on this matter. Politics should play no role in judicial decisions. (Someone should probably explain this to Coney-Barrett).

    1. I’ll cite the statute. It’s the Fourteenth amendment. If you went to law school as you say Natch then you would understand that it is integral to the adversarial process system is part of “equal protection” “fundamental fairness” and “due process” itself, that when the government moves to dismiss a case, the motion is HEREBY GRANTED.

      the way you talk, you may be either totally dishonest here, or, maybe you flunked constitutional law and criminal procedure. i guess some lawyers go through law school without ever even taking criminal procedure these days so maybe that was you. I won’t ask if you missed those questions on the bar exam or not. or maybe you are one of those law school grads who never even took the bar

      anyhow go read it. fourteenth amendment. it applies to flynn as much as you me — it applies to all of us big and small alike,.

      1. by the way., the theoretical underpinning for this is not only the fourteenth amendment but also the “separation of powers” doctrine implicit within the federal constitution and its three branches

        the government prosecutor BRINGS THE CASE. that is an EXECUTIVE FUNCTION. it also DISMISSES THEM at its own discretion

        article III JUDGES have a judicial function. when the government abandons the case it is elementary ELEMENTARY that the judge does not get to unpack the entire discretionary decision of the executive to try and second guess it.

        this whole case and perpetual discussion of it is a FARCE

        1. Ill add one more thing. Let all the hotshot Generals Like Flynn consider this. don’t think you are going to be treated fairly if you ever end up in front of a Democrat judge!

          Democrat Generals, and they’re out there, need to see this reality and seriously consider their “votes.” Hotshots, it may be your own scalp that you save in the end!

          Putting it differently, if the article III judge can abuse his powers so badly against a GENERAL, then you better believe they can all that much more easily abuse it against you and me

          The fake FBI investigation and harassment of the POTUS candidacy of Trump is an even bigger cautionary note in the same dismal song of corruption, foully and discordantly played out for all ears to hear which are not entirely tone-deaf!

          1. Respect Sullivan? Turley respects him because Turley is a hotshot too. A good one but a hotshot no less.

            I don’t respect Sullivan. To nobody flyover lawyers like me and there are tens of thousands of us out here,. Sullivan is a joke. I know Democrats who understand what a farce this is too. It is one of the most shameful episodes of tyrannical judicial abuse to ever stink up the federal court system in living memory.

            Now don’t count on many lawyers saying so under their real names. heck the bar has special rules to punish us just for criticizing judges. so here we are, writing under nom de plumes, calling a tyrant what he is.

            1. Jim the hope is what it always ways. There is no easy path in life except for the damned. Those who do not hang together will hang separately.

              Stick together, make good friends & family, stay healthy, get stronger, live to fight a new day

        2. “ when the government abandons the case it is elementary ELEMENTARY that the judge does not get to unpack the entire discretionary decision of the executive to try and second guess it.”

          Except judges can still seek more information before issuing a ruling, especially when there is a sudden reversal and the explanations are suspect.

          The full appeals court just reinforced that by overruling the three judge panel.

          1. no a month ago the full appeals court delayed the inevitable again. now it’s a month later not “just”

            if you were a defendant hanging around so many months after a court had dropped the case you would be tearing your eyes out

            my Gosh you people have no sympathy for the rights of an accused person. I have more sympathy for a common thug up on dope charges than you do for Flynn. And trust me I don’t like common thugs on dope charges. But if their case gets dropped they don’t have to wait month after month after month and see all this fiery drama delaying the inevitable. and if they did I would really feel badly for them

            Copme to think of it some days I don’t like Flynn much either. he was playing some kind of footsie with the odious Turkish regime. But, I have sympathy for him as a fellow American!

            1. [And trust me I don’t like common thugs on dope charges.]

              End the war on drugs. When somebody wants to drink some intoxicating alcohol, or smoke some intoxicating weed, it is NO business of the government to interfere.

              If a common thug is committing violence or theft, then charge the common thug with that. And if alcohol, or dope, or poppers, or whatever other intoxicant you care to consider was in the thug’s body, then STILL charge the thug only with violence or theft.

      2. How laughable that you attempt to justify anything that Trump or Barr, his fixer, does by citing the Constitution. I’ll ask again: if dismissal is required, then why are the parties required to get leave of Court?

        1. This isn’t a mystery…

          The defendant and the government *had* a dispute which was brought before the court. Even though both parties have agreed to drop the case, that still requires the judge to close the case as it is still technically ongoing in his court. This should be a mere formality, but Judge Sullivan has dragged the case on in order to determine the motives behind the DOJ’s requested dismissal. The DOJ and Powell have both demanded that the case be dismissed with prejudice which would stop the government from coming after Flynn again on this matter.

          1. The Judge can see and smell the brown stuff on Barr’s nose. It stinks, and so does the bullsh1t motion to dismiss.

            1. To not dismiss the case would be a violation of the Constitution. In our country, judges don’t get to usurp the role of the executive. The power to prosecute is vested solely in the executive. The appropriate check on this executive power is the power of the Congress to impeach followed by a trial in the Senate. They could impeach Barr, Trump, etc but that would be a mistake given what we know about the case. Personally, I would love for the Congress to give this case more attention…they definitely will not do this.

              I’m guessing Sullivan will dismiss the case without prejudice in order to try and force Trump to pardon Flynn.

            2. Here the only fecal smell is Natch’s breath because her words are always ejected like so much diarrhea of the mouth

            3. [The Judge can see and smell the brown stuff on Barr’s nose.]

              Just because the imaginary “brown stuff” you “see” on Barr’s nose apparently seems real to you, does not mean it exists except maybe in your mind, and then certainly it can not “stink.”

              But interesting to know that you think the law should be driven by IMAGINED “brown stuff” on people’s noses.

              I hope for your sake somebody does not imagine something bad about you in the future, and you become accused of imagined “brown stuff” proceedings, should your kind of “justice” system become the norm.

      3. Mr. Kurtz, you’re badly misinterpreting what the 14th amendment does in this case. the fourteenth amendment doesn’t automatically Grant Flynn a dismissal just because the government dropped the charges.

        “Due process” also involves the entire course of Flynn’s case according to law.

        Flynn did plea guilty and did so under penalty of perjury. Due process also involves the judge’s right to determine why the DOJ suddenly decided to drop the charges. He can’t just rubber stamp it as the entire appeals court pointed out.

        Due process also means Flynn has to go thru all the motions available to every party involved in the case and that includes the judge.

        Flynn’s 14th amendment right is not being infringed here. Your argument simply doesn’t hold up when you actually apply the law. That’s been the problem for Flynn and the DOJ. They are essentially trying to move the goalposts and force the referee to declare a goal. The referee still has the option of accepting the call or issuing a penalty. Here the ref is reviewing the replay of the act and reason for moving the goalposts. Those wishing to have the ref make the call still have to prove why it is a valid reason. So far they have not been able to convince the ref their request is valid.

        Flynn basically painted himself into a corner by changing his mind long after agreeing the previous play was correct.

        1. Svelaz. This much is true. The dismissal is not automatic


          now in case you didn’t know it, a defendant has a right to a speedy trial, too. This dismissal is nowhere near speedy and long overdue

          the defendant’s due process rights have been trashed and delayed overmuch because his case is a political football.

          And what kind of play is this? It’s like the one where the time has run out and the team just keeps throwing laterals to each other to try and make the play last on the outside chance they can march it down the field against all odds. Recently the news had a fun clip of such a play, that was successful. here, Sullivan seems to think he can limp it along and Biden will win and then it will all just change as if the Fourteenth amendment would vanish or the words “adversarial system” would suddenly become words without meaning./

          No. Come what may in the election, Flynn is going to have his case dismissed. Sooner or later, it will happen. this outcome is a mortal lock.,

      4. A Circuit Court disagrees with you, Kurtz. Can you address what’s wrong in their ruling? Or are you unwilling to dig in on those details?

        For the record, the case was already in the sentencing phase. The prosecution phase was over.

        1. What’s wrong with their analysis and what’s wrong with your pouring over details. I will answer this legit question

          our friend book is not here today. he spun out the logic of the one rule they have hung their hat on in this thing which allows some inquiry. that little rule CAN”T over ride due process, fundamental fairness, and the basic elemental structure of our adversarial system, in which it is all quite simple: if the government abandons the case, it is over.

          to put it differently, your logical error is “collapsing hierarchies” of ideas. This is a philosophical notion but think of it in algebraic terms. You isolate variables and try to solve for them in a certain sequence. The math does not work if you disregard order of operations or what is inside the parentheses and jumble it all up.

          here there was never a need to pour over the details. there was a simple equation which had a pat and easy answer. it has been falsified.

          it never was as complex as sullivan nor his collaborators made it. any garden variety nobody like me understands that and they have just fooled you guys with smoke and mirrors

          there is also a second operating principle which is a little more subtle and political and that is the separation of powers. judicial branch looking into executive actions is a matter of rules, case law, context, but also raw power. Here raw power is what the Sullivan faction hangs its hat on, most of all. raw power.

          and that is why i call it abuse because power should not be used to deprive the defendant of his due process right to expect a timely dismissal


          1. I’m not going to bet on anything. I accept that I don’t know and that I’ll find out if I simply wait.

      5. Kurtz– Natch claims to have gone to law school? I didn’t know that and would never have guessed. I don’t read much of what Natch puts out. I would have believed that CTHD could go to law school but I can’t imagine that personality lasting in a courtroom without driving judges into eye-bulging rages with the type of arguments posted here.

        1. NATCH did claim it. let her retract it if it is false. but her lame commentary shows ignorance

          CTHD is a careful studier of press and information and she has confirmed she is not a lawyer. Of course lay people are able to grasp law too. We all must.

          Here i have laid out the very simplest part of the analysis and the most compelling. It is not I who have to figure it out.

          Book who apparently has kin who have worked at DOJ had laid out before the one rule that Sullivan has premised his whole thing upon. I can’t see how that one rule over rides the basic structure of our adversarial system and due process and fundamental fairness. It can only delay it and the delay is long enough. Time now to dismiss– Is this not what Turley said? Dont ask me to explain what Turley already laid out more than once for those who bother to read his columns.

          They insult Turley but are like the little flies buzzing around an elephant’s arse with the insults

Leave a Reply