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.

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

  1. Turley keeps debasing himself for the glory of the “Law & Order” Presidency of DJT? Where there is no law or order in anything Trump does. Facts and history will not be so kind.

    1. “Where there is no law or order in anything Trump does.”

      NO law or order in ANY thing Trump does? Facts be damned, eh Fishster?

  2. This error has come up before:

    Svelaz at 12:26
    Allan, Flynn is not an innocent man. He pled guilty and was convicted.
    CTHD at 9:49
    He chose to plead guilty. Is it possible that he lied when he pleaded guilty? Sure.

    *****
    Both of you are wrong. A plea of guilty or not guilty is not a true/false statement. It is an illocutionary act or performative utterance. It is a verbal act.

    Generally statements of this nature are like pulling a lever to change the legal scene. For example, if you make certain promises in the backseat of a car they may be promises and likely will be broken. If you make the same promise “I Do” in the appropriate ceremony there is no retraction when you are sober the next day. You have performed a legal act and changed the legal landscape of your life. Another example of an illocutionary act might be if you are in an auction and bid, “$500”. Is that true or false? No. It is an act, basically an offer in contract and if the hammer comes down on your bid the offer has been accepted and you are contractually liable to pay the bid and receive the benefit of your bargain. This is a simple concept.

    I often hear laymen asking, “How can he plead not guilty when he was caught in the act?” Simple. Pleading Not Guilty pulls a legal lever that makes the government put on its proof in a trial or, more often, get into more serious plea bargaining. It is more like a bid at auction than a confession to a priest.

    A plea of guilty pursuant to a plea bargain is the same. It can’t be perjury because it is a legal act and not a true/false statement. It is not unheard of for someone in a plea bargain to plead guilty to a minor crime that he had not committed in exchange for the elimination of more serious charges. To suddenly treat a plea like this as if it were a true/false statement is a very wide departure from what everyone recognizes is really going on and is another indication that this is a Soviet-style political proceeding.

    As for the admission of details pursuant to the plea, often it is a ‘legal fiction’ meaning for legal purposes everyone will pretend that it is true even when there are doubts that the statements will bear the weight of actual investigation. When it becomes apparent that a grave injustice is being done it should almost automatically be corrected without slinging noxious accusations of ‘perjury’ when everyone knew what the dance steps were.

    CTHD says he/she has done research preparing word lists or registers or some such thing and should know what this is about. If CTHD does know this is another example of dishonesty in argument. If CTHD doesn’t know, well then .. . .

    Svelaz, on the other hand, is likely completely ignorant of these refinements in language not from stupidity but from lack of exposure.

    1. I believe they know exactly what they are doing. It’s shameful, but their effect is nil and they will never change. Fortunately, there are good, honest people who do have large audiences like Turley to fight the good fight.

      1. Ivan, if someone signs a statement attesting that X is true, when the person actually believes that X is false, then the person is lying in attesting that X is true.

        There’s nothing wrong with what I actually wrote.
        (a) It’s a fact that Flynn chose to plead guilty.
        (b) When he signed the Statement of the Offense and the Plea Agreement, it’s possible that Flynn was lying and that he wasn’t actually guilty of what he pleaded guilty to.
        Despite Young’s claim that the plea isn’t a T/F statement, Flynn signed a statement saying “I am pleading guilty because I am in fact guilty of the offense identified in this agreement,” and that **is** a T/F statement. He signed a similar declaration in the Statement of the Offense. Copies of both here: https://www.lawfareblog.com/michael-flynn-plea-agreement-documents

        Meanwhile, all of you are ignoring my point, which was that Steve asserted “He was falsely accused,” and I was presenting evidence about whether that’s accurate. Is it possible that he was falsely accused? Yes. Did Steve prove it? No, and there’s consider evidence that he wasn’t falsely accused, and anyone who’s actually trying to have an evidence-based discussion of the case would dig in on the evidence. But no one here seems to want to do that except me.

        1. “Despite Young’s claim that the plea isn’t a T/F statement, Flynn signed a statement saying “I am pleading guilty because I am in fact guilty of the offense identified in this agreement,” and that **is** a T/F statement.”

          It is drafted to look like a T/F statement, but it is a legal fiction that is part of the routine. Did you expect him to say “I am pleading guilty because of lawless pressure and threats on my family and my plea is actually bullsh*t”? Clearly you have never negotiated a plea deal or gone to court with a client who has accepted one.

          To save his family he agreed to sign what was necessary just as many people in China and the Soviet Union signed b.s. confessions out of desperation.

          It’s is terrifying that so many Democrats are prepared to embrace these measures for political advantage. No wonder so many of you like Communist China. The gap between Democrats and Nazis or Communists is getting so narrow it is hard to see daylight between them. The Obama Christmas Tree in the White House had an ornament that was the face of Mao. As time has gone by that seems less and less surprising to me. But it is still scandalous.

          1. Ivan– IF THEY EVER BROUGHT SUCH A CASE THEN THEY COULD KISS ALL THEIR PRECIOUS PLEAS GOODBYE

            how do you think they get a 95% conviction rate? Pleas, because, the Uniform Sentencing Guidelines shave 50% off if you only give up your right to a trial!

            lovely, isnt it?

            but the implicit requirement we all understand about pleas and sentencing colluquies, is that the defedants are required by the persecutors to lie their behinds off on a regular basis!

            1. ha ha guys our liberal friends here don’t get this in the slightest bit it seems.

              they are staking out a clearly authoritarian position and I am in the strange territory of playing the liberal.

              Sorry guys! There are some standards of American jurisprudence Im sworn to defend in spite of all my own inner authoritarian inclinations!

              Maybe one day I will resign my license and then I can say what I really think. But for now i have a genuine sympathy for many accused persons in the federal dock, from the lowly hoodlum right on up to General Flynn.

              1. Dinesh D’souza has spoken publicly about the abusive threats made against him when he faced charges. Clearly his prosecution was political. I agree with your sentiments about people caught up in the system.

                1. Did you read his book on this? The title says everything.

                  Stealing America: What My Experience with Criminal Gangs Taught Me about Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party

                  He also discusses his incarceration something that never happens to people for this crime and as his lawyer said paraphrasing ‘ He has to be innocent and ignorant of the law because he could have given more money than he did and wouldn’t have broken the law’.

                  For me the book was instructive, scary and funny. HE is a very nice individual in person and I could see why he was afraid when he first entered lock-up.

          2. I haven’t claimed that “a withdrawn guilty plea [could] lead to a charge of perjury,” so I have no burden of proof for it.

            Keep in mind that Flynn has made a variety of statements under penalty of perjury, not just signing his plea agreement. He made statements in court, and in January (IIRR), he submitted a personal declaration that was several pages long, which he chose to submit under penalty of perjury.

            If, for example, he knowingly and willfully made false statements in the personal declaration that he filed this year, that could lead to a perjury charge.

              1. I remember a sentencing i attended once as an observer

                I watched and I understood. its acting, the sentencing recitals are lines for an actor. can be a rotten actor too just so long as it looks good on the transcript. the deal is the deal, and the prosecutors routinely expect people to stand up and tell lies. routinely! or else go to jail.

                boy I came out of there thinking wow, its all about as meaningful as when the magician says “abracadabra!”.
                .
                no, there is zero worry about perjury. that is a fantasy problem here. Flynn did not lie he was coerced just like they coerce people day in and day out. there was no specific intent to lie, he relied on advice of counsel, there are many reasons that there is no perjury.

                most of all, the most cynical truth: that’s the very point of the sentencing colloquy, to convince us citizens it’s all on the up and up, when so often it is not

                Sullivan is pulling back the curtain in a way that is damaging as heck to federal prosecutors and federal judges.

                Honestly, I have heard some people who are right wingers say, this is great. Because they enjoy watching the government lose credibility on both sides. really sometimes when people like the average Republican get to see how messy and awful some of this stuff is, it’s a wakeup call, and it helps people lose their illusions about the good ole fedgov. now, when the average Republican person gets to be as cynical as the average Democrat, well, then we are gonna have a real contest. because right now, there are still a lot of illusions out there. maybe I should applaud Sullivan for helping us all lose confidence in the federal judiciary after all?

                1. Kurtz, did you ever read Flynn’s personal declaration? If not, why do you assume that you know what’s in it?

                  My impression is that you haven’t read it, as you seem to think that it’s part of his guilty plea, which it definitely is not.

                  1. Kurtz, it sounds as if she is again trying to deal with coerced testimony and Flynn’s statement from Dec. 1 2017. (The onset actually precedes Donald Trump as a candidate)

                    ‘If you plead guilty we won’t execute you tomorrow’ ‘What do you want and where do I sign?’ She conveniently forgets everything in the FBI notes and how suddenly a man who was thought truthful becomes a victim of a plot to incarcerate him in order to get at the President. She forgets FBI notes that were rewritten. She forgets him losing all his money on lawyers. She forgets how his son was threatened. Lastly she forgets the information that is coming in that conclusively proved the FBI and the Special Council Office were acting outside of acceptable procedures with possible criminal intent where FISA warrants were falsely drawn and even changed. She even forgets how all the major players suddenly lost all their hone data. Much more but that is enough.

                    Now Svelaz can save some time in covering all the points since I mentioned quite a few.

            1. You reveal your true purpose when pushed even just a little. You are committed to a dishonest discussion. The silly monikers give you away as well. You’re better off picking any old name.

              1. By itself, your claim “You are committed to a dishonest discussion” is worthless. Go ahead: quote something I wrote that you believe is false and provide evidence that it’s false. If you’re correct that it’s false, I’ll have no problem agreeing that I was wrong.

      2. Ivan, I believe they know what they are doing, too, and it is disgraceful and beneath the dignity of any honorable person.

    2. Young, your word salad left out one pertinent fact. Flynn is literally in the sentencing phase of his case. Meaning he has already been convicted AND Flynn has twice under penalty of perjury plead guilty. He’s not innocent. It’s no longer an assumption.

      1. Svelaz,
        What should take precedence in our justice system; checking from boxes from investigation, indictment, prosecution, sentencing to incarceration, or securing the rights of the defendant through that process?

      2. Svelaz — I said you wouldn’t get it. Let’s skip your difficulty with understanding the performative utterance issue.

        Just from watching movies you should know that there is no stage in the process where it cannot be stopped or undone if it is clearly apparent that a grave injustice is taking place.

        Remember those last minute death chamber scenes when new evidence has come in to prove innocence or prosecutorial misconduct and the entire mess is undone and the innocent saved?

        Flynn is in that position. Evidence is pouring in that he was wrongly persecuted to achieve political goals. Yet you and CTHD want to go ahead with punishment. Imagine the death chamber scene with new evidence showing innocence and you and CTHD are choosing to ignore it because, after all, the death chamber is prepared and ‘due process’ demands that we kill him. Also it is important to get Trump. How is it that you two don’t see that you look like monsters? Did you set kittens afire when you were little? That is the grotesque mind set you are in.

        1. The sole purpose of the trolls on here, other than to serve as our playmates, is to get a rise out of their targets. Saul Alinsky methods apply.

          Most of them are authored by the same person written in different voices. At best there are 3 authors all using multiple aliases. Thus no succinct, rational argument will ever sway them. They are fun to manipulate though and given their low IQ, its almost a sin…almost

          Most authentic, progressive intellectuals are hiding because they fear their own

      3. Svelaz, no, Flynn has not yet been convicted. From what I’ve read, a defendant isn’t legally convicted until s/he’s sentenced. Flynn is in the sentencing phase, but hasn’t been sentenced yet (and perhaps won’t be sentenced).

        If he’d already been convicted/sentenced, then I think the DOJ would have to submit a request to have the conviction vacated, or Trump could pardon him. But that’s a different situation than exists here.

        1. “Svelaz, no, Flynn has not yet been convicted.”
          ***
          Svelaz gets a lot of things confused. He is too eager for punishment of the innocent. He would make a good Titus Oates.

      4. Svelaz, try this. The Tower has told you “04Golf cleared to land runway 27”. Is that true or false? Can you say, “I don’t think that is true so I am going to land on runway 9”.

        Some statements, like that one, are not amenable to T/F treatment. Pleas in court are like that. Lawyers know it, but you haven’t been exposed to it for which you may thank the sky gods.

      5. By your disgusting, immoral, amoral, putrid, Progressive metric, all the persons on death row whom DNA evidence later proved were not guilty of the crime, and later released from prison, should have been executed. Further, anyone who plead guilty only to avoid a trial and financial ruin, and whom was in fact not guilty, still deserves their prison sentence.

        1. What nonsense. I’ve said nothing of the sort, nor have I implied that.

          You’re so filled with dislike of liberals that you can’t even read straight and need to project nonsense onto us that we didn’t say, didn’t imply, and don’t believe.

          1. CTHD– There has been ample evidence provided by the DOJ that Flynn was targeted with an abusive and illegal political prosecution. Each day it gets worse. Yet you want to prolong his torment by formalities. Shame on you. When it is wrong you stop. Sullivan knows that but for reasons probably much like yours he wants to pull another notch on the rack. Disgusting. Hope to God you are never caught in the gears of such a process. I would want it to stop soonest for you as well. But we are clearly different and I am thankful for that.

              1. Yes, he was. I listened to his talk on it and, like the case with Flynn, and Conrad Black for that matter, it was difficult to believe this was America.

                1. Similar things happened to James O’keefe at Project Veritas before he could supply himself protection with ample funds to pay attorneys. There are loads more. I’m glad you heard D’Souza.

          2. CTHD there is pretty much nothing liberal at all to this argumentative approach you take to Flynn. You may be a team player for Democrats but that does not make you a liberal. That just makes you a partisan

            Seems like little or no empathy for the rights of an accused person at all, no concern about due process, just a zealous desire to lock up your rivals. This is not liberal in the slightest bit. Retrace your steps and learn about our system of due process and remember that picture of Lady Justice who wears a blinder. For your own well being and duty as an American citizen, to more fully appreciate our notion of fundamental fairness. I know you have it inside of you, surely you are a decent person.

            1. Kurtz, you’re projecting an awful lot of beliefs onto me that aren’t mine and then basing your response on the assumption that your projection is accurate.

              I have a lot of empathy for the rights of the accused, I believe in due process, etc. But I hate this kind of hand-waving argument where people aren’t willing to substantiate their claims with evidence, and it particularly baffles me that a lawyer would take that approach.

              If you actually think that Flynn’s due process rights have been abridged, then make an actual argument, present evidence, and I’ll listen.

              1. “I have a lot of empathy for the rights of the accused”

                You likely support the same rights the Bailout project supports. Biden’s own people gave money that helped release violent people back on the streets leading to some of those same people committing robbery and murder.

                You are unconscionable.

              2. CTHD- “you’re projecting an awful lot of beliefs onto me that aren’t mine”
                ***
                Yes, we know, and you don’t necessarily believe the authorities you cite.

                But you have argued that it amounts to perjury to withdraw a guilty plea.

                You seem prepared to see Flynn prosecuted for perjury if he dares to no longer submit to an unjust prosecution.

                You argue for continuing Sullivan’s bizarre proceedings despite the tons of Brady material that was concealed from him, despite his being led into apparent error by conflicted attorneys, despite the flood of evidence that his prosecution was foul and politically motivated.

                You want to keep him on the rack and tighten the tension despite everything.

                You would make a good torturer, not cruel but completely unmoved by another’s agony and willing to add to the pain.

                I don’t think you care about Flynn one way or the other. You are disappointed he is no longer a fork to jab at Trump, the true focus of your hatred.

                Change your screen name to ‘Beria’. He used to use blow torches for quicker results.

                1. “Beria”, what an apt name coming from the past.

                  Young, With all fellowship in mind, I hope CTHD looks at the name Beria and recognizes a change in path is necessary and appropriate.

      6. “Young, your word salad left out one pertinent fact. Flynn is literally in the sentencing phase of his case. Meaning he has already been convicted AND Flynn has twice under penalty of perjury plead guilty. He’s not innocent. It’s no longer an assumption.”

        You act like there is no level of prosecutorial corruption of politicized abuse that could be uncovered higher up in the investigation by such people as Sztrok, Comey, or McCabe that could ever change how one weights these facts.

        That is manifestly absurd. The quotient of corruption of the investigators themselves is manifestly worse — and of far more magnitude for our republic — than the alleged lie, copped to, by Flynn, that wasn’t even believed to be a lie by the people investigating him.

        In your view we are supposed to only apply a narrow literalism to one set of facts and ignore the ocean of corruption surrounding this entire investigation and its predication.

        1. The whole thing is the fruit of a poisonous tree, and should be ripped out, root and branch. Kompromat my ass. This was a political setup from the start — and that corruption is infinitely more important.

  3. It’s amazing to me that even after Sullivan’s latest political rantings in the courtroom — and especially even after the new disclosures of even more high-level misapprehension about the integrity of the Flynn probe from within the probe itself, along with discussion of taking out insurance for the appearance of impropriety — we will still see leftist legal apologists explaining how this was all on the up and up…

    The entire picture now emerging is clearly a get-Trump and get-Flynn politicized effort, with no serious basis in tradition or law, regarding an incoming NSA who received an absurd partisan construal of all his actions.

  4. Personally, I don’t think Judge Sullivan is deserving of Professor Turley’s respect. Maybe he once was, but an acute case of TDS brought on by overindulgence of leftist propaganda will overthrow anybody’s mind. You see it all the time. At this point, Sullivan’s just a gibbering purple minion like all the rest of the grape-flavored goons.

    1. Chingiss, this seems to be why the DOJ was so desperate to bypass Sullivan. This is not going to end well for the DOJ

    2. empty wheel is a lame website that retweets the discredited and fraudulent yellow journalism outfit founded by “harasser of women and people of color” morris dees.

      https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center

      their take on those trivial details is just a rabbit hole of innuendo

      chinggis khan is not a good name for someone who posts trivia like this. the Great Khan had his sights fixed on resolving big things through organized violence and was not interested in trivia.

      anyhow, he was a brute, in spite of his devastatingly effective leadership, so, why would you pick one of biggest genocidists of antiquity for a nom de plume?

      1. Chinggis say: Attorney who thinks altered document is no big deal can have Kevin Clinesmith for roommate. Innuendo and out the door.

  5. JT’s article above was written before the latest marathon hearing on the 29th.

    For those interested in Flynn’s/Trump’s defense, I urge you to listen to both Sidney’s concluding remarks from 4:25:30 – 4:41:30 and the DOJ’s concluding remarks from 4:41:30 – 4:58:00.

    1. Ivan, thank you for that. Both did very well. Judge Sullivan has no interest in justice here. He does seem to be trying to cover his behind while continuing to drag this out. I wonder if in part he is covering for Obama?

      Given the stink of corruption wafting from the original DOJ persecution and the Covington conflict I suspect they are almost as unhappy about Sullivan’s behavior as Flynn is. They were all set to tuck this away and staple Flynn’s scalp to the wall when Sullivan threw his grenades into the mess, removing his robes and stepping in as another litigant. Because of that a lot of things they thought had been safely buried have come popping up.

    1. Yes, he can be impeached, if there’s evidence for it. For federal judges, the House impeaches and then it goes to the Senate for a trial, as with impeaching a President.

      1. The Democrats in the House just proved evidence isn’t needed to impeach with President Trump.

        It was the Democrat’s version of getting a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

  6. Let’s hope no one ever talks to the FBI EVER AGAIN and they have to disband this lying, evidence-destroying and murdering outfit. Remember the celebrated FBI sniper (!) Lon Horiuchi who was so skillful he managed to blow off the head of a young woman whose only “weapon” was the infant daughter she was carrying in her arms. Of course Horiuchi suffered no adverse consequences whatsoever.

    1. Curri, if the FBI insists you talk to them get a good lawyer and force them into his office. Put your tape recorder on when they first enter the room. Then after you have proven your willingness to talk to them you can let it be obvious that you have no problems discussing what they want to discuss.

      They will tell you to turn the recorder off and you can tell them you are leaving it on and they being recorded. They then have to choose to be on record or to leave. Likely they will leave if there is something touchy about the discussion.

      I know people do that. I am even more cautious and would have another tape going at the same time that will not be found by them just in case they impound the tape recorder.

      I say this because the one case where O’Keefe settled due to lack of funds early in his career his evidence was on his recording equipment and the evidence was erased.

        1. I dealt with government 3 times. The third was an illegal continuation of the second admitted by the government’s own attorney. The government proceeded illegally because its assets were unlimited and mine came out of my pocket. I won the first and was all but given a medal where everyone walked out as friends. The second one ending at the end of the the third and was a victory as well. The second was a compromise. The third was a second bite at the apple by the government and I walked out with a complete victory ( except for expenses) as settlement was ditched and I was made intact. They lied, cheated and deceived. Federal courts have since ruled against them on some their actions against me.

          I did absolutely nothing wrong. In fact my case was proven totally accurate and if it didn’t cost so much and if I could have collected I would have sued the government. Such a suit would have won since the federal courts came in later and ruled so. However, the government wouldn’t have paid me a dime.

          1. Allan– Nobody should have to endure that. The DOJ needs a thorough fumigation and I suspect the rot in the FBI is too deep to be cured. It should be abolished. It is doing more harm than good.

            1. Young, that is a minor part of life though I agree with you completely. There are far more serious obstacles in life and my entire family has faced many of them. My wife is a champ and compared to her my problems were virtually unseeable. She understands from first hand experience what we are facing.

      1. Allan, “ Curri, if the FBI insists you talk to them get a good lawyer and force them into his office. Put your tape recorder on when they first enter the room. Then after you have proven your willingness to talk to them you can let it be obvious that you have no problems discussing what they want to discuss.”

        Actually you’re not required to talk to them at all. You can invoke your right to remain silent and have a lawyer with you. You don’t have to answer any questions at all. Whether it’s the police or the FBI you can invoke your right to remain silent. You’re not obligated to tell law enforcement anything beyond your name and address.

        1. Svelaz — True enough and also good advice. You may recall that the parents of Jon Benet consistently refused to discuss the case with the police and neither was ever charged.

          I have wondered, however, about the “See Something Say Something” refrain for preventing a terrorist attack or other crime. One time long ago I would have gotten in touch with the FBI. Now I think I would never call them. Probably I would take it to local law enforcement and they can handle it. You never know what the FBI will do. Look what they did to Richard Jewell. A different problem is how they handled the Boston Marathon case. They had information from Russia that the brothers were dangerous and likely up to something and did nothing. I don’t think they even informed local cops. They had reports from field agents that the 9-11 maniacs were up to no good and they did nothing. They knew Major Hassan was rotten, and did nothing. More recently they were told about the Mogadishu election tactics in Minnesota and they did nothing. If I saw something that I thought was scary I would try to find an agency that actually gives a sh*t and that wouldn’t be the FBI.

          1. You may recall that the parents of Jon Benet consistently refused to discuss the case with the police and neither was ever charged.

            Not true. They each sat for lengthy interviews with police and the police were able to collect what information they could from the house. What they wouldn’t do was be at the beck and call of the Boulder police to be subject to hours and hours of repetitive questioning and then to be badgered about ‘inconstencies’. They told the police what they knew.

            For those of us viewing the fiasco from a distance, the Boulder police seem to be a satisfactory example there being costs to living in low crime areas: you get an inexperienced police force. Not merely inexperienced in their case, but one with a damaged institutional culture derived from having a lunkhead in charge of it. The Ramseys figured out right away that the police weren’t doing any inductive reasoning and the actual object of the investigation wasn’t to locate the killer but to break the Ramseys. The District Attorney realized this as well; the Governor, who supervises the state police, did not.

            1. Art — Thanks. That paints a different picture from that which I had and yours may well be correct and based on greater information.

          2. The last (I think) big FL school shooting ca. 2 years ago, with about a dozen dead students and staff: the killer’s name was on an FBI list to prohibit his buying/owning a gun. The FBI allowed the killer to illegally buy a weapon, which weapon I believe he used in the shooting.

            This is the travesty of proposed further gun laws. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALREADY IGNORES CURRENT LAW WITH IMPUNITY AND NEVER SUFFERS FOR IT EVEN WHEN THEIR NEGLIGENCE RESULTS IN A LOT OF MURDERED INNOCENT AMERICANS.

            I think the FBI kind of “apologized” in some way for the above negligence. Of scant relief to the surviving family members. The FBI employee(s) who dropped the ball should be imprisoned for life.

            1. Go back and study operation patcon, ruby ridge and waco were just two heinous incidents of federal law enforcement abuse.

              the unethical and illegal use of informants and undercovers was rife, as if the Church hearings had never happened at all, things that are nauseating

              we still have no clue all the things the FBI knew about the 9-11 crew. It’s already been established the materially misinformed the 9-11 commission. Trump seems to have forgotten he promised to get to the bottom of that

              My guess is perhaps he did get to the bottom of it in the Oval Office and what he found out was so awful and damaging to the reputation of the United States he simply had to let it be, or else gravely damage the nation’s interests were the full truth to be told. I’ll take a wild guess here or maybe not so wild because we know elements of the Saudi intelligence infrastructure were involved in it. yeah precisely that. and probably some other usual suspects too. no names, just guessing, pure speculation!

              There are probably a lot of other “crown jewels” like that.

              The CIA does not give all info to a sitting POTUS. The CIA holds tons of stuff back. Perhaps that is wise.

              But this article discusses how CIA held back things Nixon wanted that we now know were very embarrassing to them. And probably a lot more

              https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2000-12-31-0012310240-story.html

        2. When one doesn’t know what to do silence is best until one gets a competent lawyer. However, once one has a lawyer silence is not always the best thing. Everything is governed by the circumstances. For instance when first married and living in a slum the police came to our door to ask if we knew anything about the rape murder that past night. I responded because that is a type of question that needs to be answered and doesn’t need a lawyer.

  7. I am not sure that who Flung foo at who has been described in this article. There are some spots on the wall. Not the Berlin Wall.

  8. This travesty should scare the hell out of every America. A message for democrats and the fake news media and ACLU:

    “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

      1. Yesterday I read somewhere new Red Flag laws have been written into the 2021 NDAA that’s coming up in congress.

        And it’s the same problem prof Turley & people in power have with the 2nd amd, they cant stand thought of a common citizen using the business end of the 2nd to work like Kyle Rittenhouse. Their solution is us citizens be disarmed & turned into salves.

        Just look at treatment of Brad Parscale this week vs Comey & crimes Comey’s committed.

      2. Look what happened in the Warsaw Ghetto when the Jews decided to fight even without arms and against all odds. They died, which is what was going to happen, but their deaths cost the Germans.

        Today we have too many that do not remember. They are being given nail polish so while they polish their toes their freedoms are disappearing.

        1. dont worry about that gun control stuff too much. there are more guns than people in the US. the problem is not guns it is a dismal lack of social & political organization on the side of regular law abiding citizens vis a vis the bureaucratic elites and their legions of mercenaries, from lawyers and social justice activist on down to street rabble

          but when a genuine SHTF breaks out,. like not an insurrection but a real insurgency and on up to civil war, when it gets that hot, both sides go for the the armories.

          some government army and police units peel off to one side and others peel off to another. look at the Iraq civil war that broke out after the US occupation for a recent example

          antifa knows if they get to that stage, they have to go for the armories. they had a couple test runs at it, overrunning police HQ in Portland, & somewhere else, can;t recall.

          when a situation goes hot, guns are never a problem. ammo can be a problem,. consider now why is ammo so expensive>? that ought to scare people at least a little. but most people dont watch the prices of ammo

          oh, did I mention., prices of food are up too? but they say there is no inflation. ah, lol, ok whatever

          dont worry about stockpiling. stay healthy, and make friends, people power is always the ultimate, the power of social organization. when mao talked about all power coming from a gun,. as I have demonstrated when I copied the entire quote, he meant that all power could come that way because the Communists had the guns and were well organized to use them. Hence, the quote can be misleading. one man with a gun is nothing. ten thousand men with their bare hands alone, are the beginning of an army

  9. This is how democrats handle individual liberty and freedom. Like every despot Sullivan will use every trick he has to keep an innocent man suffering… but he does it all for the party. Even Stalin had ‘good’ judges and those judges did his bidding as well.

    1. Allan, Flynn is not an innocent man. He pled guilty and was convicted. Being that he is in the sentencing phase obviously he is not innocent.

      1. Svelaz, you demonstrate a complete ignorance of the law and situation that involved Flynn.

        Why don’t you tell us in your own words the initial charge and what Flynn was found guilty of. When you do those two things and review the evidence any reasonable person would find him not guilty of the initial charge. A secondary charge can be created, but that would be laughable unless you can make the first charge stick and then there would be no secondary charge.

        1. Allan, he was charged with lying to the FBI. It’s a felony to lie to the FBI.

          Flynn himself signed a statement attesting he lied to the FBI. That’s a crime.

          Twice in front of two different judges he told them to their faces that he willingly chose to plea guilty abc that he wasn’t coerced. That’s why it’s called a GUILTY plea.

          Because he is being sentenced means he has already been convicted. It can’t get any simpler than that.

          1. Svelaz, Young replied on this subject at https://jonathanturley.org/2020/10/01/it-is-time-to-dismiss-the-flynn-case/comment-page-1/#comment-2008286 . I don’t know that anything I can add will help you understand so See Young’s response and then you can reply to me again if you wish.

            However, the blood lust that you and Needs to be Committed have is extremely great and seems uncontrollable. Of the two you are the much weaker party and far more unaware. I must warn you that If Flynn is taken off of CTDHD’s Jeffry Dahmer dinner table she might replace Flynn’s name on the menu and add yours. Be cautious. Keep all your extremities near your body and be prepared to run fast.

          2. Svelaz

            Please tell the rest of us the predicate for the FBI/DOJ even an investigation? Was it a legal or illegal investigation/prosecution?

  10. The fact that you refer to the color of his “robes” is exactly the kind of disturbing rhetoric that has infected our discourse and policy setting in the Trump era. I hope you are happy.

    1. The disturbing rhetoric actually comes from the infantile utterings from those who still do not accept the results of the 2016 election. The childish behavior damages our nation terribly. I’m looking forward to CW 2.0 so I can do my part in helping rid America of the trash that has accumulated inside OUR borders. I hope you are happy, because I certainly am.

  11. Judge Sullivan is a Biased/Activist/Political Judge who should be removed from this case and should be impeached for his actions. He is dragging this out for no reason accept a tool of the Trump Haters. Gleeson is another legal Fool who is a member of the Trump haters. this is al about Politics.

    Case dismissed. then Flynn has a great law suit against the FBI, Simpson, and etc. $$$$$$$$$$$$

  12. I’m flabbergasted by how sloppy Turley is with details.

    He says “When Michael Flynn heads to court for his final sentencing hearing today…,” when it wasn’t his sentencing hearing. It was a hearing on the DOJ’s motion to dismiss.
    He says “There is no issue over the dismissal of the charge of Flynn lying to federal investigators,” when there are clearly issues, including why the DOJ originally claimed that Flynn’s statements were materially false, the DOJ proved that they were materially false, the court ruled that they were materially false, and now the DOJ claims that it can’t prove they’re materially false.
    He says “Such a charge ordinarily would result in a short sentencing hearing,” when he should know that Sullivan postponed sentencing at Flynn’s request, to allow further cooperation with the DOJ / to lessen the sentence.
    He says “we know federal investigators at the time did not believe Flynn intentionally lied to them,” but fudges on what “at the time” means. They were uncertain immediately after the interview, but they gathered more info, like Flynn’s phone and text messages and interviews with McFarland, and they became convinced that he’d lied prior to charging him.
    He says “Sullivan falsely accused Flynn of being an ‘unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser.’” It’s not false. Flynn was an agent of Turkey and didn’t register until March, 2017.
    He says “Sullivan even suggested Flynn should have been charged with treason,” but Sullivan did not suggest that. He asked the DOJ if that had been considered as a charge in the context of asking the DOJ questions to understand what the benefit was to Flynn of the plea agreement.
    He says “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,” but ignores that that was before all of the relevant evidence was gathered and was not addressing the specific content of the call transcripts.
    He says “He not only suggested he might charge Flynn himself, with criminal conduct for contesting his guilty plea,” but it wasn’t for contesting the plea. Rather, he asked whether Flynn’s conflicting statements under oath should result in a perjury charge.
    He says “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,” when Turley has no way to know that the appellate court would reverse Sullivan if he rejects the DOJ’s motion or instead dismisses without prejudice.
    He says “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,” as if those are the only two possibilities, when it’s actually a false dichotomy.

    He also ignores relevant issues, such as the NEW fact that someone altered some of the evidence that Powell submitted from the DOJ this week, and it’s unclear who did it (the DOJ or Powell) and why.

    1. CTHD, that’s exactly what I noticed when he published his article a few days ago. He seems more intent on avoiding the flaws in his argument than admitting that he was wrong in the first place. The evidence against his argument are much more concrete than he’s obfuscations about them.

    2. CTHD– I told you weeks ago that I thought Sullivan was trying to drag this out past the election. You pointed to this hearing as evidence that he was not. I waited to see, but Kurtz and I and others knew full well that a judge could use the hearing to create more delay and that appears to have been done.

      Professor Turley is likely wrong in thinking Sullivan’s judicial reputation is at risk. It has already been destroyed.

      1. Professor Turley’s judgement of people is not always the best. Think Avenatti. I don’t fault him for that problem because he lives in academia and is a man due great respect.

    3. “I’m flabbergasted by how sloppy Turley is with details.”

      No one is surprised. The DOJ changed from dishonest to honest. Any intelligent person would realize that Flynn should never have been charged as he was and Sullivan should have released him long ago. Needs to be Committed has a Jeffery Dahmer type condition where she feeds on people being dismembered for real or psychologically. Flynn has been feeding her bloody appetite and she is looking around for dessert or her next meal. Because she is the predator she is she will lie, distort and do anything for the taste of blood.

      Is she nibbling at Professor Turley’s toes?

      1. Allan,
        That’s an interesting analogy that should be explored from a psychological perspective. There is a sort of bloodlust in politics that seems to overwhelm their ability to confine their behavior to the rule of law. Politicians, like serial killers are often perceived by non-victims as perhaps charismatic good neighbors. Even when the neighbors discover their evilness, they are often in disbelief. The horror of the crime however is completely understood and evidence makes them believers. It doesn’t seem to work that way in politics. Ideology is the dominant force. Evidence can prove a crime, but it will be defended if it furthers the ideology. It’s as if Dahmer’s neighbors discovered evidence of his crimes and said it’s not a problem, he’s eating people I don’t like and leaving me alone.

      1. The evidence was altered. The originals have no dates on them, but the copies that Powell submitted have dates on them, and the dates that were added aren’t always truthful. Who added the dates? Did the DOJ add them before sending copies to Powell, or did Powell add them?

        Here’s some discussion with images: https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/09/25/sidney-powell-accuses-william-barnett-of-outrageous-deliberate-misconduct-and-kenneth-kohl-hides-evidence-that-brandon-van-grack-did-not/

        Strzok’s attorney pointed this out to Judge Sullivan, and Sullivan asked about it at the hearing, and IIRR, both the DOJ and Powell now have to submit further information to him about it so that he can find out who added the dates. It’s illegal to alter evidence.

        1. ” or did Powell add them?”

          Now in the face of all the lies from the FBI CTDHD is planting the thoughts that Powell may have altered evidence. This bozo stops at nothing.

          I believe she has made this claim before. It sounds like a typical smear from the left.

          1. Allan — Not only is it a typical smear from the left, it would be a very stupid thing to do. Powell’s opposition dreams of catching her in some obvious wrong like that. She knows it, and she is very, very far from stupid.

        2. And how would Attorney Powell have altered the original document, she must be a great artist to match the hand writing, ink etc. And did she ever have access to the original document? More misdirection!

          1. I didn’t say that Powell altered the originals.

            I said “the copies that Powell submitted have dates on them.” Someone altered the copies that were submitted to the court. Since the DOJ gave copies to Powell and Powell submitted copies to the court, either someone in the DOJ or someone in Powell’s office made the alteration on the copies that were submitted to the court.

            What was submitted to the court was altered. I don’t know whether the originals — which should still be in the DOJ’s possession — were altered.

            You are assuming that the ink was matched, the handwriting was matched, …, which is an unfounded assumption. Perhaps because you’re assuming that the originals were altered rather than the copies submitted to the court.

            1. document handling in complex cases is no small effort. they count documents in cases like this by the thousands not the hundreds

              even if what you say were true, it would be inconsequential. you are grasping for trivia

              1. Why is it inconsequential to alter the document in this way?

                Clinesmith recently pleaded guilty for adding a few words to a document.

                1. Clinesmith recently pleaded guilty for adding a few words to a document.

                  And a few people did something on 9/11. Those words are a true statement, disgusting but true. Clinesmith on the other hand literally altered the document to read the exact opposite of what it originally said. Not far different from how you post compared with the name you post under.

                  1. “Clinesmith on the other hand literally altered the document to read the exact opposite of what it originally said.”

                    That’s false.

                    The document originally said:
                    My recollection is that [Individual #1] was or is “[digraph]” but the [documents] will explain the details.
                    And it was altered to say:
                    My recollection is that [Individual #1] was or is “[digraph]” and not a “source” but the [documents] will explain the details.

                    So the phrase “and not a ‘source'” (with “source” in quotation marks) was added. A “[digraph]” is not a “source,” as Horowitz explained in his IG Report:
                    “[The CIA] uses a specific two-letter designation, or digraph, to describe a U.S. person who has been approved … for operational contact.” The CIA doesn’t treat “operational contact” and “source” as synonyms.

                    In addition, IIRR, Clinesmith also provided the original without the alteration.

                    So once again, you make these claims but you don’t want to dig in on the details.

                    1. That’s probably as close as you’ll get to admitting that you weren’t telling the truth when you said “Clinesmith on the other hand literally altered the document to read the exact opposite of what it originally said.”

                    2. If Clinesmith’s alterations were so trivial why did he plead guilty? Did he commit perjury on his guilty plea?

                2. CTHD asks another valid question.,to answer, the issue would be a question of relevance and materiality.

                  relevance and materiality are determined by the legal issues for which the documents are produced in the first place.

                  but, due to collapsing hierarchy of concepts, or as I put it earlier, disregarding the order of operations in a mathematical sense, you have the materiality and relevance picture all out of whack in this.

            2. Then there was no alteration if the original not altered. There were notes made on a copy. So the statement you made has no bearing what so ever, just another let’s throw as much crap on the wall to cause what? Again a moronic statement that Attorney Powell changed a document!

              1. Again, I didn’t state that she changed it. I asked a question: “Did the DOJ add them before sending copies to Powell, or did Powell add them?” and said “either someone in the DOJ or someone in Powell’s office made the alteration on the copies that were submitted to the court.”

                “There were notes made on a copy.”

                Yes, and the altered copy was submitted to the court. They can do whatever they want with their own copies, but they don’t get to submit altered copies to the court, claim that they were “Peter Strzok’s hand-written notes” and fail to alert the court to what they altered.

                Why was it submitted to the court with those notes added, especially when at least one alteration is misleading?

              2. George W, adding dates where none were on the originals constitutes an alteration. They were not merely “notes”.

    4. The law is always clear to a lawyer, clear in any direction or argument the lawyer wishes. Flynn was part of some obvious malfeasance. He admitted as much. That he succumbed to nefarious FBI machinations and manipulations is ludicrous. Flynn didn’t get to be where he was: General, Administrator, Consultant, etc. by being a victim of what he whined about. It’s like Trump claiming he is a genius when he went bankrupt six times and failed over a dozen times in his business ventures. It’s legal BS if you are a shill for Trump, like Turley or have your eyes open and see Trump for what he is. Flynn hitched his wagon to the wrong star. The slammer for six months and let Trump pardon him.

      After the disgrace that was the debate Tuesday evening, the committee that organizes the debates, logically, rationally, and realistically proposed being able to turn off the sound of either one when they refuse to stop interrupting the debater that has the floor, a seemingly necessary move. The White House/Trump immediately objected on some ‘law is clear” legal mumbo jumbo. Next stop a duel; perhaps a spelling test or a test on sentence structure, or open fact checking, etc. Turley will argue how?

    5. wrong from a to z. sorry, but a basic understanding of criminal procedure which anybody can get from tv shows let alone law school, shows this case has been dead for months and the blackrobed article III tyrant Sullivan is overstepping his branch and authority by using the dead case to pry into the DOJ’s discretionary and deliberative process. He is ultra vires and way out of his lane.

      The failure of his fellow article III judges to correct him sufficiently indicts the entire institution. Well, folks, if you want a more politicized court with cretins on it like the tyrant Sullivan, vote Democrat because Joe has plans to magnify federal judges’ faults and and weaken their virtues.

  13. I’m telling you he should have used the Hillary Defense “if I had to do it over I’d do it differently”. Comey used it yesterday and it’s working for him.

  14. The man confessed,TWICE. There is one law for Trump acolytes and one for the rest of us. That is not he way it is supposed to work. Professor, you should be ashamed.

    1. Hmm……nice son you have there. Pity if anything happened to him. And, I can destroy you financially, if you do not take my kind offer. I would like to see you not “confess” under similar duress, Justice Holmes.

      1. Give me a break. Flynn got a good deal and evidence has shown that he did a lot more than was know when he got his plea deal. I realize that Trumpsters are now viewed as immune but don’t give me that victim song for Flynn.

      2. How awful for the FBI to tell Flynn that they had sufficient evidence to charge his son for breaking the law. That’s truly like a mobster saying “nice son you have there. Pity if anything happened to him.” (sarc)

    2. Semi-Justice Holmes;

      So did St. Joan of Arc and Martin Luther. Then, the tribunals were corrupt. Any other platitudes you’d care to offer to defend an abomination?

      1. I would never defend Trump, the abomination, but there are many on this thread who will defend anything Trump or his acolytes do

        1. “I would never defend Trump. . .”

          I believe you. I believe that you would not defend Trump even if he was obviously innocent. Because the idea of his “innocence” would conflict with your partisan religious faith in the Democratic Party.

          Me saying that is not a compliment.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. “ I believe you. I believe that you would not defend Trump even if he was obviously innocent. Because the idea of his “innocence” would conflict with your partisan religious faith in the Democratic Party.”

            The problem is he’s rarely innocent. Even you tacitly admit that he is by stating “…even if he was obviously innocent. “. You made it clear that it’s NOT obvious and because he IS a prolific liar, innocence is very much in doubt.

            Nobody really claims Trump is innocent, only that he’s being “treated unfairly”. Life is never fair, but Trump seems to think everything should be fair as long as it’s fair to him.

        2. this holmes character is no lawyer, are you, fool? you’ve been pretending to be one with your fake name, and now it ‘s wholly clear you are not

          a person would have had to have flunked criminal procedure to fail to grasp what a farce the flynn matter has become

    3. Justice Holmes, “The man confessed, TWICE. There is one law for Trump acolytes and one for the rest of us. That is not he way it is supposed to work. Professor, you should be ashamed.”

      The man didn’t do anything wrong. He was falsely accused, he was dragged through the court of public opinion and the justice system by overly aggressive investigators that set out to destroy him, his family was being targeted by investigators with threats of prosecution, he was coerced into pleading guilty for something he didn’t do to protect his family and put an end to the bull shit investigation and you want to throw him to the wolves.

      Do you care that this is not justice?

      Do you understand what moral bankruptcy is?

      Justice Holmes, “Professor, you should be ashamed.”

      Man did you get that wrong; you and anyone else that is wanting this man prosecuted are the ones that should be ashamed.

      The problem with the political left these days is that the presumption of innocence is completely ignored when the accused is considered to a Conservative, Republican or anything not associated with the political left. All the political left needs these days is an accusation and they immediately presume guilt until proven innocent.

      The political left is b a s t a r d i z i n g the United States Constitution.

      1. “The man didn’t do anything wrong. He was falsely accused.”

        He chose to plead guilty. Is it possible that he lied when he pleaded guilty? Sure. But if the 302 from his 1/24 interview is truthful, then there’s a lot of evidence that he was telling the truth when he signed under penalty of perjury that he’d actually made the materially false statements that he was charged with. In fact, that 302 contains evidence that he made additional false statements he wasn’t charged with (e.g., re: whether he knew about the Obama sanctions before they were imposed). And the evidence isn’t only from the 302, but from a bunch of other sources: text and phone message data, interviews with McFarland, etc. The FBI also carried out subsequent interviews with Flynn, and AFAIK, the 302s for those have never been made public. Trump and Pence both publicly stated that Flynn had lied to Pence about Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, and that’s sufficient reason for Flynn to have been interviewed. If Flynn wants to contest the accuracy of the 1/24 302, he could have raised that in court or pleaded not guilty and let the agents be questioned in a trial. We know that he didn’t submit his FARA registration until March of 2017 and that he was working as a foreign agent for Turkey during the campaign and transition.

        What is the basis for you insisting that he didn’t knowingly make false statements to the FBI?

        1. “He chose to plead guilty.”

          One wonders why especially when one reads the FBI reports stating that they thought Flynn was not lying.

          CFDHD decides innocence and guilt based on party affiliation.

        2. CommitToHonestDiscussion wrote, “What is the basis for you insisting that he didn’t knowingly make false statements to the FBI?”

          Maybe you’ve missed this fact that’s been repeated ad nauseum or maybe for some reason you just you don’t believe it, but the fact is that federal investigators did not believe Flynn intentionally lied to them.

          Lie: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive.

          A lie is a very intentional behavior, simply stating something that turns out to be false is not a lie.

          Now try to apply what you have learned.

          1. He can NOT apply it to what he has learned because he doesn’t even believe the crap he spews. CTHD is a DNC shill. He will tow the party line no matter what. Trying to have an “honest discussion” with him would be like trying to have an “honest discussion” with Joseph Goebbels in public. It ain’t gonna happen. Old Joe, and CTHD will ignore reality and parrot the party line. Of course Germany will prevail! So what if the Russian Army is 50 miles from Berlin!

            I have seen CTHD repeatedly advised of the reality of this case by lawyers and even from the blog host himself’s articles and he blithely ignores all that to come back to the DNC Narrative, time after time. And if I am wrong, and he is not a shill, then he is like one of those retarded people who is uneducable.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. Why do you call me “he” when you know that I’m a woman, Squeeky? Should I start calling *you* “he”?

              And your claims about me are nonsense, as is clear from my reply to Steve. I’m quite ready to have an honest discussion that digs in on the details of the evidence.

              You’re projecting when you call me a shill.

              1. I was not aware that you were a female. When was that disclosed? At any rate, that would explain some of your worse traits.

                And no, you may present the appearance of discussion, but it is an appearance only. Over time, the Flynn case has presented multiple disclosures about the funkiness of the investigation and there is no reason for an honest person to continue to pursue the shill course. But, like Joseph Goebbels, you continue to argue that Germany is going to the war!

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                1. I dare you to actually dig in on the evidence like a lawyer (or are you a paralegal?) instead of relying on hand-waving and insults. I doubt you will, but I’d be happy to be surprised.

                  1. Squeaky, she means you should dig into the evidence she created. It is no wonder she is also known as “Committed to Lies.”

                    By the way, there is a strong likelihood she is a he.

                    1. Anonymous is so weak and lazy that Anonymous is using a twofer to answer a different response. This demonstrates further how worthless you really are. Stop trying to make yourself sound smart. You only confirm the opposite.

                    2. Or if he is a she, then she is possibly someone who used to spew crap here called Inga/Annie and several other names. Any “honest” person would have been horrified, like JT was, by the persecution of Flynn. A shill though? Nope.

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                    3. Squeaky some personalities have come and gone and come again using different aliases. Some have used more than one alias at a time on the Blog. Over the course of time I have provided some of the multiple aliases of PaintChips, probably around 2 dozen that I know of but ‘it’ is a turkey. I use the word ‘it’ for more than one reason.

                    4. Allan, if squeaky is a “reporter” as she claims to be she should have no problem digging in on the evidence CTHD has found herself. Squeaky can find out for herself and actually do real research instead of just mouthing off.

                      Getting into the details is the basis for a honest discussion, but I don’t expect squeaky to make any serious effort.

                      I have and CTHD is right on the money. The problem most have with CTHD is that nobody has been able to refute anything that she asserts with the evidence she provides. Those that do try often end up completely not being able to understand the issue because they cannot let go of their preconceptions first. If anything goes against their preconceptions it’s immediately deemed “fake, a lie, or an obtuse conspiracy theory is offered to justify the denial”. A honest discussion doesn’t mean that one has to concede being wrong, at the very minimum an acknowledgement that her assertions are possible.

                    5. “if squeaky is a “reporter” as she claims…”

                      You must have suffered a terrible brain injury.

                      I note you haven’t answer even the first question I previously asked which proves you have no idea of what you are talking about.

                  2. you may be talking to squeak but I could not be enticed into wasting more time on this case than I already have.

                    the simple fact is the home team left the playing field and the umpire has failed to call the game for months now, holding the visiting team in the arena for a game that will never occur

                    it is quite simply a farce

                    i suggest you go sit through some basic criminal proceedings if it is so hard to believe that a judge is obliged to dismiss a prosecution when the government folds. that is like the most basic notion of an adversarial system. these petty Emperors have no clothes

                    I am sure CTHD can apply her intellect, careful eye for details, and analysis to a more gainful topic. I invite you to do so because this dead horse has already been beaten into an inedible smear of stinking, rotting, hamburger.

                    1. Kurtz, if it was a farce, why didn’t the CADC simply allow the panel’s ruling on the writ to stand? If they disliked the particulars of Rao’s opinion, why didn’t they also rule in Flynn’s favor but write a better opinion?

                      You’re asking me to trust your judgment over theirs. Sorry, but I don’t trust your judgment over theirs, nor have you actually dug into any details to make a real argument about why they were wrong.

                    2. why? because they were exercising partisan strategy against the defendants. bias, in a word, shared with Sullivan

                      im just a nobody. you’re free to reject my conclusions, but my viewpoint is grounded in the core reality of our system of adversarial justice and fundamental fairness to accused persons.

                    3. Mr. Kurtz, that’s the point. That details do matter. Everyone defending Flynn including Turley keep boxing themselves into a corner with their argument when more and more details surface or are explained. That’s the source of frustration, because the conclusions keep leading to the DOJ manipulating the evidence and offering arguments that don’t hold water. That gives the overall picture that the DOJ is not doing its job, but doing the bidding of the president and AG Barr’s dirty influence on interference in the case.

                      The judge is not obliged to blindly dismiss the case. He has every right to hear all the evidence before making a decision. The DOJ’s suddenly change of heart towards Flynn raised suspicions that HAD to be satisfied and so far the DOJ’s explanations and now evidence of possible tampering with evidence doesn’t show they are being honest about their reasoning.

                      Flynn still lied or committed perjury. The judge is well within his right to ascertain whether one of the two crimes was actually committed. So far all details point to Flynn’s case cannot be dismissed based on the evidence so far. Sullivan can still sentence him and then let Trump pardon him.

                    4. Kurtz, of course you can have the opinion that it’s all partisan bias. But in that case, it would be easy for you to find holes in the legal ruling from the CADC. The thing is: no one else here is actually willing to dig into the details.

                      I’m the one quoting evidence to support my claims. Mespo quoted from an article I pointed him to, and that article quoted from the sentencing transcript, which is a move in the right direction, but then he concluded something that neither the article nor the sentencing transcript says or implies. In fact, the article undermines Mespo’s interpretation, but he doesn’t address that. He doesn’t want to dig in on the evidence any more than you do.

          2. “Maybe you’ve missed this fact that’s been repeated ad nauseum or maybe for some reason you just you don’t believe it, but the fact is that federal investigators did not believe Flynn intentionally lied to them.”

            No, I’m well aware that in the August 2017 interview of Strzok, the 302 says that Strzok and Pientka “both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying” (emphasis added). I’m aware that McCabe and Comey testified under oath about it. For example, Comey said “the agents– and the reason I mention their experience is because I talked to them about this — they discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn’t see any change in posture ,in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.”

            I’m also well aware that they gathered more evidence and all of them changed their minds. A practiced liar doesn’t necessarily give physical indications of lying. Look at Trump, for example, he lies all the time, and lots of people have no idea because his lies roll of his tongue so easily.

            Are *you* aware that they changed their minds after gathering more evidence? Do you accept their later conclusions, or only their initial ones. If the former, why are you only talking about their initial conclusions? If it’s the latter, why don’t you accept their later conclusions based on ALL of the data?

            “A lie is a very intentional behavior, simply stating something that turns out to be false is not a lie.”

            I know! And do you understand why they concluded that Flynn knowingly and willfully made false statements (aka lied)?

            “Now try to apply what you have learned.”

            Drop the snark. It’s counterproductive. Either you’re willing to dig in on the details of the evidence or you aren’t. Which is it?

            1. ” Either you’re willing to dig in on the details of the evidence or you aren’t. Which is it?”

              This bozo, CTDHD, first digs to plant phony evidence and then digs again to uncover the evidence she planted. She is definitely a Jeffrey Dahmer type feeding off of the reputations of good men.

              1. Allan, she’s not planting phony evidence. She’s actually PRODUCED quotes, links, actual statutes, etc. none are phony. I have looked them up myself and she’s right on the money.

                You’re proving her point that you are not willing to do the hard part of actually exercising personal responsibility to learn the issue. Your need to cling to denial amid mounting evidence against your preconceptions is only hurting you.

                1. Thanks, Svelaz. I stopped responding to Allan months ago, as he’s frequently dishonest and insulting in his comments. I consider him a sick troll, and my choice not to feed him was one of the best decisions I made here; responding to people like him is a waste of time and energy. He’d continued responding to me with dishonest and insulting comments all these months. I doubt that will change.

                  1. CTHD, I’m mostly optimistic, but I find it hard to believe that Allan is really incapable of discerning what’s really in front of him in regards to facts.

                    To me it’s the purest example of willful denial. When I started poring over the evidence and the links you provided and many are just plain interesting it occurred to me that the need to satisfy curiosity is an essential component to understanding issues like these.

                    Many here are not really curious or interested in the issue. Their arguments and views are largely dependent on others opinions without ironically not taking personal responsibility to find out for yourself. To me it’s just basic willful ignorance.

                    1. I find it hard to believe that Allan is really incapable of discerning what’s really in front of him in regards to facts.”

                      Of course you find it hard to believe because to believe that would be really stupid.

                      AS I said earlier. State your case, you option and your proof. Do it in your own words and cover all the bases. Suddenly trying to put it in your own words and making sure all the bases are covered you will find how poorly you read what CTDHD has been writing. It’s been sophomoric garbage to feed her blood lust.

                      That is what an attorney does and what I try to do. The left on this blog doesn’t seem to do that so generally their answers are poor or outright wrong.

                    2. Svelaz,

                      I’m not at all optimistic about Allan. He’s lied about me scores of times and posted scores of insults, some of them really vile, and he’s been doing it for months. He’s doing it here.

                      For example, he claims “My initial fight with her had to do with a quote of Flynn supposedly in the FBI files. She kept telling us the answer was there in his own words…” Allan is lying. I never claimed that. And there’s an easy way to test Allan’s claim: ask him to quote what I said. He demands that others produce evidence for their claims, but he won’t produce a quote to substantiate his claims about me. Because he can’t.

                      Back before I stopped responding to him, Allan was demanding that I quote Flynn from the 1/24 interview, and I explicitly told him I couldn’t. I pointed out to him that the FBI didn’t tape the interview and that our legal system doesn’t require a transcript, only evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which could include things like witness testimony, the 1/24 interview 302, 302s from other interviews.

                      You’re clearly free to have whatever exchanges you want with Allan. But I won’t do it again.

                    3. “I’m not at all optimistic about Allan. He’s lied about me scores of times and posted scores of insults, some of them really vile, and he’s been doing it for months. He’s doing it here.”

                      No lies. Lots of opinion about you as a person because of your attitudes that harm other humans solely for political reasons.

                      “For example, he claims “My initial fight with her had to do with a quote of Flynn supposedly in the FBI files. She kept telling us the answer was there in his own words…” Allan is lying. I never claimed that. ”

                      You certainly did . You told me where to go. The FBI files recently released at that time. I didn’t see what you said when I had previously reviewed them. But I went back and did multiple word searches and reread the report. I told you I couldn’t find it and you said it was there and refused to go and copy the words.

                      Most likely you were thinking of the words later stated by Flynn when he declared his guilt or some other words, but that was not the subject. Like the intelligence services today you tried to coverup your mistake and that only made things worse. I am not the only one to call you out on your distortions and lies. Your problem is a total dedication to an ideology right or wrong and in your case mostly wrong. You remind me of another alias.

                      “And there’s an easy way to test Allan’s claim: ask him to quote what I said. ”

                      I did in the past, but you refused to provide the quote. Had you provided another quote and said it wasn’t in that particular file and therefore not applicable to the early discussions this argument would have ceased.

                      “Back before I stopped responding to him, Allan was demanding that I quote Flynn from the 1/24 interview, and I explicitly told him I couldn’t. I pointed out to him that the FBI didn’t tape the interview and that our legal system doesn’t require a transcript, only evidence beyond a reasonable doubt”

                      Then why did you tell me his words were in the document and that I should find it myself when (as you say now) the words couldn’t exist in that document? The truth is that you assumed something that didn’t exist or confused documents and were too arrogant to look for the words yourself and state you made a mistake.

                2. Svelaz, I already dealt with her and her evidence when she came to the blog with her present alias. She lied then and I caught her in it. Some others caught her in lies as well.

                  If you think she is right on the money, take note that first you have to have a competent disagreement that has been made. There was a very recent one with Young where she was wrong again and this time on the law.

                  If you find a credible poster who you believe is wrong and CTDHD proves otherwise in her citation or quotes go ahead and explain why she is right. You should be able to do that if you can say that you “looked them up myself and she’s right on the money.”

                  If you cannot put it into your own words and make an argument that one quote is right and another wrong then you really don’t understand what you read.

          3. Steve, big problem with your assertion.

            VP Mike Pence publicly stated that Flynn lied to him.

            Furthermore the context from the FBI investigators is being twisted so far out of whack just to justify the excuses. Evidence outweighs what the FBI thinks as an opinion. That’s why your argument doesn’t fly.

            CTHD has provided the full context of those FBI investigators meant. It is not what you think it is.

            1. ” CTHD has provided the full context of those FBI investigators meant. ”

              Svelaz doesn’t know what she said so he refers people to her. Another bozo.

              1. Allan, you’re major yourself look like an idiot here. CTHD has provided the entire context of those conversations on this blog. They don’t correlate to what you think they do.

                1. My initial fight with her had to do with a quote of Flynn supposedly in the FBI files. She kept telling us the answer was there in his own words but it wasn’t and she could never copy the words she said existed. She was wrong.

                  If you think I am such an idiot then you should have no problem debating me with the quotations and facts along with your opinion. Go ahead. Prove that Michael Flynn was guilty of the initial charges that started this whole thing. I am saying it this way so we don’t go down tangents like ‘He said he was guilty’. Young already provided an explanation of the meaning of the guilty plea using two of the three words that Austin wrote about. Young will know what I am talking about.

                  Better yet debate it with Young if he permits. I say that because Young is an attorney so he can better focus in on the exact meaning of the words used and how they are understood by lawyers and judges.

    4. Take a step back and look again. There is a set for politicians, there is a set for those that p*ss off politicians, there is a set for the general population, and the set for the general population is based on how much “defense” you can afford. It is a multi-tiered system and has been for ages. If you think about it, you can probably find even more tiers for yourself.

    5. Confessed under duress. Just as how it’s been done in totalitarian places for decades. Let’s see you hold out when your family has been threatened.

    6. arrogant nom de plume socalled justice holmes, a fool. total failure to appreciate this, total lack of fundamental fairness for the defendant, atrocious display of judicial abuse

      this exercise by sullivan, piled on top of what we now know was an abusive persecution in the first place, is turning basic criminal procedure and due process on its ear. it is the criminal proceedings farce of a generation

    1. Yes, he claimed that about his initial Covington lawyers. If you do an internet search on [flynn covington ineffective counsel], you can read more.

      1. That is why Attorney Powell most likely asked President Trump to not pardon General Flynn. Great lawsuit for terrible representation. They withheld evidence favorable to General Flynn from Attorney Powell.

        1. I’d love for there to be a trial about whether the Covington lawyers provided ineffective counsel. Flynn has already waived his privilege for that, and it will be very interesting to see what comes out at trial.

    2. Of course Sidney did this, but she went much further. The blatant conflict is plain for all to see. Also, the first guilty plea was done before a judge(Contreras) who failed to recuse himself when he was obviously required by law to do so.

      1. Ivan, when you say “Of course Sidney did this,” it’s unclear what “this” refers to.

        As for the Covington lawyers having provided ineffective counsel, why did Flynn state under oath in Dec. of 2018 that he was satisfied with his Covington representation? The exchange (from the court transcript):
        Sullivan: “Are you satisfied with the services provided by your attorneys?”
        Flynn: “I am.”

        1. Lol, Covington firm has so much stinking egg on its face they should all pick a new line of work after the expensive con job they did on their client

          1. Let Flynn prove it in court and win a big settlement. I look forward to hearing testimony in the trial, especially about communications that would have been privileged but that Flynn already waived privilege for.

            1. negligence cases against lawyers sound easier than they are. heck some biglaw engagement letters make clients sign their rights away to make negligence claims in advance. you would not believe the crap they do. the bills are outrageous for starters. every and always a fraud from getgo. biglaw stinks and covington is biglaw, deep state central

              cigarette lawyers., really! for decades. that was their claim to fame. built their rep on protecting cig industry from cancer claims. some swell group of chaps!

              picked Eric Prince’s pocket too

              what a despicable lot of cretins big law is. they better figure out where their bread is buttered, right now, they are all divided into the Democrat sycophants and as we see from Covington, if they pretend to take igh profile Republican cases on, they are incompetent foot draggers, and perhaps even saboteurs

              it took that badazz Sydney lady to knock this one out of the park!

              1. the only kind of criminal case that biglaw is suitable for is an “insider trading” criminal enforcement action. that is the only one. for that they have a swell track record

                otherwise they mostly just screw their own clients to the wall first and foremost, bankrupt them, and don’t get a much better result than a small or solo law firm could

                this is well known fact. whomever sent Flynn to them didn’t know better; whomever sent him to Sydney was a true friend.

                I bet Flynn could have been off with a CJA panel lawyer than Covington,. the biglaw racketeers of cigarette fortune and fame!

  15. Let’s face it, Black Robes Sullivan is a political bagman trying to influence an election. His judicial performance here is abominable and he’s probably just playing for a book deal or speaking tour after retirement. Shameful. Were the racial composition between the antagonists opposite, what’d the over/under on charges of judicial racism be? 50?

    1. Mespo, clearly you have no idea what you’re talking about. All the evidence doesn’t support anything that you or Turley claims.

      It’s sad that Turley is damaging his credibility as a competent lawyer with the sloppy and poor arguments he presents.

      CTHD, has provided the correct narrative on this case and nobody has been able to prove her wrong at all. Only assumptions and personal attacks seem to be the only options instead of an actual rational discussion. SMH.

      1. svey:

        “Only assumptions and personal attacks seem to be the only options instead of an actual rational discussion. SMH.”
        *************************
        Oh, rational discussion went right out the window when Ol’ Black Robes decided to ignore binding precedent and called people traitors even though any 1st year knows we have to be at war for that particular capital crime. Emmet is your basic “lifer” who feels no constraint in his decisions. This one is clearly political given the timing. I’m all ears for a better explanation but maybe you have to be a lawyer to understand how aberrational this situation is and this judge is acting. Flynn’s lawyer said it best. It’s a “prosecution without a prosecutor” — or maybe just one with a “prosecutor” who’d surprise you.

        1. The CADC disagrees with you that Sullivan is “ignor[ing] binding precedent,” which is why they sent it back to him to hold a hearing on the motion to dismiss. I’ll take their word over yours.

          You say Sullivan “called people traitors,” but he didn’t, which is why you don’t quote him. Also, you seem to be confusing “traitor” with “treason,” when you say “we have to be at war for that particular capital crime.” There is no capital crime called “traitor.” He did not claim that Flynn committed treason. Here’s a good discussion of the actual exchange involving “treason”:
          https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/12/19/in-defense-of-emmet-sullivan-van-grack-suggested-mueller-did-review-whether-flynns-behavior-amounted-to-treason/

          The prosecution phase is over. Flynn was already in the sentencing phase. So Powell’s claim that it’s a “prosecution without a prosecutor” is nonsense.

          You’re a lawyer and I’m not, but for a lawyer, you’re really sloppy with evidence.

          1. “You say Sullivan “called people traitors,” but he didn’t, ”
            ***********************

            “Judge, after noting Flynn lied and acted as an unregistered foreign agent (for Turkey) said: “Arguably, that undermines everything that this flag over here stands for. Arguably, you sold your country out. “I’m not hiding my disgust, my disdain for this criminal offense”

            The judge then asked prosecutor Brandon Van Grack if Flynn could have been charged with treason for his convos with the Russian ambassador. Van Grack said that in terms of the evidence, that wasn’t something the govt was considering charging at the time.

            Judge Sullivan is now trying to walk back some of his rhetoric before the break. Says he was just asking about treason, not saying that Flynn committed it. “Don’t read too much into the questions I asked.” Sullivan says he couldn’t even tell you what the elements of treason are.”

            Gee you ought to call Judge Emmett, he thinks he did. You really are a consummate liar, Committed!

            1. On the contrary, Mespo, your own quoted do not include the word “traitor” and make clear that he did not claim that Flynn had committed “treason.”

              “he thinks he did.”

              No, he didn’t say that. You want to read that into what he said, but that’s you, not him.

              Like many of my detractors here, you project your own faults onto me in calling me a “consummate liar” (well, to be fair, you’re a very obvious liar rather than a consummate one).

          2. “The CADC disagrees with you that Sullivan is “ignor[ing] binding precedent,” which is why they sent it back to him to hold a hearing on the motion to dismiss. I’ll take their word over yours.”
            *******************************
            Well, if that was “their word” you might have a point but that nasty ol’ reading comprehension thingy of your’n got in the way. No, the en banc court said the ruling by the three judges wasn’t a ripe issue since Ol’ Emmett had not actually entered a final order. Pretty basic rule of appellate review but why let that truth get in the way of your lie.

            Too bad there’s not a blog around that could explain to you what really happened and say something like this:

            “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.” Supra (that means see above!).

            Are your pants on fire yet?

            1. “the en banc court said the ruling by the three judges wasn’t a ripe issue since Ol’ Emmett had not actually entered a final order.”

              Duh. And because he hadn’t ruled, he was not “ignor[ing] binding precedent” as you’d claimed. Had he actually been “ignor[ing] binding precedent,” then they would have found the issue ripe. For a lawyer, your logical reasoning skills are lacking.

      2. Svey:

        “Mespo, clearly you have no idea what you’re talking about. All the evidence doesn’t support anything that you or Turley claims.”
        *************************
        I see. I’ve got a nationally recognized Constitutional scholar and law professor on my side and you’ve got CTHD. I like my odds. LOL

        1. Mespo– That was funny. Also true.

          CTHD spends a lot of time harvesting weeds and (purposely, I think) misses the wheat.

        2. Mespo, CTHD has been providing links, quotes, and direct evidence contradicting your own arguments. I happen to do what she suggests and actually reading every detail puts everything in context. CTHD’s take on the issue is right on the money.

          Turley’s constitutional scholar credentials are no guarantee that his argument are reasonable. CTHD has shown multiple times that Turley is being misleading and sloppy with this issue.

          I’m willing to bet that CTHD’s arguments cannot be refuted by Turley himself if he came on the comments section.

      3. You made claims and Mespo answered you. Will you rebut Mespo point by point or will you run away. We are all waiting. To date you haven’t been very good on details or analysis.

    2. 99%. He’s either suffering from what used to be called “hardening of the arteries” or he’s consumed by political-racial hatred.

Leave a Reply