The Best Case For A Flynn Pardon May Be The Conduct Of The Court Rather Than The Defendant

President Donald Trump is reportedly considering a pardon for his former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn this week. As someone who has long opposed Trump’s pardons of Trump associates like Roger Stone and  Joe Arpaio, I do not come easily to the idea of pardon for someone like Flynn. However, the strongest case for a pardon for Flynn was not made by his lawyers as much as his judge, the Honorable Emmet Sullivan. Sullivan’s continued controversial actions in the case could be cited as a credible, if not a compelling basis, for a pardon of Flynn.

I have been a long critic of the Flynn prosecution for a variety of reasons. First, Flynn was targeted due to his communications with Russian diplomats shortly before becoming national security adviser. There is nothing untoward, unlawful, or even uncommon in such meetings weeks before a new administration. Nevertheless, former FBI Director James Comey decided to send in agents to interview Flynn without the presence of the White House counsel. Comey later bragged that that he “probably wouldn’t have … gotten away with it” in other administrations, but he sent “a couple guys over” to question Flynn. Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates was irate at the move and described Comey as going “rogue” in the move.

Second, Comey himself reportedly told then President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden that the FBI thought the meetings with the Russians was “legit.” Moreover, at the interview, Flynn stated that he assumed that the agents already had a transcript of the conversations (which they did), and the two FBI agents did not believe that Flynn intentionally lied to them about the details of the conversations.

Third, the effort to criminally charge Flynn had fallen apart by the end of December 2016. On January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” that said it was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” because it found no evidence of criminal conduct. They were prevented from closing the case by fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, who expressed vehement opposition to Trump being elected as president. When the investigation collapsed, White House and FBI officials reportedly debated any other possible way to charge Flynn, including using the Logan Act which is widely viewed as unconstitutional (and has never been used to secure a single conviction against anyone). The Justice Department later charged Flynn and, after draining him of most of his money and threatening his son with prosecution, secured a plea to a single count of lying to federal investigators. (Yes, those same investigators who did not think that Flynn intentionally lied to them).

This barely scratches the surface of the irregular and abusive handling of the Flynn case.  However, while his lawyers made strong arguments in court, that alone would not justify a pardon from a president who has such a close personal and professional relationship with Flynn. Then came Judge Sullivan.

From the outset, Sullivan’s handling of the case was unsettling and irregular. This should have been a simple sentencing on a simple criminal count.  After all, Flynn cooperated with federal prosecutors and even uncooperative witnesses like Alex Van Der Zwaan received only 30 days in prison on a similar charge. However, in his first sentencing hearing, Sullivan blew up the proceedings with a bizarre diatribe. 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 Flynn wisely waited on sentencing. There would be two more sentencing hearings. Each time, Sullivan lashed out at the Trump Administration and refused to issue a final order. The Justice Department later filed to drop the prosecution entirely. Yet, Sullivan again refused and took the extraordinary step of inviting former judge John Gleeson to argue against dismissal of the case.  As a judge, Gleeson was himself reversed for usurping the role of prosecutors–acting (according to the Second Circuit) in a way that “would be to turn the presumption of regularity on its head.” Sullivan even suggested that he might charge Flynn himself with perjury.

Sullivan’s conduct led a D.C. panel to order him to dismiss the case, in a scathing decision over his handling and the briefing of Gleeson. At the time, I wrote that the panel should be reversed because Sullivan had not issued a final decision. Later the D.C. Circuit reached the same conclusion and, without endorsing the conduct of Sullivan, sent the case back for final decision for Sullivan to do the right thing.

Instead, in September, Sullivan refused again to issue a final ruling and stated that he “still has questions” about the case. Indeed, in the hearing, Sullivan asked about whether a Biden Justice Department might be able to reinstate the case.  It left the troubling appearance that Sullivan was prosecutor shopping, delaying the case until after an expected Biden electoral victory. With a Biden Justice Department, Sullivan still might be able to sentence Flynn.

That leads us to this pardon. The idea of Trump pardoning a former aide still sits badly with me. However, so does the conduct of his judge and the refusal to end this saga. There are no claims in the case that Flynn withheld criminal evidence against Trump. He was charged with lying about something that was not even a crime. We have a case where the prosecutors have declared that there is insufficient evidence for a charge but the judge refuses to let the defendant out of his courtroom after years of delay. Sullivan is continuing to hold on to a case that prosecutors have sought to dismiss since May. There is still no end in sight. That is why the only basis for a pardon in this case that is stronger than the conduct of defendant is the conduct of the judge in the bizarre case of United States v. Michael Flynn.

208 thoughts on “The Best Case For A Flynn Pardon May Be The Conduct Of The Court Rather Than The Defendant”

  1. “The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment.” Trump does not need to justify any pardon because he has plenary power to do so with the exception of impeachment. A disgusting pardon was Clinton pardoning his cocaine dealing brother.

    1. Agreed.

      “Roger Clinton would be charged with drunk driving and disorderly conduct in an unrelated incident within a year of the pardon.” (Wikipedia)

  2. So Trump announced on Twitter that he’d pardoned Flynn, but the actual pardon, which explicitly states the scope of the pardon, still isn’t on the White House website. There’s only a statement from McEnany on the WH site (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-regarding-executive-grant-clemency-general-michael-t-flynn/). When is the WH going to post the actual pardon? It also hasn’t been entered into the docket for U.S. v. Flynn. Sullivan will need to see the scope of the actual pardon in order to figure out whether there’s any issue still before his court.

    1. CTHD: “Sullivan will need to see the scope of the actual pardon in order to figure out whether there’s any issue still before his court.””

      ****

      The only “issue before the court” is the court itself.

    2. Indeed I read Flynn’s Thanksgiving…..no thank to Trump…just like stone no thank to Trump….for a pardon…..yet that colored woman thanked Trump profusely…for her pardon. How about a thanks…gentlemen?

  3. In 2018, Sullivan ordered the government to produce a variety of documents
    ___________________________________________________
    So what? The court accepted Flynn’s guilty plea in 2017. Flynn’s plea was based solely on information in the statement of offense that Flynn swore to the court was true and correct. The only issue before the court in 2018 was the sentencing.
    ______________________________________________
    There’s a lot of evidence against Flynn in the Mueller report
    ________________________________________________
    If there was any other than the statement of offense you would be able to produce it.
    __________________________________
    If Flynn didn’t know about the FBI agents’ initial interpretation, that’s his attorneys’ fault
    ______________________________________________________________________

    Yes that is correct. If Flynn is telling the truth, it means that both Flynn’s attorney and the prosecutor are guilty of gross misconduct in Sullivan’s court.

    1. You still don’t know what you’re talking about.

      When to sentence Flynn and how he should be sentenced involved lots of other documents: status reports, sentencing memoranda from Flynn’s lawyers and the government, 302s, summaries of other internal reports, and so on. Have you ever looked at how many documents were filed publicly, and how many others were mentioned as having been filed under seal? The documents filed by the government included additional evidence about Flynn’s illegal acts, such as the 302 from his 1/24/17 interview.

      Sentencing is not the same as the plea. Sentencing was not “based solely on information in the statement of offense that Flynn swore to the court was true and correct.”

      You can read the Mueller Report for yourself. It cites evidence against Flynn from a bunch of other sources besides the Statement of the Offense. Look at the footnotes on the relevant pages. For example, on pp. 168-172 of Vol. 1 and pp. 24-26 of Vol. 2, they discuss other evidence, citing the 302s from several other interviews with Flynn later in 2017 and in early 2018, text messages, emails, and 302s from interviews with McFarland and others.

      Can you even admit that Strzok stated in writing that Flynn “baldly lied” to them, or are you just going to ignore everything that conflicts with your argument?

      1. Any thing that occured after the first injection of poison. Is inadmissable. However
        The Federal Pardon rules including stupid NY.

      2. The documents filed by the government included additional evidence about Flynn’s illegal acts
        _____________________________________________________________

        So you claim but that is just your biased opinion. The evidence does not support your claim.
        The FBI investigated for 6 months and came to the conclusion there were no illegal acts
        https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/02/16/fbi-michael-flynn-fbi-no-charges-lemon-sot.cnn

        You have yet to even come close to producing any evidence against Flynn,
        The statement of offense is the only evidence against Flynn and Flynn claims he was tricked by his lawyers and the prosecution into agreeing to validate that statement of offense.

        Evidence that he talked to Kislyak or Mcfarland or Trump is not evidence of a crime
        Only rge severely deranged would consider that evidence against Flynn.
        _______________________________________________
        For example, on pp. 168-172 of Vol. 1 and pp. 24-26 of Vol. 2, they discuss other evidence

        _____________________________________________________________

        Ha ha ha you are hilarious.
        There is no evidence of any crime by Flynn on those pages.

        I will agree that you can find instances of Comey, Mueller and Trump all insinuating that Flynn lied to the FBI.
        But none of that is evidence against Flynn. It is evidence that Comey, Mueller and Trump were subverting justice.
        Comey, Mueller and Trump have no personal knowledge of whether Flynn lied to the FBI. Their opinions are of no more value than your opinion is. Their opinions and your opinion is not evidence against Flynn. What is enormously problematic is that these authority figures are contradicting the evidence given by their subordinates and subverting the judicial process by using their powers to supplant good evidence with phony non-evidence.
        ~
        But all the attempts by Comey his buddy Mueller and Trump to subvert justice would still fail. They still need Flynn to supply the actual evidence because they have no real evidence.

        1. So you can’t even bring yourself to admit that Strzok stated in writing that Flynn “baldly lied” to them. You’re just trolling.

          1. Strzok stated in writing that Flynn “baldly lied”
            __________________________________________

            I have not seen that anywhere in the court record or any place where it might pass as evidence.
            Just because you write you have read that does not make it evidence of anything.

            When it is reported Strzok said he believed that Flynn “was not lying” that can be believed because Strzok was subject to prosecution if he were making a false or misleading statement.

      3. Sentencing was not “based solely on information in the statement of offense that Flynn swore to the court was true and correct.”
        ____________________________________________________

        Sentencing was not based on anything – Sentencing never happened.

        The FD 302’s were introduced into the proceedings by the defense in sentencing memorandum.
        In response to seeing the new evidence Judge Sullivans said: “Mr. Flynn’s briefing concerned the Court, as he raised
        issues that may affect or call into question his guilty plea”

        The judge went on to say:
        “the Court concludes that it must now first ask Mr. Flynn certain questions to ensure that he entered his guilty plea knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently, and with fulsome and satisfactory advice of counsel.
        I cannot recall any incident in which the Court has ever accepted a plea of guilty from someone who maintained that he was not guilty, and I don’t intend to start today.”
        The judge then questioned Flynn on whether he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea.
        The judge then made Flynn an offer:
        “THE COURT: In certain special circumstances, I have over the years appointed an independent attorney to speak with a defendant, review the defendant’s file, and conduct necessary research to render a second opinion for a defendant. Do you want the Court to consider appointing an independent attorney for you
        in this case to give you a second opinion?
        THE DEFENDANT: I do not, Your Honor.”

        In other words, the judge was concerned that there may be no evidence against Flynn that would support a charge beyond the evidence that Flynn himself had provided.

        Later the judge repeated his concern that the new evidence was exculpatory.
        In response Flynn’s attorney said:
        “We did think there was information produced in the Brady process that Your Honor might want to see, and that was relevant strictly to the question of the history and circumstances of the case for sentencing purposes.”

  4. “But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote;…”

  5. …”That leads us to this pardon. The idea of Trump pardoning a former aide still sits badly with me.”… Ok, so why exactly?? When this entire investigation and prosecution was clearly a total miscarriage of justice?

    1. …”That leads us to this pardon. The idea of Trump pardoning a former aide still sits badly with me.”… Ok, so why exactly?? When this entire investigation and prosecution was clearly a total miscarriage of justice?
      _____________________________________________________________________

      The Flynn Flam case was indeed a miscarriage of justice and the pardon is just another attempt by the trump administration to shut it all down before the judge can explore how this fraudulent case was brought to his court. The case was prosecuted by the trump DOJ and now it is Trump himself who has joined the effort to close it all down.

      1. The judge has had three years to explore how this fraudulent case was brought to his court. In a few weeks the case will enter its fourth year. If he wanted to get to the bottom of it he would have done so by now.
        Now Sullivan is talking about bringing the case again under a Biden administration? What is it with him? He thinks he’s Captain Ahab and Flynn is Moby Dick.

        1. The judge has had three years to explore how this fraudulent case was brought to his court.
          ______________________________________________________

          The record shows that the judge has been gravely concerned for a long tome about the legitimacy of this case, but there is not much that can be done when the defendant and all the multitude of attorneys for the prosecution and defense are telling the judge the same story in lockstep.
          But then when the defendant and all the attorneys have flip-flopped and they are now all telling a story that completely contradicts the story that they have told the judge for years the judge can with some degree of certainty come to the conclusion that something is very rotten about this case.

          The Flynn Flam case has been a sham from the beginning. There was absolutely no reason for Flynn to lie to the FBI and there was no reason for the FBI to care how Flynn responded to their questions since the FBI did not need the answers for any legitimate purpose. In the real world this would never end up in court and any reasonable person looking at the facts can tell there is no case.

          But the facts were not presented in court in support of Flynn’s plea. What was presented to the court was a cooked up story that Flynn and all the lawyers told the judge was true and correct. And it was on the basis of this cooked up story (called The Statement of Offense) that Flynn was found guilty. Now the defendant and all the attorneys are asking the court to disregard the phony story and asking the judge to sweep the whole thing under the rug and make it go away. And the judge’s response is to let them know they don’t pull that shit in his courtroom and get away with it scot-free.

      2. Now we are blaming Trump for this abortion of justice when his pardon fixed it when his own NSA was railroaded?

  6. THE KRACKEN

    14.

    As explained and demonstrated in the accompanying redacted declaration of a former electronic intelligence analyst under 305th Military Intelligence with experience gathering SAM missile system electronic intelligence, the Dominion software was accessed by agents acting on behalf of China and Iran in order to monitor and manipulate elections, including the most recent US general election in 2020. This Declaration further includes a copy of the patent records for Dominion Systems in which Eric Coomer is listed as the first of the inventors of Dominion Voting Systems. (See Attached hereto as Exh. 8, copy of redacted witness affidavit, 17 pages, November 23, 2020).

    15.

    Expert Navid Keshavarez-Nia explains that US intelligence services had developed tools to infiltrate foreign voting systems including Dominion. He states that Dominion’s software is vulnerable to data manipulation by unauthorized means and permitted election data to be altered in all battleground states. He concludes that hundreds of thousands of votes that were cast for President Trump in the 2020 general election were transferred to former Vice-President Biden. (Exh. 26).

      1. It isn’t old news. It’s another mistake in the brief and was a statement made by Shepherd today. The Cobb County GOP isn’t listed as one of the plaintiffs on the front page, but the body of the brief says “Plaintiff Jason M. Shepherd is the Chairman of the Cobb County Republican Party and brings this action in his official capacity on behalf of the Cobb County Republican Party,” and that’s not true.

          1. Depends on what the pardon says. The White House still hasn’t posted the text of the official pardon.

  7. Flynn conveyed to the Russian ambassador that Trump would not uphold the sanctions Obama placed on them for election interference. He didn’t make that up himself. Trump attorney Dowd conveyed to Flynn – we have the phone message recording and this cited in the Mueller report as one of the instances of obstruction of justice – that Trump had his back and he should protect him in his testimony. Flynn did so. Trump is covering his back after his Barr intervention may have run into trouble.

    Quid pro quo. Good riddance to this self dealing BS and apologists like Turley.

    1. Flynn conveyed to the Russian ambassador that Trump would not uphold the sanctions Obama placed on them for election interference
      _________________________________________________________________________
      No he did not, but even if he had told the Russian ambassador that the sanctions would be lifted after trump took office there is nothing illegal about that.

      As for trump having Flynn’s back that is also nonsense. The FBI agents who were the eyewitnesses to the alleged sec 1001 violation said they believed Flynn was not lying. In other words, the only witnesses to the alleged crime are in the record saying there was no crime. But trump contradicted the FBI agent’s statements and told the world that Flynn did lie to the FBI.

      https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/pres-trump-says-he-fired-flynn-for-lying-to-pence-and-the-fbi-1108420163773

      The Mueller Report provides zero evidence that Flynn lied beyond Flynn’s sworn statement that he had lied. In other words. the only evidence against Flynn are statements by Trump and Flynn

      1. The witnesses wrote down Flynn’s false statements. You simultaneously accept that they said they didn’t initially see indicia of lying while rejecting that they said he made materially false statements and later concluded that they were knowingly false. You have double standards when it comes to accepting their statements.

        1. The witnesses wrote down Flynn’s false statements.
          ______________________________________________________________
          The FBI agents that interviewed Flynn wrote down some snippets of statements. They never claimed any of them were false and none of those snippets of statements were presented to the court as evidence against Flynn. In factm the FBI agent’s notes were given to the defense as exculpatory evidence under the Brady rule.
          ________________________________________________________________________

          You simultaneously accept that they said they didn’t initially see indicia of lying while rejecting that they said he made materially false statements
          _________________________________________________________________________________

          I suspect you are the one who is making false statements.
          The expert eyewitnesses to the alleged crime have made statements that make it clear they believe there was no chargeable crime.

          The FBI confirmed to CNN that there was no evidence of any crime for which Flynn could be charged.

          https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/02/16/fbi-michael-flynn-fbi-no-charges-lemon-sot.cnn

          That assessment by the FBI that there was nothing to charge Flynn with was after more than 6 months of investigation.

          1. And the original charge wasn’t used. The Judge should have seen that and also seen the Fruit of The Poisoned Tree which wipes out all that follows but…. appears we have a far left exgtremist or at least discovered with proof they exist.

            1. And the original charge wasn’t used.
              _________________________________________

              There was no original charge. The case was brought to court solely on the information provided by Flynn himself.
              Without Flynn’s help there is no case and no evidence to support a case.

          2. The FBI agents who interviewed Flynn filed a 302 in February 2017, they provided a copy of it to Flynn’s attorneys before he signed his plea agreement, and it was entered into the court record as evidence, so you’re just wrong that the 302 wasn’t presented to the court as evidence against Flynn. Sullivan wrote about it as evidence.

            The FBI agents digitally signed the 302, and it is against the law for an FBI agent to knowingly make materially false statements on a 302, so it functions legally as an affidavit. When you compare the agents’ statements in the 302 about what Flynn said to them in the interview to all of the other evidence, the conflict between what Flynn told the agents and what the other evidence shows demonstrates that Flynn made materially false statements to the FBI in the interview. They don’t have to write in the 302 that he lied. The 302 only has to include evidence that he knowingly made materially false statements.

            Sullivan noted that the government “informed defense counsel that Mr. Strzok and Pientka “had the impression at the time that [Mr. Flynn] was not lying,”” but after they gathered more evidence, they became convinced that he had lied to them. Strzok has stated in writing that Flynn “baldly lied” to them. You don’t get to pick and choose, ignoring their later conclusion after they’d gathered more evidence.

            Your 2/16/17 CNN report isn’t 6 months after the interview. In February, they were still gathering more evidence about the interview. You seem to want to pretend that the FBI stopped in time, and nothing they gathered after mid-February matters and nothing the agents came to believe after mid-February matters.

            1. The FBI agents who interviewed Flynn filed a 302 in February 2017, they provided a copy of it to Flynn’s attorneys before he signed his plea agreement, and it was entered into the court record as evidence, so you’re just wrong that the 302 wasn’t presented to the court as evidence against Flynn.
              ____________________________________________
              You are again making false statements. What the govt prosecutors told the the defense attorneys is neither part of the court record or evidence presented to the court in support of conviction of Flynn.

              It is true that the FBI notes were made available to the defense attorneys, but they were not submitted to the court until after Flynn was already found guilty. The FBI notes became part of the record only because they were introduced as exculpatory evidence. They were not part of the information used to convict Flynn. The only information used to convict Flynn was the information that was supplied in the sworn statement of offense that Flynn signed. There is also no evidence against Flynn in the Mueller report other than the same statement of offense.
              ________________________________________________
              Your 2/16/17 CNN report isn’t 6 months after the interview.
              ___________________________________________________

              Nobody claimed it was. It was six months after the investigation of Flynn started and in that time the FBI had found nothing to charge Flynn. No new information was discovered after that statement by the FBI. The only evidence against Flynn that “appeared” after Feb 2017 is Flynn’s phony statement of offense.

              Flynn’s statement of offense confession would be good evidence but Flynn recanted his statement claiming that he was not shown the FBI agents statements saying that they believed he was not lying. Soon after Flynn made that statement to the court the govt moved to dismiss the case. And when the judge wanted to hold a hearing Flynn joined the govt in attempting to prevent any further questions by the judge.

              What should be obvious here is that somebody committed a crime in Sullivan’s court. Was it Flynn or was it the attorneys for the prosecution and defense?

              1. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.

                In 2018, Sullivan ordered the government to produce a variety of documents for the court, and after reviewing the 302 under seal, he ordered the government to file a redacted version publicly. It entered the court record because of Sullivan’s order, not “because they were introduced as exculpatory evidence” by the defense.

                There’s a lot of evidence against Flynn in the Mueller report, including evidence from subsequent interviews in 2017.

                If Flynn didn’t know about the FBI agents’ initial interpretation, that’s his attorneys’ fault, because they knew before Flynn signed the plea agreement on 11/30/17, when “the government informed defense counsel that DAD Strzok said that the defendant had a sure demeanor and did not give any indicators of deception during the January 24 interview, and that both of the interviewing agents had the impression at the time that the defendant was not lying or did not think he was lying.” Flynn certainly knew about it long before the DOJ moved to dismiss the case, because it entered the public court record no later than 2019, and the DOJ didn’t submitted the motion to dismiss until the spring of 2020.

                1. Point counterpoint. We don’t know who you are nor your unsupported story. What we do know is you claim to have access to sealed records which may or may not exist. Begs the question how did you get access to classified maerials if they were indeed the real thing. If so why aren’t you in prison?

                  1. I didn’t claim that I had access to sealed records. I said Sullivan had read material filed under seal and ordered redacted copies to be made public. We all have access to the public redacted copies.

  8. Americans have a golden opportunity to make 2021 the year of reform. Institutions like the DOJ should be independent of partisan politics. If not now, when?

    1. I see no need at all for the party system which is not listed anywhere in the Constitution. Coalition system works much better.

  9. While I tend to agree with you more than disagree I find that Sullivan’s conduct is so egregious as to constitute willful misconduct and a usurpation of the Constitution which insures our rights to a fair trial without undue delay. I firmly believe Sullivan has crossed the threshold of a life time tenure on the court because his behavior is no longer good behavior but vindictive behavior. The only solution (which will never happen is impeachment, conviction and removal from the bench.) He has engaged in Judicial Misconduct should be punished and disbarred.

  10. US Supreme Court votes to block New York Governor Cuomo’s capacity caps at Catholic churches and synagogues
    The court on a 5-4 vote granted requests made by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two Orthodox Jewish congregations

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    No. 20A87

    ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK v. ANDREW M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK
    ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

    [November 25,2020]

    For these reasons, we hold that enforcement of the Gov- ernor’s severe restrictions on the applicants’ religious ser- vices must be enjoined.

    It is so ordered.

    Application (20A87) granted by the Court. The application for injunctive relief presented to JUSTICE BREYER and by him referred to the Court is granted. Respondent is enjoined from enforcing Executive Order 202.68’s 10- and 25-person occupancy limits on applicant pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. (Detached Opinion). JUSTICE GORSUCH, concurring. (Detached Opinion). JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring.(Detached Opinion). CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, dissenting. (Detached Opinion). JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting. (Detached Opinion). JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN joins,dissenting. (Detached Opinion).

    1. Has it ever been looked into whether the name “John Roberts” that appears in the Epstein Island flight logs is Chief Justice John Roberts? His unprincipled behavior suggests he may be the ‘John Roberts’ whose name appears on the flight log. Gotta wonder about this guy.

      1. Why how many commonly named in the USA, Canada, other English speaking country and no evidence provided he exists other than a figment of an unproven fairy tail. Boring and rejected.

Leave a Reply