Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Judge May Be an Ass: Clarifying That ‘If?’
It seems like forever ago but just four days ago over at the Flynn and the FBI post:
philo: For the record, the way this went down leaves me wondering if the judge would have done the right thing if the game was allowed to play out. Given what we’ve seen from the greater judiciary in the Age of Trump, that certainly remains a very big “if.”
I apologize for the apparent understatement.
There has, however, been some lively “taking of sides” on the subject since then. The first I came across was from probably the most disappointing of the Nevers (I used to really enjoy the former Fort Worthian and blog namesake) over at Patterico’s Pontifications in a post titled “The (Hypothetical) Transcript of the Next Court Hearing in the Michael Flynn Case.” No links from me, but the post and the comments provide interesting perspectives. Find it on your own if you wish.
I mention that one, because it’s a direct lead-in to a RedState post titled “Judge Emmet Sullivan Likely Committed Reversible Error In Taking The Guilty Plea of General Michael Flynn” which spun off a comment under the Patterico piece. It is a long-ish analysis that posits “The guilty plea was invalid as a matter of law independent of the DOJ motion” and suggests:
Judge Sullivan screwed up the factual basis of the guilty plea entered by Gen. Flynn, and the procedure he employed was unsound and violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. I think DOJ knows this to be the case, but given Judge Sullivan’s unpredictability they have opted to not “call him out” on it at this point. Instead, I suspect there is a hope that he may recognize his error — it’s right there in the transcript — and will instead grant the DOJ motion which solves his problem without him having to confront — or be confronted on — his own astonishing error.
I claim no useful knowledge of the law but would be interested in the opinions of the local law-types on this one.
But then, hot on the heels of that, another RedState post informs us “Judge Emmet Sullivan Signals He May Still Sentence Michael Flynn, Invites In the Left Wing Circus.” The tease:
But when the DOJ moved to drop the charges, I figured his hand would be forced. How could he go ahead and sentence a man against the request of the prosecution and whose case had been completely blown up by formerly covered up documents? Well, Judge Sullivan is signaling he may find a way.
As I said, the judiciary in the Age of Trump has been a massive embarrassment, so I am not optimistic. But one thing is clear from that last link:
Any judge that goes ahead with a sentencing after what’s been revealed needs to be removed from the bench.
Yes, that would be a must … just before the tar and feathers are applied.
Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.
Published in General
One possible answer to Q#2 is that Durham may have needed the information to be kept quiet while he investigated, so as to not tip off the key players. Perhaps he has finished that phase of his evidence gathering, and no harm can come from releasing the information? It’s the most charitable explanation I can think of.
Durham did not start his probe until October 16, 2019 … Coats was long gone by then.
One possible (probable?) excuse for Coats inaction was the Mueller Special Counsel pretend investigation was used to hide all the incriminating illegal Obama Spygate poop storm classified information. But it seems odd the NSA would be excluded from access to any classified info ever, and it does not account for the period of March 9, 2017 until May 17, 2017 when the
coverupSpecial Counsel investigation began.The most important issue of the day, Trump/Russia collusion, and the NSA never reviewed at the underlying documents for over two months …. that’s weird.
No idea how I doubled up on that comment
I think that Sullivan might have anticipated the possibility of the prosecution’s factual basis not holding water so he didn’t pull too hard on the threads appearing to hold it together because he was sympathic with them wanting to get Flynn. But I also can’t help getting the feeling that this is something that occurs often enough that the prosecutors and judges only do enough of a show to snow the defendents and their representation. They know they haven’t done justice, but they know they can rely on a sympathetic judge. It sounds like a high stakes con job being promulgated from within the government against their own citizens.
See: A Judge, A General and A Rabbi Walk Into A Barr
The big picture here is that this Ass spent years now riding herd over this case hiding behind the veneer of impartiality. Recent events did not change him, this tantrum is who he is and has always been. How could anyone come before his court ever again and believe they are getting an even reading of the law?