Judge in Flynn case eyeing possible contempt charge for perjury

[txradioguy]

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

Indeed their is.  I heard her on Mark Levin's show a week ago.  This is one (of many) Texas women I wouldn't want to cross or make angry.

And Judge Sullivan has already done that numerous times it would appear.

[PeteS in CA]

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

Unfortunately, stringing out the process is a significant part of Sullivan's game. Her primary goal needs to be to get Sullivan off the case. Otherwise there's a time-consuming battle over this stunt, and on losing Sullivan will pull another.

[txradioguy]

Unfortunately, stringing out the process is a significant part of Sullivan's game. Her primary goal needs to be to get Sullivan off the case. Otherwise there's a time-consuming battle over this stunt, and on losing Sullivan will pull another.

It seems to me like the DoJ or the senior Judge in  the DC circuit could step in and stop this silliness.

[mountaineer]

Michael Flynn judge is destroying a man's reputation: His own
by Margot Cleveland
 | May 14, 2020 12:49 PM

In late 2017, Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI concerning conversations he had with the Russian ambassador to the United States following President Trump’s surprise victory over Hillary Clinton. Soon after, the case was transferred to Judge Emmet Sullivan’s docket, where it languished for a year while Flynn cooperated with special counsel Robert Mueller’s office. During that time, the public learned that the Russian collusion tale peddled by Democrats and the media was false and that the true scandal was the FBI targeting the Trump campaign and its flagrant abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to spy on the Trump team. ...

But instead of appointing an outside attorney to investigate prosecutorial misconduct, Sullivan issued a pair of orders this week, teeing up an investigation of Barr and Flynn.

The first order came Tuesday when Sullivan stated he would accept amicus curiae, or friend of the court, briefs concerning the government’s motion to dismiss the charge against Flynn. On Wednesday, Sullivan appointed “the Honorable John Gleeson (Ret.) as amicus curiae to present arguments in opposition to the government’s Motion to Dismiss” and to investigate whether Flynn should be held in criminal contempt of court for perjury.

With this later order, Sullivan has destroyed any possible semblance of impartiality — and his reputation. A federal court has no authority over prosecutorial decisions, including whether to prosecute or whether to dismiss. ...

Entire column at Washington Examiner.

[verga]

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

Gotta keep the swamp dwellers in power.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

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

Well it would just be a charge right? The trial requires a jury.

Hard to know if federal contempt of court requires a trial.

[Cyber Liberty]

Well it would just be a charge right? The trial requires a jury.

Hard to know if federal contempt of court requires a trial.

Trial?   

As far as the crooked Clinton Judge is concerned, the trial is already over and he just wants to hand down a sentence.  There will be no trial, just a bunch of Amicus Briefs from one side only.  This Judge refused to admit over 50 such briefs on behalf of Flynn, and I hardly see why he'd start accepting them now.

[Cyber Liberty]

Hey, here's a fun brain game!

What if the situation were reversed:  Let's say a Defendant pleads Not Guilty, and is eventually convicted despite this.  Does that mean he can be found guilty of Perjury too, for saying untruthfully he's innocent?

Seems to me that would be the same thing!

[aligncare]

Hey, here's a fun brain game!

What if the situation were reversed:  Let's say a Defendant pleads Not Guilty, and is eventually convicted despite this.  Does that mean he can be found guilty of Perjury too, for saying untruthfully he's innocent?

Seems to me that would be the same thing!

 

Yes, it should logically follow. However, the left is naturally restricted from accessing human logic. Something to do with genetics, I think.

[Cyber Liberty]

Yes, it should logically follow. However, the left is naturally restricted from accessing human logic. Something to do with genetics, I think.

I just thought of that when I woke up this morning.  It would appear that, to the leftist mind (stop laughing),  that can only be perjury if the person really is innocent.  The Queen of Hearts would be mighty proud of our system of injustice.  Like the old coin-toss, "heads I win, tails you lose."

[sneakypete]

Well it would just be a charge right? The trial requires a jury.

Hard to know if federal contempt of court requires a trial.

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

AKA "Judicial Heaven,with them sitting on the ultimate throne."

[skeeter]

Gotta keep the swamp dwellers in power.

Sullivan is trying to force a pardon, which would feed into the rat's 'cronyism' narrative.

Unfortunately we cannot depend upon this judge and the system he is using for justice - justice delayed is justice denied.