Image 01 Image 03

Judge considering holding Michael Flynn in criminal contempt for perjury in connection with guilty plea

Judge considering holding Michael Flynn in criminal contempt for perjury in connection with guilty plea

Appoints retired judge to argue in opposition to the DOJ motion to dismiss the case, and “amicus curiae shall address whether the Court
should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury …”

In my post last night, I suggested that Judge Emmett Sullivan likely was in the process of deciding who to appoint to argue the government’s (former) position as to whether DOJ would be permitted to drop the case, Judge in Michael Flynn case may allow ‘amicus’ briefs on whether to drop case – is there reason for freak out?

What would be less unusual is if Judge Sullivan appointed counsel to represent the government’s (former) interest, now that the government has changed it litigation posture. That happens approximately once per term in the Supreme Court, particularly where no party any longer is defending lower court decisions. In SEC v. Lucia, the Supreme Court “invited” a specific amicus counsel after the SEC switched its position, and there no longer was anyone in the case defending the lower court decision.

Here, the decision to drop a case post-guilty plea is highly controversial, so perhaps Sullivan feels the need to have SOMEONE argue against it since both the prosecution and defendant are on the same side. Sullivan may, in a sense, be conducting a beauty contest to decide who to appoint to argue the government’s (former) position.

In a worst case scenario, Sullivan doesn’t want to drop the case and is creating as much of a record as he can. It would ultimately be an act of futility, since Trump almost certainly would pardon Flynn in this scenario, but that might be the preferred path for Sullivan given his expressed disdain for Flynn. Make Trump do it.

And so it came to be. And then some. The judge went far beyond appointing someone to argue against dismissing the case.

The Judge just entered an Order (pdf) appointing a retired federal judge as amicus curiae to argue against dismissal and to consider whether Flynn should be held in criminal contempt (emphasis added):

Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Court exercises its inherent authority to appoint The Honorable John Gleeson (Ret.) as amicus curiae to present arguments in opposition to the government’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 198, see, e.g., United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 740 (D.C. Cir. 2016); Jin v. Ministry of State Sec., 557 F. Supp. 2d 131, 136 (D.D.C. 2008); it is further

ORDERED that amicus curiae shall address whether the Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 401, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42, the Court’s inherent authority, and any other applicable statutes, rules, or controlling law.

Note that language. It presumably goes to Flynn’s guilty plea. The Judge seems to be threatening Flynn with a perjury charge for falsely pleading guilty.

Here’s 18 U.S.C. § 401:

A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—

A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
(1)Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2)Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3)Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.

Here’s Rule of Criminal Procedure 42:

Rule 42. Criminal Contempt

(a) Disposition After Notice. Any person who commits criminal contempt may be punished for that contempt after prosecution on notice.

(1) Notice. The court must give the person notice in open court, in an order to show cause, or in an arrest order. The notice must:

(A) state the time and place of the trial;

(B) allow the defendant a reasonable time to prepare a defense; and

(C) state the essential facts constituting the charged criminal contempt and describe it as such.

(2) Appointing a Prosecutor. The court must request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government, unless the interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney. If the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.

(3) Trial and Disposition. A person being prosecuted for criminal contempt is entitled to a jury trial in any case in which federal law so provides and must be released or detained as Rule 46 provides. If the criminal contempt involves disrespect toward or criticism of a judge, that judge is disqualified from presiding at the contempt trial or hearing unless the defendant consents. Upon a finding or verdict of guilty, the court must impose the punishment.

(b) Summary Disposition. Notwithstanding any other provision of these rules, the court (other than a magistrate judge) may summarily punish a person who commits criminal contempt in its presence if the judge saw or heard the contemptuous conduct and so certifies; a magistrate judge may summarily punish a person as provided in 28 U.S.C. §636(e). The contempt order must recite the facts, be signed by the judge, and be filed with the clerk.

BONUS QUESTION – Can the President pardon a criminal contempt of court?

According the the Cogressional Research Service … Probably Yes.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


So … under duress… if someone signs on to “guilty” to end the nightmare, than they are guilty of perjury if they wish to withdraw the plea for any reason? This is a set up for SCOTUS to resolve leaving Sullivan on the sidelines. The judge seems to be fully and emotionally deep in this.

    mrtoad21 in reply to alaskabob. | May 13, 2020 at 8:07 pm

    Not only is OrangeMan still Bad, now he must also protect the precious.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to mrtoad21. | May 13, 2020 at 11:45 pm

      Is this true or just some one daydreaming?

      If it is true then it would appear Judge Sullivan is planning on reaming the DOJ a thousand new points of light.

      “Sullivan wanted folks in USDOJ disbarred over Stevens’ case; his co-judges like Hanan demanded that the USDOJ DAs attend ethics training — the DOJ told him to pound sand.

      Watch what happens next…..”

        notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital. | May 14, 2020 at 1:00 pm

        Samantha Power, who was our ambassador to the United Nations, has been exposed for lying in this unmasking

        Exposed: Top Obama Official Caught Lying About Flynn Unmasking Requests

        Well, Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell is cleaning out the cobwebs of the old regime. He revealed who was behind the unmasking effort against ex-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Flynn was speaking with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak because that was part of his job. The Obama administration appears to be spying on him, fishing for something to nail him regarding the Russian collusion myth. The FBI counterintelligence probe was finding nothing because there was nothing. Remember, the bureau used an unverified political opposition research document funded by the Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign as the basis for this clown show back in 2016. It was the basis for going after Flynn. It was cited as credible evidence to secure a spy warrant against Carter Page, a former Trump campaign official. And it was the overall document that was at the heart of the Trump-Russia collusion hoax that was weaponized by Democrats and their liberal media allies in an attempt to take down this administration. And at the end of it all, Trump is still president, the media’s credibility is irreparably damaged, and sadly, good men had their lives destroyed. It showed how dirty Obama was willing to get in order to damage his successor.

        Since the whole collusion hoax was based in a lie, it should shock no one that officials are being exposed for their bad behavior. Evelyn Farkas said in an interview on MSNBC that she had evidence of Trump-Russia collusion. She didn’t. Former Vice President Joe Biden said he didn’t know anything about the unmasking of Flynn. Not true. And now, Samantha Power, who was our ambassador to the United Nations, has been exposed for lying in this unmasking effort (via The Federalist):

        Samantha Powers Lied.

        Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power testified to Congress in 2017 that she never sought to unmask records containing information about former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Newly declassified documents from the National Security Agency (NSA), however, show that her name appeared on at least seven separate requests to unmask Flynn’s name between Nov. 30, 2016, and Jan. 11, 2017.

        Power was asked explicitly during sworn 2017 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) whether she had ever attempted to unmask information related to Michael Flynn, a retired general and former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency who later briefly served as national security adviser under President Donald Trump.

      sidwhite in reply to mrtoad21. | May 14, 2020 at 11:11 am

      Read the professors post and some of these fantastic comments so someone may have mentioned this and I missed it:

      It seems to this non lawyer that the Judge’s action show that he is convinced that Flynn is not guilty of a lying about a material matter regarding a criminal investigation to federal agents. I can see the technical aspects of the “perjury” BS, but doesn’t he first have to find that he was indeed NOT GUILTY of said offense?

      Secondly, wouldn’t the federal prosecutors who signed all the agreements be just as guilty of any perjury charge?

    Concise in reply to alaskabob. | May 13, 2020 at 8:18 pm

    The judge seems to have lost his frigging mind. If there is no way to get this looney removed from this case, a full pardon should issue. Make these clods challenge that. They’ll lose.

      rangered in reply to Concise. | May 13, 2020 at 10:36 pm

      I seem to ask that question more and more these days: Has everyone lost their frigging mind?

      Flynn shouldn’t have to be pardoned. He should be able to say he was found innocent by the Justice System and that “bad cops” in the DOJ and FBI were shown to have tried to frame him.

      A pardon says, he may have been guilty but justice demands he not be treated as guilty. A pardon allows the left to claim he was guilty, admitted guilt, and was pardoned for political reasons.

      These are the reasons Sullivan and the left wingers want to force a pardon. They don’t want the dirty cops of the Obama/Biden administration to have been shown to be just that “dirty cops” doing a frame job.

        Concise in reply to garybritt. | May 14, 2020 at 11:35 am

        I understand the left will claim he was guilty if a pardon issues, but that would be their biased and limited view of a pardon. The executive has the pardon pardon to address abuses in the system. A pardon is perfectly appropriate measure to address the judicial abuses, as well as earlier prosecutorial abuses. Better to end this farce now than allow them to perpetuate this clown show, although I would be willing to wait if there was a chance the presiding judge would remove this deranged judge from the case.

      Connivin Caniff in reply to Concise. | May 14, 2020 at 1:16 am

      The guilty plea wasn’t an assertion of fact; it was at most an opinion or conclusion of law, based on the probability of outcome under the alleged “facts” to be asserted by the prosecution.

        Observer in reply to Connivin Caniff. | May 14, 2020 at 11:18 am

        Yes, Flynn reportedly paid millions of dollars in fees to his lawyers at Covington & Burling. They are the ones who worked out the plea deal with van Grack, and they are presumably the ones who advised Flynn to plead guilty.

        Flynn is not a lawyer. He was relying on the supposed legal expertise of people who are lawyers and who he was paying to represent and advise him, as he had every right to do. If Flynn’s lawyers told him that some of the statements he made during the FBI interview could be construed as lies and that his best option was to plead guilty, it would not be unreasonable for Flynn to accept their judgment.

        And when Flynn’s new lawyer later discovered that there were documents in the FBI’s files that showed that the agents themselves had concluded that Flynn had NOT lied during the interview, and that the 302’s had been re-written (to make Flynn’s statements appear more deceptive) long after the interviews, and that this exculpatory information had not been disclosed to Flynn’s first team of lawyers, it was reasonable for Flynn to then withdraw his guilty plea.

        And there is nothing in this scenario that amounts to perjury — not by Flynn, anyway. The real wrongdoing here was done not by Flynn, but by Obama DOJ prosecutor van Grack, who failed to disclose multiple Brady materials to Flynn’s original team of lawyers, and who deliberately lied to the court about the existence of the side agreement not to prosecute Flynn’s son (which was part of the leverage used to coerce Flynn’s guilty plea). That failure on van Grack’s part WAS clearly perjury, and by an officer of the court, and yet we don’t see Judge Sullivan asking for van Grack to be criminally prosecuted.

          dystopia in reply to Observer. | May 14, 2020 at 12:21 pm

          An excellent and succinct synopsis.

          Barry in reply to Observer. | May 14, 2020 at 12:54 pm

          Take the opposite plea. Man says he’s not guilty, then make a deal that changes the plea to guilty.

          Is he now also charged with perjury?

          What we have is an out of control corrupt to the core judge taking orders from the deep state resistance.

          No one has ever been charged with perjury for changing their plea.

          This is beyond stupid.

          SoCA Conservative Mom in reply to Observer. | May 14, 2020 at 6:07 pm

          There was an interesting article yesterday regarding Judge Sullivan.

          So from the article above:

          “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.”

          ” THE COURT: And there are some questions that I’m going to ask Mr. Flynn, and because this is an extension, in my opinion, of the plea colloquy, I’m going to ask the courtroom deputy at that time to administer the oath, because normally when we have plea colloquies, we always require a defendant to be under oath, and that’s what I’m going to do this morning, unless there are objections.

          In this passage, Judge Sullivan admits that he believes a further “colloquy” is necessary with regard to Gen. Flynn’s decision to enter a guilty plea. That means that as of this point in the transcript, he still has not found that all the necessary subjects have been addressed to his satisfaction, and he’s not yet prepared to accept Gen. Flynn’s guilty plea.”

          “Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 11(b)(3) states: Determining the Factual Basis for a Plea. Before entering judgment on a guilty plea, the court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea.”

          ” P. 19
          Mr. Flynn admitted that his false statements or omissions impeded and had a material impact on the investigation, and when I ask questions of the government, I need to know answers about how he impeded the investigation and what the material impact on the investigation was.

          Judge Sullivan states in open court and on the record he still does not know how the false statements were material. Without knowing that, he can’t determine if there actually is a factual basis for Gen. Flynn’s guilty plea because Judge Sullivan MUST KNOW that factual basis BEFORE he can adjudge Gen. Flynn to be guilty of the offense to which he is pleading guilty.”

          “Judge Sullivan entered judgment on a guilty plea without first finding that a factual basis existed. That violated the requirements of Rule 11, and makes the guilty plea unsound.”

          So now Sullivan is pressing for a perjury charge on an unsound plea due to Sullivan’s own incompetence?

    pfg in reply to alaskabob. | May 13, 2020 at 8:18 pm

    Flynn plead to the lesser charge of lying to the FBI to stop the bleeding away of most of his assets and to stop the prosecution of his son. It was an entirely reasonable approach when he saw that the DOJ was coming at him hammer and tongs.

    Now we/he come to the realization* that he was being railroaded bigtime, and to boot that Covington law firm (where Eric Holder is an AA “partner”) gave his really piss-poor representation.

    The good news is that Flynn will be in for a big payday from that Covington law firm and from the numerous individuals who conspired to deprive him of his statutory and constitutional rights. And if justice is to be served none of these people will be able to claim qualified immunity (because none of what they did was within the scope of their employment). Meaning they individually will be on the hook for damages to Flynn. And to boot, because the Federal Torts Claim Act is inapplicable, they’ll have to pay for their own attorneys.

    *Though the help of some honest FBI agents who helped “find” all those misplaced/lost/buried files.

      CV60 in reply to pfg. | May 13, 2020 at 8:49 pm

      I’m a former prosecutor and retired FBI employee. It is worse than that. Remember that the US government was the sole custodian of the exculpatory evidence that Flynn needed to establish his innocence. For instance, the notes taken by agents saying they didn’t think he lied, the evidence that they didn’t have a legitimate reason to be questioning him, etc. By withholding this evidence, they denied Flynn the ability to mount a defense. They further pressured him by threatening his son, and undoubtably told him that they would be asking for more punishment if he went to trial. So not only did they deprive him of the ability to mount a defense, they also pressured him for a plea. It is incredible that the judge is even thinking about charging Flynn with contempt. My guess is that the “Deep State” is trying, in part, to continue to hobble Flynn, as they don’t want him to be appointed to some intell community house cleaning project by Trump. This will help delay his exoneration and delay or prevent such an appointment. Their also might be some simple pettiness here too. In any case, Judge Sullivan is behaving poorly. Why is he not outraged that DOJ/FBI ignored his order for exculpatory information? Why is he not outraged the government was using him and his court to facilitate an injustice?

        puhiawa in reply to CV60. | May 13, 2020 at 9:18 pm

        Further, the guilty plea colloguy became a mess as the parties all talked and the Judge lost his narrative. So he never established materiality which is distinct requirement under the statute. Therefore the plea was likely defective, ab initio. A matter easily corrected under normal circumstances, but incorrectable here because the plea was withdrawn. And as stated here, lying under duress is never a crime. Hence it is so prominent in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the colloguy.
        Sullivan is a vicious egomaniac. He clearly intended to ignore the plea agreement and toss Flynn in prison so he could never reveal what he knows about the Obama White House.

        veryskeptic in reply to CV60. | May 13, 2020 at 9:47 pm

        Greetings from a fellow long-time, retired prosecutor. Just so you know, the government didn’t hide the agents’ opinions that Flynn didn’t lie to them. This information was included in the government’s description of the facts in their Reply to Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum, citing Strzok’s 302. “Finally, the interviewing agents did not observe indices of deception and had the impression at the time that the defendant was not lying or did not think he was lying.” The implication of this, apparently, was simply that Flynn’s a good liar, having told similar lies, that were believed, to Pence, Priebus, Spicer and others.

          alaskabob in reply to veryskeptic. | May 13, 2020 at 10:15 pm

          As I understand this… the 302 was to be filled out by the other FBI agent as Strzok was asking the questions. Secondly, the 302 was not filled out in a timely fashion and was in part edited by Lisa Page who wasn’t there. Furthermore, the original 302 is “missing”. There are enough glaring errors and improprieties in this to taint the government’s case. The government can’t be given a Mulligan without one for the defense.

          By not providing the agent’s opinion that Flynn was not lying before he pled guilty, the government denied him a valid defense at trial, therefore encouraging a guilty plea. A defense cross examination of the interviewing FBI agents that elicited that information at trial would have been devastating to the prosecution’s case. Ergo, by withholding the information, the government denied Flynn a valid defense strategy. To do so was clearly a violation of the government’s Brady obligations. And unethical. And immoral.

          Edward in reply to veryskeptic. | May 14, 2020 at 12:21 am

          Ah, so Brady material can be disclosed, though to the Court and not specifically to the Defense, after the Judge received the Presentence Report from the US Probation Office and all is well. That is a rather odd way to run the railroad.

          Barry in reply to veryskeptic. | May 14, 2020 at 12:57 pm

          “Greetings from a fellow long-time, retired prosecutor.”

          That you Obama? Still making s%$t up I see.

        DaveGinOly in reply to CV60. | May 13, 2020 at 11:12 pm

        Good questions.
        How about this one:
        What does the intel community have on Judge Sullivan?

        Joe-dallas in reply to CV60. | May 14, 2020 at 10:23 am

        CV- I agree with your comments

        What I find deplorable is the Sullivan is certainly aware of the corruption by the FBI in the prosection of the case.

        Normally a judge would be extremely Irate with the prosecution and would have throw the case out

        but in this case he is doing the opposite.

    Ghostrider in reply to alaskabob. | May 13, 2020 at 10:52 pm

    I’m fascinated as Ron Coleman is tonight that there’s been so little discussion tonight about the fact that John Gleeson’s law firm, Debevoise & Plimpton, represents the nasty and cruel “Resistance” heroine Sally Yates.

      Richard G. in reply to Ghostrider. | May 14, 2020 at 2:37 pm

      It is my conclusion that Judge Sullivan has erred in appointing Judge Gleeson as ‘amicus curiae’. This is a misnomer.

      ‘Animus curiae’ would be the proper term.

      Just as ‘pandemic’ is actually ‘Dem panic’.

      Those are my opinions. If you don’t like them I have others!/sarc

    JusticeDelivered in reply to alaskabob. | May 13, 2020 at 11:15 pm

    The judge is a Clinton appointee, and his actions most certainly seem swamp like.

      alaskabob in reply to JusticeDelivered. | May 14, 2020 at 2:20 am

      Obama says the word “perjury” last Friday and Sullivan used same word now. Doubt Sullivan is a mind reader but I bet he adores The One. Obama’s new “teachable moment” is the “word for today”. We need to continue comparing Sullivan’s wording with that of BHO. Inspiration or instruction?

    Edward in reply to alaskabob. | May 14, 2020 at 12:11 am

    Now everyone who enters a plea of Not Guilty and is subsequently found by a Judge or Jury to be Guilty shall have a Perjury charge added to their Pre-sentence Report.

    Joe-dallas in reply to alaskabob. | May 14, 2020 at 10:05 am

    Concur – Sullivan appears to be emotionally obsessed with Flynn and this case.

    He seriously cant be oblivious to the
    1) Blackmailing by the FBI
    2) the threat of charging his son
    3) the target by Obama
    4) the deliberate withholding of Exclupitory evidence

    the withholding of exculpitory evidence , in the case material evidence, is more than enough to throw out any criminal conviction.

    So what other reason is there for Sullivan to disregard Doj’s withdrawal of the charges – none other than his obsession.

    SuddenlyHappyToBeHere in reply to alaskabob. | May 14, 2020 at 11:35 am

    The hundreds of African American prisoners claiming prosecutorial excess should now be charged with contempt.

    I suspect it is going to take the Supreme Court to ;address this continuing injustice.

Antifundamentalist | May 13, 2020 at 7:36 pm

They just don’t stop, do they?

    Ghostrider in reply to Antifundamentalist. | May 13, 2020 at 7:51 pm

    Unless and until Barack Obama and his cabinet are charged and convicted, they will not give up. They are fully invested in total resistance.


    “They just don’t stop, do they?”

    “It is the common fate of the indolent [*] to see their rights become a prey to the active [**]. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude [***] is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.” John Curran Philpot (1750- 1817).

    In other words, you better fight-&-defend or all those hard-earned rights will be taken in a moment’s notice. And as recent evidence, look at how governors and their staffs acted during the COVID-19 lockdown. You can “Let George Do It” (a post-WWII detective radio show), but what if George has no intent of doing it?

    * The indolent – those who may complain but yet won’t take action. Don’t curse the darkness. Instead, light a candle. Form your own citizen-led chapter of the John Birch Society (type “jbsagenda”) as an effective counter to the left

    ** The active – experience has taught that the left has a never-ending list of stupid, freedom-depriving ideas; the left will NEVER leave us alone. Green New Deal; elimination of 1st Am., 2d Am., mail-in voting, shut-down orders, and on and on

    *** Servitude – comes in a variety of forms, from detention (jail, stay-at-home orders) to economic deprivation via regulations (which always result in bigger government, higher prices for goods/services and greater unemployment) to increased taxation

      CommoChief in reply to pfg. | May 13, 2020 at 10:10 pm


      I’m going to take a hard pass on reviving the John Birch society. No thanks. Not now, not ever.

      The rest seems reasonable.

        fscarn in reply to CommoChief. | May 13, 2020 at 10:39 pm

        To each his own. I’ve known some Birchers and they’re pretty even-keeled. I see their point that the Birch Society is the only group on the right offering organized resistance to the onslaught of the left.

        Dantzig93101 in reply to CommoChief. | May 13, 2020 at 10:44 pm

        The John Birch Society’s motto was:

        “Less government, more individual responsibility, and with God’s help, a better world.”

        Troubling words, indeed. Certainly enough to get a person banned from Facebook for hate speech.

          gospace in reply to Dantzig93101. | May 13, 2020 at 11:15 pm

          I had a copy of and read The Blue Book of the John Birch Society in HS (graduated in 1973). The thing I remember most about it the organizational aspects. If you were going to fight Communism, you had to organize like Communists, into cells, with limited contact between the cells, so that all the members couldn’t be rolled up at once. IOW, classic underground resistance stuff, laid out in full.

          Don’t remember so much what it was for, as what it was against- Communism. Which reminds me of a quote: “I didn’t kill people, only Communists.” Not sure who said it, seems to attributed to a Polish mercenary and a Finnish sniper.

          CommoChief in reply to Dantzig93101. | May 14, 2020 at 11:47 am


          The aspirations of their motto are fine. The means used are not. I get very nervous whenever a group, congregations excepted, start invoking ‘god’.

          Why does it make me nervous? Well how about tell me which ‘god’. The ‘God’ of Abraham,, the ‘God’ of Muhammad, the ‘God’ of Jesus? The ‘God’ of all three, which actually isn’t totally inconsistent.

          Problem is each of the three major religions based upon the Old testament have multiple factions who believe that their interpretation is ‘correct’. If that’s true then the others are wrong.

          Now if you want to invoke divine providence or a creator then ok, I could swing that without issue.

          Lastly, the birchers have tried to paint Eisenhower as a communist agent. Come on man. IKE wasn’t a commie. He was a moderate.

    They certainly want that to be the takeaway: Resistance is Futile™.

    When the enemy insists on setting the rules and enforcing them inequitably, kicking over the table becomes an entirely rational response.

    Dantzig93101 in reply to Antifundamentalist. | May 13, 2020 at 9:14 pm

    Give the Communists and deep staters credit: They never quit. They’re like Terminators. You can’t reason with them, because they don’t believe in reason. They sincerely do hate the good, they hate our civilization, and they hate the rule of law.

    As their guru V.I. Lenin said, “Probe with bayonets. If you encounter mush, proceed; if you encounter steel, withdraw.” So far, they’ve encountered only mush. That has to change, or America is finished.

    Oh some times they take a break to smoke a cigarette but then they roll back over and just start again.

I didn’t think I could get any angrier over this.
I was wrong.

Dantzig93101 | May 13, 2020 at 7:37 pm

Tweets will not remedy the situation, nor will TV interviews. I wish it were otherwise.

Would covington & burlin attorneys be guilty of suborning perjury then? This is turning into a sh!+ show of epic proportions.

    JHogan in reply to CKYoung. | May 13, 2020 at 8:18 pm

    So now anyone who withdraws a guilty plea, which is legal to do as I understand it, would be guilty of perjury?


      DaveGinOly in reply to JHogan. | May 13, 2020 at 11:15 pm

      That’s an excellent point. The judge is trying to criminalize something the court’s rules permit a defendant to do. How does that work?

      Edward in reply to JHogan. | May 14, 2020 at 12:28 am

      And any person who enters a plea of Not Guilty and is subsequently found Guilty by Judge or Jury shall be guilty of Perjury.

      healthguyfsu in reply to JHogan. | May 14, 2020 at 1:09 am

      Are you even sworn in for a plea? I’m pretty sure you are sworn in when you take the witness stand, not before.

      Maybe that’s just on Perry Mason, though….

    Rick in reply to CKYoung. | May 13, 2020 at 8:37 pm

    Flynn probably told the judge, at Covington’s advice, that there were no side deals, which apparently was not true. Covington is in a heap of trouble.

      dystopia in reply to Rick. | May 14, 2020 at 2:09 pm

      What side deals? If there was a side deal with the Government the government is also guilty of non-disclosure.

      The actions of the Judge cannot be viewed from the vantage point of law. They are political actions.

As a legal nitwit this is getting highly interesting. So now, Sullivan is proposing that judges additionally hold the power to evaluate the crystalline moral purity of pleas from the accused? That is certainly illuminating. And what will happen to the cottage industry of plea bargaining within our legal system, throughout the land, when this precedent becomes established as a common practice – Judge Dredd? Are AG’s who game that system part of the fair game as well?



Grounds for immediate appeal.

Grounds for removing the judge.

Grounds for impeaching the judge.

Exactly what is it that Flynn said is supposed to constitute perjury? Is it specified?

A guilty plea is not a statement of fact. How can it form the basis for a charge of perjury?

How could a constitutionally infirm guilty plea form the basis for either perjury or contempt?

What do we know about retired Judge Gleeson?

    JHogan in reply to Wisewerds. | May 13, 2020 at 8:20 pm

    Grounds for Flynn to demand a new judge?

      iconotastic in reply to JHogan. | May 14, 2020 at 1:06 am

      How does that work? Does Sullivan have to agree to withdraw? Who is the higher authority?

      dystopia in reply to JHogan. | May 14, 2020 at 3:59 pm

      A new Judge? Perhaps Amy Berman Jackson, who denied Roger Stone an unbiased juror? On the DC Circuit, it would just be more of the same.

      The best procedure is to seek a Writ of Mandamus at the appropriate time.

    Edward in reply to Wisewerds. | May 14, 2020 at 12:31 am

    Where Sullivan is going is LTG Flynn entered his plea on oath and Sullivan asked him, while under oath, whether it was a true and correct plea and he answered in the affirmative.

    It is Socialist-Democrat Bravo Sierra, but it’s all Sullivan and his Party have to further torture LTG Flynn and Pi$$ off the President and AG.

Sullivan needs to resign from the bench and join a Dhimmi-crat advocacy group, because it’s pretty damn obvious that this guy can’t even maintain a pretense of acting as a neutral arbiter in this dispute, he can’t contain his obvious Dhimmi-crat sympathies, and, he can’t contain his personal enmity towards Flynn.

If Sullivan is so demonstrably and unabashedly passionate about expressing his desire to advance Dhimmi-crat political positions via manifestly biased treatment of parties before him, and, if he is unable to restrain his personal political passions in court, then, he has absolutely no business being a judge.

Comanche Voter | May 13, 2020 at 7:52 pm

Well a guilty plea could be a statement of fact if the judge hearing the guilty plea insists upon an allocution—which is where the defendant states what he did to commit the crime charged.

Now Judge Sullivan has had some experience with slimy double dealing DOJ attorneys. I’m wondering what, if anything, he plans to do to or with Brandon Van Gracken, the government attorney who captained this prosecution in Sullivan’s court? Castration with a dull linoleum knife would be an appropriate punishment, but I doubt if it will get to that. Certainly Van Gracken is through with any future appearances before Sullivan—

Well that seems a bit over the top. Defendants change their initial plea on a regular basis. If changing an initial plea and/or making a motion to withdraw the initial plea is now perjury….does that mean that every attorney who files the motion and every judge who allows it are then, by the logic of Judge Sullivan, equally guilty as co conspirators? This is opening up a true Pandora’s box.

Maybe, perhaps it is reasonable for the Judge could consider inviting amicus curiae briefs based upon the inevitable backlash from the left. I get that he doesn’t want to be ‘tarred and feathered’ figuratively by the establishment/MSM much less literally by antifa.

The problem is, so far as I know, there isn’t a provision in the federal criminal procedures for inviting briefs. Consider it for public consumption by the leftwing TDS sufferers sure, but don’t do it. How could he plausibly believe that action won’t be reversed on appeal. Unless he is just trying to spin this out to mess with Flynn and by extension PDJT.

He could be looking at being impeached himself, depending upon how long this plays out and what the November elections deliver.

    rangered in reply to CommoChief. | May 13, 2020 at 10:33 pm

    Was not Flynn waiting on Judge Sullivan to rule on his request to withdraw his plea when the prosecution withdrew its objection to that request and stated they would drop charges with prejudice? Everyone assumed that action made Sullivan’s ruling moot. Does not Sullivan have to first rule on the request to withdraw the plea before finding Flynn guilty of contempt? I admit that I am no lawyer, but did stay one night in a Holiday Inn Express.

      CommoChief in reply to rangered. | May 13, 2020 at 11:36 pm


      The Judge had a bunch of motions from the defense commuting in almost daily. He basically told them to submit all at once and set a date for hearing. This was in relation to his motion to drop his guilty plea.

      Then DoJ filed a motion to dismiss the prosecution. That was the document that admitted the DoJ had not provided the defense all the exculpatory material and more importantly stated that the charges did not have an adequate predicate.

      Now in front of Judge Sullivan are:
      1. Flynn’s motion(s) to drop his plea
      2. DoJ motion to dismiss the whole case

      Judge Sullivan then:
      1. Has not ruled on Flynn’s motion
      Instead he
      A. Appointed a retired judge
      1. to argue/ act in opposition to the DoJ prosecution motion to dismiss the case
      2. to make a recommendation to Judge Sullivan as to whether Flynn should be held in contempt for making a plea and then making a motion to withdraw it

      B. Keep in mind:
      1. Defendants regularly change their plea. Very routine.
      2. Prosecutors present plea deal to defendants who then bargain back and forth until they arrive at a mutually agreed plea agreement. That deal is then investigated by and approved by the Judge. That’s how it’s supposed to work anyway.
      3. The retired judge who was appointed wrote an OP/ED in the Washington Post, this week, in which he clearly makes the case for Judge Sullivan to reject the DoJ Motion. I don’t agree with his opinion, but he certainly made it known publicly.

      Hope that helps. Bottom line is Judges have a whole lot of power in their courtroom. They set the date time and determine who does what and in what order.
      Think of them like a field grade commander holding a summarized Article 15 proceeding, they have wide discretion and are almost never overruled.

        randian in reply to CommoChief. | May 14, 2020 at 3:56 am

        I can’t recall any criminal case where the judge rejects the prosecution’s motion to dismiss. Know any examples? Defendant’s motions are, of course, routinely rejected.

        I am reminded of an (admittedly fictional) case on Law & Order, where a judge holds the defendant to their guilty plea while rejecting the sentence attached. The judge basically said “10 years? Nah, 25!” I don’t know if NY criminal law really allows that, but if it does why would a defendant would ever accept a plea? If I can plead to the statutory minimum and the judge can decide sua sponte to give me the max I might as well risk the trial.

          ronk in reply to randian. | May 14, 2020 at 10:24 am

          that has been a plot device on several fictional law show. how does changing you plea constitute perjury, here is a question when was LG Flynn informed of his ‘miranda’ rights. assumed does not constitute an answer.

        rangered in reply to CommoChief. | May 14, 2020 at 6:53 am

        Thx. It did indeed help.

So, in Sullivan’s warped mind, Flynn’s coerced plea — the product of brazen prosecutorial misconduct and mendacity before the court — is somehow worthy of more opprobrium than the unethical and dishonest attorney conduct and machinations which coerced Flynn’s plea?

Talk about having a warped moral compass. Sullivan is an utter disgrace, as a judge and as a person.

Seems to me there were good reasons for Flynn to agree with a plea deal because he was (a) financially exhausted, (b) mentally / emotionally exhausted and (c) held a well founded fear that his son might face a legal inquiry if he didn’t. Additionally it seems from the documents released that the DOJ withheld evidence and that the investigators mislead Flynn in a corrupt manner. I wonder how Judge Flynn would treat a defendant who entered a plea but the innocence project had shown they did so only out of fear.

Roberts better bytch slap this punk and remove him
From the case


Now the purpose of the leaked conference call, aka instructions, from former President Barack Obama come into play; especially considering that Obama specifically mentioned “perjury” which is now part of what Judge Sullivan is attempting to accomplish.

If I am charged with a crime and I know I am guilty, I am not allowed to enter a plea of innocent – right? A trial is a waste of time it appears.

Is there some judicial equivalent to malicious prosecution?

    randian in reply to rdm. | May 14, 2020 at 3:58 am

    Is there even such a thing anymore since courts granted prosecutors unlimited immunity?

This is starting to look like a reimagining of Le Miserables.

The judge should be held in contempt for a curious case of having the baby and aborting the fetus, too. How very Pro-Choice.

If criminal contempt is appropriate for Flynn, then also for all prosecutors that were involved, too. Not only for their malicious prosecution, but their fraud on the court.

Two possible reasons for optimisism.

One, the judge is just doing CYA.
Two, it doesn’t matter. This will bring up the issue of a coerced confession. Something the democrats don’t want to see daylight.

I’m not a lawyer. Does anyone know if Judge Sullivan’s move could be appealed to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court?

    thad_the_man in reply to JLT. | May 13, 2020 at 8:41 pm

    Not a lawyer either, but I believe the process to do that is to file for a Writ of Mandamus.

thad_the_man | May 13, 2020 at 8:39 pm

I think a point people are failing to ask is who is John Gleeson. My poor attempts at research wind up giving me mixed messages.

Also people keep in mind that the press ( or bloggers or posters etc… ) often get things wrong. I see in the press statement an implication that when the prosecution and defense agree the judge has to appoint a special prosecuto

r. Finally, Sidney Powell is a smart lawyer. If she thinks that the judge is getting to far out of line, all she has to do is go to the Appeals court with a request for a Writ of Mandamus.

So the FBI is guilty of suborning perjury?

Federal judges do generally tend to disapprove of people who repeatedly swear under oath that they did something they didn’t do. In fact, I’m going to go out on a limb here and intuit that it’s the norm, not the exception for federal judges to be that way.

    Pettifogger in reply to maxmillion. | May 13, 2020 at 9:11 pm

    Fair enough, but innocent people plead guilty all time, usually because of prosecutorial extortion. Only a naif doesn’t know that. Judge Sullivan and Captain Renault are no doubt good buddies.

      Milhouse in reply to Pettifogger. | May 14, 2020 at 12:38 am

      Of course every judge knows that it happens all the time. And it bothers them, or it should.

      That is, those who are not in on the conspiracy. Most judges are. The entire plea bargain system seems to consist in a giant conspiracy to suborn perjury and fraud on the court, often with the court’s connivance.

      In this case Sullivan gave Flynn every opportunity to tell the truth. He gave him a gilt-edged engraved invitation to tell the truth. He practically laid it out: “Come on, man, I know you’re not guilty, just say so”, and Flynn (on the advice of counsel) refused. So he’s going to be upset.

      I don’t see anything to show that he isn’t more upset at the prosecution. Fraud on the court doesn’t even begin to describe it.

      Commenters seem to just be jumping to conclusions that they’ve already decided on before the fact. Why not wait and see what happens? At any rate he has to make a decision and needs to hear arguments for all options; asking an acknowledged expert on the law to make the arguments that neither party is willing to make seems like common sense.

        healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | May 14, 2020 at 1:17 am

        The judge should not apply an even hand considering the unlawfully leveraged situation of the prosecution over the defense in this case.

        You don’t apply tone deaf Milhouse-style monotone standards to that which is not even on the playing field.

        Okay, he wants to play tough to even the playing field…great. Waste more of our time and taxpayer dollars on this charade that just so happens to serve the side that appointed him to this position. You don’t see anything wrong there?

        rdm in reply to Milhouse. | May 14, 2020 at 6:52 am

        There iś no acceptable action by the judge other than immediate dismissal.

        elle in reply to Milhouse. | May 14, 2020 at 11:43 am

        Just wait and see, eh Mulhouse? Three years Sullivan has toyed with Flynn – destroying his life and bankrupting him – but hey, that’s cool with you. Flynn can just wait some more and pay some more. No big deal to you.

        Justice delayed is justice denied.

          Milhouse in reply to elle. | May 14, 2020 at 12:11 pm

          He hasn’t toyed with him. For most of those three years there was no evidence for him. He had no case. By the time it came before the judge Flynn had agreed to plead guilty, and there was nothing the judge could or should have done about that. He had no reason to believe there was anything hinky about the case, and when he did start smelling the stink he practically begged Flynn to withdraw his plea and fight it.

        Barry in reply to Milhouse. | May 14, 2020 at 1:24 pm

        Oh how did I know you would be here protecting the corrupt judge Sullivan taking his orders from the deep state bosses?

        Always protecting the progs and commies.

        rdm in reply to Milhouse. | May 14, 2020 at 2:01 pm

        There is no decision to be made. The only decision that should be made is to sign off on the dismissal.

    fast182 in reply to maxmillion. | May 13, 2020 at 9:48 pm

    And yet the judge is perfectly okay with the prosecutor lying in court, eh?

    CommoChief in reply to maxmillion. | May 13, 2020 at 10:05 pm


    Ok sure, point granted that a judge will/should be upset when folks say one thing but do another.

    Now please apply the same standard to the prosecution team who repeatedly stated definitively that they had fully complied with the order to produce all exculpatory material to the defense when that was clearly not the truth as evidenced by the DoJ themselves in their motion.

      Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | May 14, 2020 at 12:39 am

      Absolutely. And I expect Sullivan to do so. If he doesn’t, then he’d better have an explanation.

        Petrushka in reply to Milhouse. | May 14, 2020 at 6:24 am

        I play milhouse’s advocate here and suggest that the judge is allowing the democrats the opportunity to go down a road they will regret.

        When they see where it leads — exposure of prosecutorial misconduct — they will back off, and he will be off the hook.

        The more the public sees of this, including the illegal espionage done at the behest of Obama and Biden, the worse it looks.

        It’s a win win for Trump.

          rdm in reply to Petrushka. | May 14, 2020 at 7:07 am

          What in this judges past actions and statements leads you to believe something like that rather than the blatantly obvious interpretation?

          As a bonus prize, a nice thick stack of amicus briefs from various leftist legal beagles will provide years of Republican benefits, because it weeds out the stupid ones from Senate confirmation.

          Think about it for a second. When Bob the Leftist Nominee goes up before the Senate committee for his judgeship a decade from now, the important senators will proceed to hammer him into the ground on Fokker, rule of law, and other such things he slammed in his written, published, and public brief.

        elle in reply to Milhouse. | May 14, 2020 at 11:54 am

        Yeah, I’m sure Sullivan will get around to it… someday. Flynn’s been falsely accused for 3 years now so what’s another three months or years even? It’s not like it’s going to cost Flynn anything. No big deal to you, is it Milhouse? Just wait and see.

Flynn should appeal the order. It’s outrageous; it demonstrates extreme bias against him by the Court. | May 13, 2020 at 9:01 pm

Question: Can a federal judge fly when ejected from a helicopter?

rabid wombat | May 13, 2020 at 9:05 pm

Soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge….

Your choice….

Seems tome that under Sullivan’s reasoning, every “Not Guilty” plea that ends in a conviction should bring about a perjury charge. Might as well throw in “Contempt of Court” for daring to waste the jurists and jurors time with a trial and defense.

    Milhouse in reply to gospace. | May 14, 2020 at 12:52 am

    Nope. A mere “not guilty” plea doesn’t mean the defendant is testifying that he didn’t do it. First of all, he needs to be sworn in for that, and he doesn’t have to volunteer to do so. Second, even if it were repeated under oath, “not guilty” is not a factual statement, it’s an opinion, so it can’t be perjury. The defendant isn’t necessarily denying the prosecution’s factual allegations; he may merely be disagreeing that they can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, or that if proven they would justify a conviction.

    Even a mere “guilty” plea can’t be perjury — but a false allocution is. The fact that thousands of people make false allocutions, often with the court’s connivance, doesn’t change the fact that it is perjury. It’s a scandal.

      elle in reply to Milhouse. | May 14, 2020 at 12:02 pm

      Yes a scandal that could cost another million and more time to play out for a
      man whose rights were trampled. It’s all cool with Milhouse if legal games deny a man justice and further bankrupt him. No big deal.

      Barry in reply to Milhouse. | May 14, 2020 at 1:28 pm

      The only lawyers that agree with the progs best friend, milhouse, are the corrupt commie cabal of legal halfwits paid to destroy freedom and liberty.

This is all you need to know about retired Judge Gleeson:
You could hardly imagine Sullivan appointing a more biased person.

A quick Google search does not reveal whether Flynn allocated. If he did not, then his guilty plea would not constitute perjury or contempt.

If he allocated, he might have falsely testified that he committed the underlying crime to which he was pleading. That would be perjury.

    healthguyfsu in reply to Geologist. | May 14, 2020 at 1:21 am

    Then, it would be entrapment.

    Was Flynn even allowed to take the Fifth in that scenario? If he is compelled to answer to that which he has already pled then he has to answer in the affirmative.

Prosecutor the Honorable John Gleeson (Ret.): “Your Honor, the Defense pounced…”

Flynn’s Covington attorney’s told Flynn that he didn’t have a defense. But then they had their own corrupt reason for doing so. Mueller lawyers were threatening those attorneys with criminal charges over the bogus FARA part of the case. Just as when tax attorneys/preparers are criminally liable for providing false information to the IRS, so would Flynn’s attorneys been criminally liable for providing false information to the government on the FARA registration form.

Flynn relied on them completely to prepare the registration form, which is a complex document so the comparison with a complex tax situation is apt.

The Covington attorneys never discussed the Mueller team’s threats against them personally with their client, Flynn, as they were ethically and legally bound to do. Since they would have been fact witnesses against Flynn in the FARA matter it was illegal for them to represent Flynn in any legal matter. They had a clear conflict of interest, and knew it. Covington emails show all the attorneys were sweating over their criminal and civil liability. Flynn’s attorneys were more interest in maintaining Covington’s corporate viability than providing Flynn with a robust defense. So they didn’t provide Flynn with one.

They witheld over crucial information from Flynn, information that had Flynn been provided he almost certainly never would have plead guilty. For instance, the day before he plead guilty Flynn asked his attorneys if the FBI agents really thought he was lying. They told him that they were, “Standing by their story,” i.e. they concluded Flynn had been lying. But his Covington attorneys already knew the agents did not think Flynn was lying and found him forthright and saw no sign of deception.

We already know that the FBI lied on their FD=302s. Note the plural. We don’t even know how many their were, since they have never seen the light of day. The FBI was continuously editing them. That includes edits that Lisa Page suggested to Strozk, and edits she personally made after her boyfriend sent her the FD-302 for editing.

Again, we have emails and texts that lay all this out.

What was Flynn supposed to do? The FBI doesn’t allow their interviews to be recorded. The 302s are summaries that the FBI insists serve as transcripts. This has now been exposed as a lie. If Page, who wasn’t present for the interview, can edit this summary/transcript then it can’t serve as one. SHE WASN’T THERE!

Clearly the FBI doesn’t allow recordings because they routinely lie on these 302s. Word to the wise. If the FBI (or any police agency really) wants to interview, tell them to speak to your attorney. Who will, if he knows his business, will tell them that he’d be happy to arrange in his office. Then when the agents get there he’ll pull out his recorder and place it prominently in the center of his desk.

They will decline the interview. If they know a recording exists they can’t lie on their 302. Why else would they be scared away by the sight of the recording device?

    Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | May 14, 2020 at 12:55 am

    Yes, all of that. And Sullivan may be looking for all of this to be brought out in open court so he can address the whole stinking mess. Because it’s pretty obvious who’s really guilty here, and they’re not in the dock. Sullivan can’t go after them sua sponte, but by insisting on hearing all this he can drag them into it and then he may find an opportunity to give them some justice.

      rdm in reply to Milhouse. | May 14, 2020 at 6:49 am

      This is a new low, you are actually trying to defend the indefensible?

      Semper Why in reply to Milhouse. | May 14, 2020 at 8:53 am

      These are good point. But I do worry that “may” is doing an awful lot of work in your post.

        Milhouse in reply to Semper Why. | May 14, 2020 at 12:16 pm

        None of us know what’s in his mind. We’re not telepaths. We can only guess based on his actions, and those are susceptible to different interpretations depending on our preconceptions about him. Those who are looking to cast him in a bad light can spin anything he does that way, but they have no basis for doing so. I say he deserves the most charitable interpretation that’s plausible, and that fits his past actions. When I bought the news reporters’ lie that he had accused Flynn of treason I wasn’t feeling very charitable towards him, but once I saw the original transcript, as linked here by Ghostwriter that changed.

        elle in reply to Semper Why. | May 14, 2020 at 12:21 pm

        It’s all cool that Flynn wait some more and pay some more because he is just a pawn and not a person.

    iconotastic in reply to Arminius. | May 14, 2020 at 1:11 am

    ‘ The FBI doesn’t allow their interviews to be recorded.’

    Huh? How can any public agency prevent a recording of the interaction? I thought that was settled law.

      randian in reply to iconotastic. | May 14, 2020 at 4:07 am

      Police agencies routinely destroy recordings too. I saw an interview with a police captain, on youtube I think, who said that they transcribe suspect interviews and then destroy the recordings. The opportunity for fraudulent transcripts is obvious, yet courts treat them as if they were words from god i.e. their veracity cannot be challenged, and even if they could, the evidence required to do so (the recording) was destroyed. If I were a judge I’d call that evidence tampering.

I’ve been hammering the democrats who insist on pointing that HE PLED GUILTY… So it must be true … I just tell them that the central park 5 need to be returned to prison then cause THEY PLED GUILTY…

    Milhouse in reply to Aggie9595. | May 14, 2020 at 12:58 am

    The difference is there’s at least a decent chance they actually were guilty. They certainly weren’t innocent; at most they weren’t guilty of that specific crime.

I’ve been hammering the democrats who insist on pointing that HE PLED GUILTY… So it must be true … I just tell them that the central park 5 need to be returned to prison then cause THEY PLED GUILTY…

    Every prisoner in the Soviet gulag and every Chinese citizen in a re-education camp plead guilty and signed their confession before being marched off to their punishment.

    Thank God we don’t have such abuses of civil rights in the US… Oh, wait.

What kind of corrupt asshole is this judge?

Oh. That kind of corrupt asshole.

So, does this mean that if the accused pleads “innocent” and then they are found guilty, they are then to be charged with perjury as well?

    Milhouse in reply to 94Corvette. | May 14, 2020 at 1:44 am

    There is no such plea as “innocent”. There’s only “not guilty”, which cannot be perjury because (1) it’s not under oath; and (2) it’s an opinion, not a statement of fact.

      DJEdwards in reply to Milhouse. | May 14, 2020 at 11:45 am

      I think you have been making some valuable contributions to this discussion even if they have cut against the grain a little. In that light, my question is this:
      If a plea of “not guilty” is an opinion, isn’t a plea of “guilty” an opinion also? If I plead guilty without the benefit of Brady material regarding materiality that is in the sole possession of the prosecution and that would substantially impair the prosecution, then haven’t I made an error in judgement as opposed to committing perjury? Furthermore, in this example, my error in judgement is directly related to failure of the prosecution’s duty to the court and should therefore be “fruit of a poison tree” so to speak.
      I’m not a lawyer, but this stuff seems really interesting.

        Milhouse in reply to DJEdwards. | May 14, 2020 at 12:18 pm

        Yes, “guilty” is an opinion. And it’s also not testimony. For both reasons it cannot be perjury. That’s why allocution exists; allocution is factual testimony, so it can be perjured — and often is, often with the court’s collusion. It’s a major scandal that nobody wants to address.

          DJEdwards in reply to Milhouse. | May 14, 2020 at 1:57 pm

          So to be clear – Did Flynn submit(?) allocution with his guilty plea. I’ve never seen that addressed.
          Also, based on your comments here, it seems at least possible that Sullivan is dealing in bad faith here – particularly with regard to perjury and contempt of court.
          What is your take on that?

Is this weasel Sullivan a Russian asset?

So the judge is out to get him.
Public confidence in the justice system hardest hit.

LukeHandCool | May 13, 2020 at 9:51 pm

We’re all hair salon owners and 3-star generals now.


To: Barack Hussein Obama
From: Sidney Powell

this is gonna leave a mark.

    Ghostrider in reply to 4fun. | May 13, 2020 at 10:35 pm

    4fun please forgive me. My fat finger down voted you by mistake. I whole heartedly up vote your post. Sorry.

I don’t understand why Flynn ever met with them
Without a lawyer DESPITE their telling him he didn’t need one
He’s been around the block more than a few rimes

He knew how they worked

He knew these agents

I just can’t get past that without disbelief

    Milhouse in reply to gonzotx. | May 14, 2020 at 1:51 am

    Because it was his job to meet with them. His job involved frequent contact with the FBI, and they were there on the pretext of coordinating the transition. He had no idea they were “on the job”, so to speak.

    I once lived across the hall from an FBI agent. Should I not have answered simple neighborly questions like “When is garbage day”, or “Are you getting enough heat in your apartment”, or simply “good mornings”, without a lawyer?!

      David Jay in reply to Milhouse. | May 14, 2020 at 9:43 am

      If materiality doesn’t matter and if there is no need for a properly predicated investigation, then NO, one should never respond to an FBI agent in a casual conversation.

    ss396 in reply to gonzotx. | May 14, 2020 at 10:28 am

    Gen. Flynn had been working intelligence, and for quite a while. Strzok was part of the FBI upper echelon: it’s possible that Flynn knew Strzok, or knew of him, from past associations.

      Milhouse in reply to ss396. | May 14, 2020 at 12:21 pm

      Strzok wasn’t in that conversation, so it’s irrelevant whether Flynn knew him. Strzok was behind the scenes, plotting against Flynn.

Unfortunately, Judge Gleeson will be used to go into extensive discovery on the decision making between Jensen, Barr and Durham. Now, for the first time ever in this case, Sullivan will demand complete compliance with his orders to produce documents. Why?

This serves the deep state’s objectives:

1. To run out the clock and hope Trump loses in November. Then, crush Flynn next year,

2. To uncover the evidence Durham is sitting on for future indictments of Deep State players.

The simplest fix for this now is for Barr to immediately indict Van Grack for not complying with the Brady and Giglio requirements.

I think Sullivan is pushing for Trump to pardon Flynn so that Trump’s pardon can be construed as an obstruction of justice.

Bear with me for a second.

Admittedly, Flynn lied under oath by signing his plea, but he did so under duress by the Prosecution, and with the full consent of his Defense team from Covington. As I understand it (non-lawyer here), lying under oath while under provable duress is not a crime.

Subornation of Perjury is.

It is now provable that the Prosecution signed onto an agreement to not prosecute Flynn’s son in exchange for his plea. The Covington lawyers went along with it.

That’s pretty cut-and-dried subornation of perjury right there for both parties, worthy of felony arrests at 3AM by a SWAT team, which would be nice, but I’d prefer the whole rack of them be marched into court and held in criminal contempt by Sullivan.

Every member of the Defense team from Covington, and every one of the Prosecutors, because they ALL knew it.

My dream verdict? Sullivan tosses the whole lot into jail for 30 days to give the DOJ time to write up the felony subornation of perjury charges while setting Flynn free on the courthouse steps.

Hold the creeps in isolation and let the ones who talk first, get the best plea deal. They’ll tumble over each other to point fingers and pass blame.

I did this once before, I’m gonna do it again.
Congratulations to Legal Insurrection for having gathered a readership capable of making comments such as those above. They often rival, and always complement, the content itself.
Everybody pat yourselves on your backs, you deserve it.

Holy Kafka!

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them,”

I call bullshit.

Flynn’s prosecution was the result of an ongoing criminal enterprise. Perhaps RICO. Stupid Sullivan is well aware of that. NoW, arguably, he has become part of it.

Greg Jarrett pointed out that under the Fokker case: the DC Circuit which governs Judge Sullivan made it very clear if the government wants to dismiss a case you cannot, the District Court cannot, refuse to do so because the court doesn’t like the government’s theory. Because the court thinks the government should continue the case. And it doesn’t matter if the defendant has pled or not.

United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V. – 422 U.S. App. D.C. 65, 818 F.3d 733 (2016)

    Joe-dallas in reply to Ghostrider. | May 14, 2020 at 8:31 am

    citing Fokker Services

    “SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judge:

    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. The courts instead take the prosecution’s charging decisions largely as a given, and assume a more active role in administering adjudication of a defendant’s guilt and determining the appropriate sentence.”

    I concur with your analysis of the case.

    The fear is that Sullivan will ignore Fokker’s holding, based on the two distinguishing points 1) fokker was a DPA and a speedy trial case and 2) he plead guilty, and Fokker did not address the withdrawal of a guilty plea. Seondly, the Court of appeals is heavily stacked with obama appointees who I am sure can find some basis to support sullivan’s ruling.

If a person pleads “not guilty” and the key evidence clearly supports his guilt, but that clear evidence is excluded per Miranda or similar issues, has he committed perjury because he is factually guilty but legally not guilty?

It’s almost like Sullivan is writing a Monte Python episode.

This is rapidly descending into the theater of the absurd. A supposedly independent jurist soliciting third party support for prosecuting a defendant who caved in to an unethical prosecution with a coerced plea? Good Lord.

Where in the heck are the judge cops? Why is the bench standing idly by and watching this jackass destroy what little respect remains for the federal judiciary?

To: The Honorable Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts

From: A besieged nation

Re: Get that piece-of-crap, probabbly ethically compromised (and I-C blackmailed), egregiously biased political hack in the DCD, the dishonorable Emmet Sullivan, out of his chair and off the Flynn case immediately (and maybe better, out of his robe for a while, for a demonstrably clear and needed time out, at least, for temperament and conduct unbecoming a federal judge)

Can this be legally attempted? Can Syd, Flynn’s counsel, pull this off by going around the CADC (a progressive swamp) and straight to the top of the federal judicial administrative hierarchy — the Article III boss himself, The Chief Justice?

The judge needs to step aside, either voluntarily or involuntarily. He is obviously not impartial and too invested in the outcome of this case. The Supreme Court needs to slap him down immediately. This is not the rule of law.

I come to the discussion late. But, this is simply comic opera, at this point.

Place yourself in the position of a judge who has accepte a guilty plea, but has delayed sentencing. The defendant retains a new attorney who unequivocally proves that the prosecution, as well as the previous attorneys for the defense, knowingly withheld exculpatory evidence from the defendant and, possibly, the court as well as improperly, if not illegally, pressured the defendant to enter a guilty plea. What would you do? Usually a jurist would, at least, set aside the plea and require that the prosecution turn over all evidence, exculpatory and otherwise to the defendant. If the defendant, upon perusal of this evidence then decides that he wishes to resubmit his guilty plea, sans any outside coercion, that is the end of the matter. If, on the other hand the defendant decides NOT to resubmit his guilty plea, and the prosecution declines to prosecute, this also ends the matter, in the favor of the defendant. The jurist involved has little choice but to grant the request to set aside any plea and drop all charges in the matter. This has been so ruled by appellate court for the DC circuit.

However, in this case, we have a judge who seems to feel that he is not bound by the decisions of the appellate court. This is insane. When coupled with his previous off-the-cuff comments, in open court, which were prejudicial to the defendant, he opens himself not only to administrative action from the High Court, but to impeachment, should the Republicans regain control of the House and maintain control of the Senate in 2021. And his only defense is the popular incompetent boob defense. You gotta love the brilliance of our jurists.

    Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | May 14, 2020 at 12:24 pm

    Usually a jurist would, at least, set aside the plea and require that the prosecution turn over all evidence, exculpatory and otherwise to the defendant.

    He’s already required that, several times. And he is considering setting aside the plea, which is why he’s asked for someone to brief him on any arguments that might exist against it.

      rdm in reply to Milhouse. | May 14, 2020 at 2:02 pm

      There is nothing to consider. His signing in do should be pro forms.

      Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | May 14, 2020 at 2:42 pm

      What planet do you inhabit?

      First of all, he has not done what I said, which first entails setting aside the guilty plea, at the request of the defendant. Then the judge makes sure that all exculpatory evidence is made available to the defendant. If, upon examining the evidence, the defendant does not reenter a guilty plea, the case can go to trial. However, if the prosecution advises that it will not prosecute the defendant, there is no longer any case against the defendant and the judge’s work is then finished. The court has NO authority to appoint a member of the public to be the prosecutor for the state. Prosecutors are defined under statute and require a prosecutor to be appointed by the Executive branch, not the Judicial branch of government.

Paul In Sweden | May 14, 2020 at 6:35 pm

Oh, sure; but let us have the Central Park Five stand trial for perjury prior to Gen. Flynn.

Only difference between the them is that the Central Park Five were guilty as sin for actual crimes.

I would submit that in almost every plea deal the defendant is lying to accept the lesser plea and the government is lying to charge the defendant with a crime that he didn’t commit.