Judge in Flynn case eyeing possible contempt charge for perjury

[mystery-ak]

Judge in Flynn case eyeing possible contempt charge for perjury
By John Kruzel - 05/13/20 07:01 PM EDT

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan on Wednesday suggested he is considering the possibility that President Trump’s national security adviser Michael Flynn could be held in criminal contempt for perjury.

Sullivan also tapped a retired federal judge to argue against the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) motion to drop the criminal prosecution of Flynn.

John Gleeson, who served for 22 years as a judge and served as a federal prosecutor before entering private practice, will serve as an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, in opposition to the DOJ’s recently adopted position that Flynn’s case should be dismissed.

Among the issues Sullivan has asked former federal judge John Gleeson to address is “whether the Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury pursuant.”

DEVELOPING

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/497679-retired-judge-tapped-to-argue-against-dojs-move-to-drop-flynn

[skeeter]

Just pardon the poor guy already.

[mystery-ak]

Just pardon the poor guy already.

Yeah this is just ridiculous

[Cyber Liberty]

Now the crooked Clinton Judge is just making shit up as he's going along.

[txradioguy]

This judge is attempting to do an end run around what DoJ has decided to to in relation to the Flynn case.

The former Judge he's appointing to be the Amicus for these briefs and argue to the Judge Sullivan why he should not drop the case is a former Clinton appointee who just penned an OpEd for the WaPo entitled "The Flynn Case Isn't Over Until The Judge Says It's Over".

Something at the USAG level needs to be done to stop this sooner than later.

[Cyber Liberty]

This judge is attempting to do an end run around what DoJ has decided to to in relation to the Flynn case.

The former Judge he's appointing to be the Amicus for these briefs and argue to the Judge Sullivan why he should not drop the case is a former Clinton appointee who just penned an OpEd for the WaPo entitled "The Flynn Case Isn't Over Until The Judge Says It's Over".

Something at the USAG level needs to be done to stop this sooner than later.

I'd laugh my ass off if it turns out the closest Flynn got to "Perjury" was when he pleaded Guilty under duress, with the threat of throwing Flynn's son in jail for a made-up crime.  Was he really guilty?  Nope.  Did he say he was?  Yep.

Perjury, open and shut case.  All in a day's work.

[txradioguy]

I'd laugh my ass off if it turns out the closest Flynn got to "Perjury" was when he pleaded Guilty under duress, with the threat of throwing Flynn's son in jail for a made-up crime.  Was he really guilty?  Nope.  Did he say he was?  Yep.

Perjury, open and shut case.  All in a day's work.

That's exactly how the full weight and power of the Federal government works when it decides to come after you.

[mystery-ak]

I am sure this *judge* is under pressure by the *powers that be* to do something like this....if that's the case and I am sure it is he should be recalled as he cannot be impartial to any defendant during a trial.

[txradioguy]

I am sure this *judge* is under pressure by the *powers that be* to do something like this....if that's the case and I am sure it is he should be recalled as he cannot be impartial to any defendant during a trial.

Sullivan is a Federal Judge which means lifetime appointment.   He can't be touched unless he's impeached.

[Cyber Liberty]

Sullivan is a Federal Judge which means lifetime appointment.   He can't be touched unless he's impeached.

A serious possibility if the House flips.  However, the Rats in the Senate will vote in lockstep to acquit so he'll get away with it.

[txradioguy]

A serious possibility if the House flips.  However, the Rats in the Senate will vote in lockstep to acquit so he'll get away with it.

Exactly!

And if you look at the significant cases he's presided over in his Wiki Bio...you'll see he's the go to Jurist for the Left cases against The GOP and people on the Right.  From GITMO to the Flynn case he's a friend of the Progressives.

[Free Vulcan]

Sullivan has a serious conflict of interest here. The case needs to be ripped away from him.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Just pardon the poor guy already.

For what?  The  DOJ has dropped the charges.

[Cyber Liberty]

So, what is the Perjured act?  What exactly is the "lie" Sullivan is accusing Flynn of now?  Can he prosecute Flynn for Perjury without a Prosecutor?

It would not surprise me if the "lie" was Flynn's plea deal itself (esp. the Guilty plea), that Flynn lied when he said he did the crime he now says he did not commit!  Wouldn't that be something?  By this standard, nobody could ever request a withdraw of a Plea, because it can be said in every single case that making such a Motion would be a open and shut case of Perjury.

ETA:  It turns out, that is exactly the Perjurous act Sullivan wants to pin on Flynn!  I came across this at Town Hall:

Spencer Hsu
✔
@hsu_spencer
Replying to @hsu_spencer

U.S. DIstirct Judge Emmet Sullivan also asked John Gleeson, now to advise him whether FLynn should be required to show cause why he should not be found in criminal contempt for lying under oath by admitting guilt before two judges for a crime he now claims to be innocent.
128
3:41 PM - May 13, 2020

From the WaPo, via the same link:

Michael Flynn’s sentencing judge Wednesday asked a former federal judge to explore whether Trump’s former national security adviser should face a contempt hearing for perjury after he pleaded guilty to a crime for which he now claims to be innocent.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2020/05/13/what-in-the-fresh-hell-is-this-judge-overseeing-flynn-case-continues-to-gum-up-the-works-n2568777?utm_campaign=inarticle

[Right_in_Virginia]

Supreme Court Ruled Unanimously Last Week Against Improper Use of Amicus Briefs; Relevant for Flynn Case
Breitbart, May 13, 2020, Joel B. Pollack

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously last week against the improper use of amicus briefs by judges to shape a court case as they wish — which is what Judge Emmet G. Sullivan is doing, critics say, in the ongoing Michael Flynn case.

On Tuesday, Judge Sullivan announced that he would accept amicus briefs about whether he should grant the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) motion to dismiss the case against Flynn. On Wednesday, Sullivan went a step further, appointing retired judge John Gleeson as amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) to argue against dismissal, and to argue Flynn be held in criminal contempt.
 
(Gleeson had already expressed his views in an op-ed in the Washington Post on Monday, attacking the DOJ’s motion.)
 
But last week, in the case of U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith, the Supreme Court held that the Ninth Circuit acted improperly by appointing three amici and directing them to brief issues that the judges wanted to consider — but the litigants had not raised.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for a unanimous Court, held:

In our adversarial system of adjudication, we follow the principle of party presentation … Our system “is designed around the premise that [parties represented by competent counsel] know what is best for them, and are reponsible for advancing the facts and argument entitling them to relief.” Id., at 386 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).

In short: “[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government.” United States v. Samuels, 808 F. 2d 1298, 1301 (CA8 1987) (Arnold, J., concurring in denial of reh’g en banc)). They “do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties.” Ibid.

While such amicus briefs could be used in “extraordinary circumstances,” the Court’s list of examples did not include cases in which prosecutors simply dropped a case.

Sullivan has been criticized for inviting the intervention of amicus briefs. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published Wednesday, for example, Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz argued that judges are “umpires,” not “ringmasters”: “If the litigants come to an agreement, there is no controversy. The case is over. … Judge Sullivan should get back to the business of deciding actual controversies and get out of the business of producing political shows.”

https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2020/05/13/supreme-court-ruled-unanimously-last-week-against-improper-use-of-amicus-briefs-flynn/

[Right_in_Virginia]

And in another case in 2016...

In US v Fokker Services the DC COA held: "[T]he `leave of court' authority gives no power to a district court to deny a prosecutor's Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the prosecution's exercise of charging authority." United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 742 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

The case further held:

"The Constitution allocates primacy in criminal charging decisions to the Executive Branch. The Executive's charging authority embraces decisions about whether to initiate charges, whom to prosecute, which charges to bring, and whether to dismiss charges once brought. It has long been settled that the Judiciary generally lacks authority to second-guess those Executive determinations, much less to impose its own charging preferences. "

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15625756419141649783&q=fokker+services+bv&hl=en&as_sdt=4,130

[Free Vulcan]

And in another case in 2016...

In US v Fokker Services the DC COA held: "[T]he `leave of court' authority gives no power to a district court to deny a prosecutor's Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the prosecution's exercise of charging authority." United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 742 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

The case further held:

"The Constitution allocates primacy in criminal charging decisions to the Executive Branch. The Executive's charging authority embraces decisions about whether to initiate charges, whom to prosecute, which charges to bring, and whether to dismiss charges once brought. It has long been settled that the Judiciary generally lacks authority to second-guess those Executive determinations, much less to impose its own charging preferences. "

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15625756419141649783&q=fokker+services+bv&hl=en&as_sdt=4,130

Exactly. Not only is the judge biased, but is violating separation of powers. If I were DOJ, I'd send a quiet reminder to stop obstructing.

[aligncare]

King Sullivan is not pleased. Did I say King? I meant Court Jester. 

[Cyber Liberty]

In short: “[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government.” United States v. Samuels, 808 F. 2d 1298, 1301 (CA8 1987) (Arnold, J., concurring in denial of reh’g en banc)). They “do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties.” Ibid.

It's a shame John Roberts didn't think that was a good philosophy when he created arguments the O'Bastard Administration didn't even try to make make when he declared O'Bastadcare was a "tax" and not a "fee."  That was "sallying forth."

[PeteS in CA]

... held in criminal contempt for perjury.

Translation: no trial, no due process, just a proclamation from the judge.

[Cyber Liberty]

Translation: no trial, no due process, just a proclamation from the judge.

That's why the Judge wants to frame it as an "Order to Show Cause" why Flynn should not be found guilty of Perjury.  It stands the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" on its head.

[PeteS in CA]

That's why the Judge wants to frame it as an "Order to Show Cause" why Flynn should not be found guilty of Perjury.  It stands the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" on its head.

Flynn's attorney presented evidence that Flynn's guilty plea and affirmation thereof were coerced. So Sullivan has to bypass a process that would take that evidence into consideration. Sullivan needs to be removed from this case and the bench (not that IRL Pelosi's House would impeach him).

[Cyber Liberty]

Flynn's attorney presented evidence that Flynn's guilty plea and affirmation thereof were coerced. So Sullivan has to bypass a process that would take that evidence into consideration. Sullivan needs to be removed from this case and the bench (not that IRL Pelosi's House would impeach him).

Absolutely correct!  The Judge would have to ignore those arguments that are clearly true.  That's why Sullivan called Flynn a "Traitor."

[txradioguy]

Flynn's attorney presented evidence that Flynn's guilty plea and affirmation thereof were coerced. So Sullivan has to bypass a process that would take that evidence into consideration. Sullivan needs to be removed from this case and the bench (not that IRL Pelosi's House would impeach him).

Flynn's attorney is sharp...I don't see her letting this stand as it is without a serious fight.

[Cyber Liberty]

Flynn's attorney is sharp...I don't see her letting this stand as it is without a serious fight.

Sydney's fighting the Judge's "Call for Amicus Briefs."  Apparently there's precedence on her side.