Report: Judge in Michael Flynn case hires a lawyer… for the Judge
WaPo reports Judge Emmet Sullivan has hired high-profile D.C. lawyer Beth Wilkinson to help him respond to the appeals court order that he explain his conduct in the Flynn case.
Judge Emmet Sullivan has been ordered by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to explain his actions In the Michael Flynn case.
Those actions include apppointing a former federal Judge with a known hostility to Flynn to argue against the government’s motion to dismiss the case and to consider whether Flynn should be held in criminal contempt for perjury (presumably in connection with his guilty plea, which Flynn now renounces).
Sullivan also has opened up the court’s docket to anyone who wants to file an amicus brief, which numerous anti-Trump people and groups have bragged they will do.
A Judge being directed personally to explain himself in this manner is not usual. And Sullivan has hired high-powered legal help to represent the Judge, according to The Washington Post.
WaPo reports:
The federal judge who refused a Justice Department request to immediately drop the prosecution of former Trump adviser Michael Flynn has hired a high-profile trial lawyer to argue his reasons for investigating whether dismissing the case is legally or ethically appropriate.
In a rare step that adds to this criminal case’s already unusual path, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has retained Beth Wilkinson to represent him in defending his decision to a federal appeals court in Washington, according to a person familiar with the hire who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter….A federal judge doesn’t typically hire private counsel to respond to an appeals court, and yet so much about Flynn’s case has been a departure from the norm. A defendant doesn’t normally plead guilty under oath, and then try to withdraw that admission, as Flynn did.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
YOU could hire every Lawyer in the country you still going to answer in person on June 1.
Enema Sullivan couldn’t give a crap (pun intended). He’s a hero to the fascist left, who have probably lined his pockets in the process.
But he is a malignant clown to the rest of us.
This seem odd. The judge already has a staff of clerks/attorneys. Seems like he’s just adding additional “amici” counsel to the case.
Let me rephrase. As noted below, I think it’s more than odd. It’s improper. He is not a party defendant.
He is the sole respondent.
He is the judge presiding over the case in question and he wants to insert new, outside counsel as an intermediary between his supervisory court and the defendant/petitioner. He should be removed from this case, and I wouldn’t mind seeing some disciplinary action.
To explain further, when I say he’s not a party defendant but the presiding judge, I mean to say he has no personal interest in the disposition of this case. Moreover, under the appellate rules, only the circuit court can give leave for amicus counsel to submit briefs. The order to the judge gives no such permission. The judge himself can’t even respond unless directed by the court. So your comment that he is the sole respondent says nothing as to his power to insert additional counsel into this matter. This is a mandamus action precipitated by the judge’s action, of course he is the sole respondent.
If you feel you need counsel to defend yourself, you are by definition not disinterested.
Not sure what you mean here. He is the respondent to a mandamus action based on his abuse of authority in this case. He is not a party defendant. He has no personal interest in this matter. And, if he’s not disinterested, than by definition he shouldn’t be presiding over this case.
He’s corrupt to the core and needs a lawyer to defend himself.
Interested?
Highly, his life is now on the line. The documents are drip-drip-drip coming out.
Why would a Judge require a lawyer to help him explain why he has taken certain steps in a case?
Surely he knows the answer to this question already??
TDS can be devastating.
Maybe he doesn’t
FYI, this Beth Wilkerson is married to David Gregory. Yep, that David Gregory of whom LI has had much to say about his hypocrisy about gun laws. For example, see,
https://legalinsurrection.com/2015/01/finally-obtained-david-gregory-arrest-warrant-affidavit/
Wilkerson and Gregory are deep into the Deep State and the left.
There are answers, and then there are answers.
The true answer may be… counter-productive.
Can the judge be sued personally if he is operating outside of his official authority? If so, could his response to the appeals court be used as evidence against him?
Perhaps he does need a defense attorney.
Judges generally have Absolute Immunity. The only exception might be 42 U.S. Code § 1983. –Civil action for deprivation of rights or possibly 42 U.S. Code § 1985.Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights. The chances of success against a Judge are remote. There may be a case against Herr Mueller’s team.
Of course, perjury would be bad
Perhaps he can be sued. look up “color of law”
Federal statutes.
18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law .
What he knows his answers are, and what he can say in a legal response, may well be two different things, particularly if this does have anything to do with him protecting Obama in some way. And that’s why he needs a separate lawyer and not his law clerk.
“Surely he knows the answer to this question already??…”
Listen, you’re giving this guy credit for having brains. He could very well be a dumb as shiela jackson lee or alexndra cortez.
I’m thinking he’s a dummy with a big job. And easily corruptble.
I hope we are not paying for this.
If the taxpayers aren’t paying, follow the money to see who pays for this “fair and impartial” federal judge.
So… the judge needs to hire outside counsel to help him explain the legal reasoning for a decision he already made.
Does this constitute an admission that he isn’t competent to make such decisions on his own on the legal merits?
“an admission that he isn’t competent”
That’s part-and-parcel of being an AA appointment.
If Sullivan is incompetent then he’s doing a yeoman’s job of it for the democrats.
I’ll go out on a limb and comment that this is more than just odd, it’s improper. The judge is not a party defendant. At the very least, he should be removed from this case.
What a moron this pompous ass turned out to be.
I’ve never seen someone who had it so made destroy their reputation in one day.
A look back at Sleazy Sullivan’s cases might just reveal one corrupt dumbass judge who has destroyed a lot of innocent peoples’ lives.
I have to add to this: I think part of this situation arises because aside from being easily corrupted, the guy just isn’t that smart.
For those interested, please sign the WH petition to impeach & remove judge Sullivan from the bench. Just click on my name for the link. Thank you.
Huh? You’re petitioning the White House to have someone impeached?! You’ve got the wrong house! It’s the House of of Representatives that impeaches. The White House is not involved in the process. And of course until the House changes hands your petition would be ignored no matter how many signatures it got.
Why is Milhouse getting downvotes for pointing out basic provisions in the US constitution?
Impeachment under the US Constitution always starts in the house, The WH can petition the House all it wants, but until the republicans gain majority in the house, getting a majority to vote to begin impeachment hearings aint goint to happen.
The only quibble I have with milhouse is that while he mentioned that it will take a majority in the house to vote for impeachment, it will take 2/3 of the senate to vote to convict. Gettting a majority in the house will happen a lot sooner than getting a 2/3 majority in the senate. So basically you gotta kiss impeachment goodbye. Milhouse is being realistic.
Milhouse gets down voted because [historically] he’s got a gratingly annoying online persona; he sometimes fisks obviously sarcastic comments.
I’m not condoning down voting him for that but it is what it is.
So he needed to hire a lawyer to try and figure out why he did what he did? Seems like a judge on top of his game /sarc.
People hire lawyers to explain themselves to a court when they are defendants. Judges behaving in this manner are taking a defensive posture against the appellate courts.
In reality he hired a lawyer to help bail him out for going rogue justice and following the law. If he was acting on his own he wouldn’t need a lawyer to explain his behavior on the bench.
Impeach this slime.
How I wish we could impeach! But as long as Nancy runs the house, we gotta ask her Permission to do anything like that. not happening.
Guess Sullivan is a little nervous. Good. He should be.
Professor, while you’re at it, do a search for “Request for Extension of Time to file Response” filed by Sullivan’s Attorney because, you know, his lawyer has to get “up to speed” on this case.
I’m betting an extension will NOT happen here. This is an emergency petition. And Judge Sullivan’s hiring of a private lawyer will NOT magically convert it into a “non-emergency petition”, especially when the appellate court had the option but refused to appoint a private lawyer to file an amicus brief for Sullivan.
I don’t know who John Reeves is (he claims experience in these matters) but he thinks the order is a big deal …
https://twitter.com/reeveslawstl/status/1263588369918906373
They could always threaten the Judge with contempt, and jail for this.
I hope he needs this lawyer for his defense against impeachment. This judge has ruined his career, his reputation, for his master Obama. The push for the perjury against Flynn right after the “leaked” phone call is a major tell against him acting on his own.
He is a disgrace on the bench. He should be removed for HIS own actions, but too often we rarely see people held accountable for their own actions, especially when it comes to politics.
Imagine a judge needing to hire a lawyer to answer questions into his behavior on the bench, it speaks not of him knowing he is following the law, but is screaming out that he has acted in bad faith.
A Democrat-controlled House will not impeach him. Even should Republicans retake the House and maintain Senate control after the 2020 elections he will not be impeached unless actual corruption is found.
Two-thirds in the Senate is a high hurdle.
It will never, ever happen over something partisan like this, no matter how badly he behaves.
It’s also been accepted for over 200 years, since the failed attempt to remove Samuel Chase, that Congress can’t remove a judge just because they don’t like his rulings. To do so would damage the concept of an independent judiciary. Judges can only be removed for “bad behavior”, such as bribery, drunkenness on the bench, etc.
No, that’s “won’t” not “can’t.” Or, at least most likely won’t. Congress surely has the power to remove this judge. And perhaps this respect for judicial independence (if that’s what this is) and the concept of good behavior (federal judges hold their office during “good behavior”) needs to be reexamined in light of recent abuses of judicial power like the present case and judicial legislating from the bench.
Actually it is “can’t”. At least that is the current legal thinking. Chase’s impeachment failed because the majority of senators believed they had no power to remove him for such offenses. If the senate were to try removing a judge for his judicial acts the courts would almost certainly refuse to recognize the removal, and there would be a constitutional crisis.
Uh, what do you mean constitutional crisis? A senator today has the same power to remove a judge or justice for gross abuses of power as a senator in the 19th century. They may choose not to do so but they retain the authority. And a judge or justice that abuses the powers of office and distorts the US constitution can also precipitate a constitutional crisis. Dred Scott ring a bell? You remember that minor constitutional crisis know as the Civil War.
And I should point out, lest anyone be mislead by your arguments, that the courts have nothing to say in the matter. Impeachment is a nonjusticiable act. The courts have no power to refuse to “recognize” a removal by impeachment.
Sullivan and his handlers were expecting the judge to be overruled. That was to be a narrative of Trump “cover-up” or something. “You’ve got some ‘splaining’ to do” was not part of the plan. They are scrambling. This will be interesting.
The residuals of Obama/Biden/Clinton et al Water Closet.
Who’s paying?
I believe that he has to. But I question if the Rules allow him to do this.
“Rules? We don’t need no stinkn’ rules.”
I’m sure, it’s a pro bono deal.
The DOJ needs to cease and audit the financial records of this court. This judge should be in prison if he has misused taxpayer dollars.
I am somewhat more pessimistic. Sullivan would not have taken this stand in the first place if he did not have the assurance of the Democrats, including their Nomenklatura that something more was up. His appointments outside the normal criminal law procedures implies a strong possibility that the Left has decided to split and discredit the entire Judicial branch. At which point, disputes will depend on which side’s judge has the case regardless of law, precedence, or anything approximating justice.
We have a duly elected President who the Democrats are trying to unconstitutionally overthrow.
We have the Democrats and part of the Republicans joining in the overthrow.
We have the entire electoral system under attack with the validity of votes and voters, the chain of custody of votes, and the counting being placed into question.
In Democrat controlled states, the governments are trying to claim the right to and to factually suppress the Constitution and the Bill of Rights at will. They are doing that in no small part by ignoring judicial rulings against them.
The creation of functionally a separate judicial system subservient to the Democrats leaves not much in the way of peaceful due process to resolve differences.
Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln.
It might be reasonable to prepare for interesting times.
Subotai Bahadur
“We have the Democrats and part of the Republicans joining in the overthrow…”
I wonder how many of us really GET that? Even all of us here.
Btw: I took the liberty of translating your German phrase. (I’d like to give the impression I speak German, but I have to admit to using Google Translate.)
Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln = The war is a mere continuation of politics by other means.
And we ARE at war: Try going to a restuarant in Frau Whitmer-land and then resisting arrest. Ultimately, you’ll be shot.
if you haven’t been, you weren’t paying attention over the last couple of decades.
This judge has hired a lawyer, but be assured, you, as a taxpayer, are paying for it. Premium rates.
Actually a judge retaining cousel isn’t all that ridiculous, because there are several distinct issues involved. First is the judge’s harassment of Flynn. Second is the judge’s authority to do so; what gives him the power to put the defendant through the wringer, and what recourse does he have to prevent someone else from overriding him? (Maybe that’s the second and third questions.) Sullivan might have full confidence about the first question, but be somewhat in the dark about the succeeding issues.
If this struggle could help end America’s knee-jerk obeisance to judges at all levels, it might be a welcome development for all of us, not just Flynn.
“Actually a judge retaining cousel isn’t all that ridiculous…”
Really? Make a list of judges that have done the same in our history.
…
…
…
…
OK, now that you’ve had time to think on it, the list is empty, and the judge is ridiculous*.
*in this case, “ridiculous” is a synonym for corrupt to the core
Our system of justice is the product of hundreds of years of refinement, yet is subject to the caprice of attorneys and judges at every turn.
For proofs of the above I cite the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.
I suspect this latest bit of ‘lawyering’ will lead to more and more lawyering. And more judgeshipping. And more significant transfers of wealth to lawyers and law firms; the codified grifters-guild of American capitalism.
“With an increase of lawyering one should expect diminishing returns on justice.”
Mark Twain.
This is the nightmare that SCOTUS fears the most. A rogue Circuit judge. This brings so much sunlight into the process that wouldn’t even register with most of the masses, until now. There isn’t anyone who hasn’t had a dealing, or a family member, or a friend that hasn’t had a judge like this ruling on some aspect of their life. They hate this sh@t. SCOTUS knows that people will want a scalp, judge Sullivan’s scalp. Obama thinks he’s protecting his legacy. All he’s doing is burning it down. He has know self awareness to realize what he’s doing.
What’s the big deal? We had a rogue president for 8 years.
I believe the 3 judge appeals court panel recognizes that Sullivan’s actions are dragging the entire judiciary into disrepute, and for that reason alone I think they are going to slap him down hard. No matter how fancy a lawyer he has.
Remember, this hearing is a strange hybrid of a Court Procedure and an Employee Performance Review in front of 3 of his pissed off bosses. His hiring of a lawyer for his performance review sure isn’t going to amuse his superiors very much at all.
There was no indication in the order of whether or not the Obama judge—WIlkiins—joined in the order. I would be surprised if he did.
Tiki–I disagree about the law being subject to the caprices of attorneys. At times lawyers should actively push against current standards, and they should use every ethical means available to them. It is the caprices of judges that allows for unfortunate and unfair twists and/or delays of justice.
Noted. 🙂
Stranger and stranger.
I wonder if the AppellateCourt might not just say no to any lawyer appearing for him.
My understanding is that in recent times, judges often write amici briefs defending their decisions on appeal. I would expect the judge too write his own reply, especially given that he has interns who will do much of the work.
No sarcasm here: Enema Sullivan probably can’t write that well and he needs assistance.
He should team up with moooochelle obama’s ghost writer:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/obama-telling-friends-hes-writing-own-book-while-michelle-used-a-ghostwriter
That’s why he has interns.
His interns are probably as lame as he is.
Sh-t flows downhill, after all. No better illustration than the obama presidency.
Might the judge be fearful of some civil action brought by Flynn since he ignored the law he’s supposed to represent and played the tyrant? Hiring an attorney in the matter seems preemptive to me.
Any judge with a lick of sense would dismiss the case late in a Friday and retire.
Sullivan sees himself as a Hero of the Resistance (TM). He is willing to make Flynn and the taxpayers bear any burden and pay any price for his chance at fame and fortune.
All I can think of is the movie The Omen: “This is all for you Barrack!”
What!? Is he even allowed to do this? He has been ordered to respond to his ruling, done by him in his courtroom, and he lawyers-up? Do the Rules allow this? It makes no sense unless he is suffering from dementia.
If he himself cannot explain why his actions are not precluded by Circuit precedence then he needs to retire not lawyer-up.
why didn’t Sullivan hire Holder, his law firm, Covington, knows this case very well.
yes this is sarcasm
+++
That’s positively Clintonian.
A whole raft of procedures n barriers to disclosure come in with this move. Even if he loses *every single claim, objection, n filing* it generates noise, cost, delay, appearance that he’s got a case, and opportunity for the other guys to screw up.
It is also, of course, shameless and abuse of process, but I did say “Clintonian.”
Not really. He has been ordered to explain his ruling, in his courtroom, in light of Federal Rules and Circuit precedence. Those are the parameters that the panel set for his response.
And one of those parameters was that the response was required by 1 June.
Indeed, that’s what they panel said.
My point, and I do have one, is that the whole point of “council” is to throw chaff at the procedures as they’re supposed to work.
Like having interested parties in your deposition by declaring them your lawyer — I’m speaking hypothetically of course.
Same way nfl commish Goodell ultimately sided with kap and nfl players Robby Roberts will side with 4 Libby supct justices and give sully/ Barry a big win when this hits super. Robby will do this because he will be scared of consequences of not going with Barry sully. Not going with sully/Barry will cause the msm to go after total us court system especially spicy for racism bigotry sexism etc scorched earth. Similarly, Goodell knew he had to ditch fans and go with the players to avoid mSm killing nfl.
This maybe the wrong calculation for Robby Roberts but just saying it’s the way things will shakeout.
Judge Sullivan has most likely hired an private attorney because there is likely to be a judicial complaint filed against him. Given his track record in this case, it is very likely that he will end up facing some type of administrative action. The judicial system is based upon an appearance of judicial neutrality. Sullivan has publicly stepped do far beyond any semblance of judicial neutrality, that he has both embarrassed the federal judiciary and his actions are undermining the the public perception that the judiciary attempts to maintain that they are neutral arbiters of the law. He is going to need an attorney.
To paraphrase The Gambler”;
“You have to know when to hold ’em.
Know when to fold ’em.
Know when to walk away.
Know when the lawyer up.”
Worse.
Corruption aside, Enema Sullivan has just been exposed as a dummy.
“there is likely to be a judicial complaint filed against him”
“He is going to need an attorney.”
Yes. The whole case has been corrupt from beginning to end and the judiciary is in on it, including the crooked judge Sullivan.
The documents continue to see sunshine thanks to a few hard working Americans. The truth will come out.
How in the world is Sullivan not conflicted? His actions have caused him to hire an attorney, presumably out of his own pocket.
He’s now has a vested and monetary interest in the outcome. How can he even pretend to be an impartial judge now? I’m not a lawyer, but as a layman the conflicts are so obvious that I do not understand how he is still the judge.
I doubt that Sullivan is paying any fees to Wilkinson. If she is getting paid for her work, it’s likely by Leftist activist groups, which tells you something.
Perhaps the Circuit Court will raise him and grant the mandamus, especially if his newly minted counsel seeks an extension in which to answer.
Is Wilkinson going to write a note for the judge or something? Or perhaps she will write the reply required by the appellate court and Sullivan will simply affix his name to it? In that case maybe she should be the judge.
I think the net effect of retaining Wilkerson will be that she will write a bunch of mind-numbing gobbledygook to ask for more time. Get ready for foggy, meaningless phrases along the lines of: “There are serious issues raised in the dismissal that need to be fully explored ….. a deadline of June 1 is unrealistic and potentially harmful to the conduct of an impartial trial … serious ethical issues raised by the Justice Department’s sudden and unprecedented dismissal that must be investigated … appearance of wrongdoing … no one is above the law … blah blah blah”.
Exactly my point. “A case not tried is a case not lost.”
There is no other way at this time to stretch out the case than to retain the services of an attorney at the last minute, then to beg for time to appropriately and fairly represent one’s client. I’ve yet to see such a request denied.
Sullivan can hire all the lawyers in DC and he still will not be able to explain any basis in law for his illegal and improper acts. They’ll make some kabucki theatre up that will not fly.
June 1 approaches.
This is an admission that 1) a cogent argument for the judge’s ruling did not exist at the time it was made, 2) the judge desires a particular outcome in the case enough to hire someone who is able to invent a reason for his decision tht did not exist at the time it was made.
So, will Wilkinson represent Sullivan personally or Sullivan’s Court? I don’t see the interests of the two being 100% aligned.
If you are on trial, three lawyers control your fate; one wants you in jail, one wants your money, and the third is an ass. Stay out of court!
No, I don’t think Sullivan is either incompetent, senile, or a moron. He is attempting to draw this thing out as long as possible. Because if and when Flynn finally joins the Trump administration, he can then announce where Obama has buried all of the bodies. Flynn knows too much for the deep state Ever to allow him the freedom to tell the country what really happened with Iran and the Obama admin.
Sullivan has been reading too many “Judge Dredd” comic books. He thinks that a judge stating “I am the Law” is how the American judicial system works.
She is an expensive lawyer. Who is responsible for her legal fees? Why should taxpayers be responsible to cover the bill for this act of judicial hubris?
Some other questions while we’re at it:
If she files an appearance must the court accept it?
How can a judge have a legal interest to be protected within the proceeding he is judging?
Why does Judge Sullivan need a lawyer to explain what he did? Doesn’t he know? Didn’t he know when he did it?
Doesn’t the fact that he retained counsel in this matter manifest that he is no longer an impartial “umpire” in the case, cannot be one, and should revise himself from the case forthwith?
Who is on trial now, Flynn or Sullivan?
Inasmuch as he was initially identified and put on the bench by Reagan, and then further elevated by Bush the elder, I’ve been until now holding out that Judge Sullivan was sincerely motivated in his displeasure with Flynn’s desire to retract his multiple guilty pleas.
But when Obama comes out and weighs in about Flynn, in the clearly self-serving and CYA-mode manner as he recently did, and then Flynn does what he did, it just seems too much in simpatico with one another and coordinated.
Correct that last sentence to be: “…then Sullivan does what he did,…”
I’m glad to see you figured it out.
Let’s add – Reagan made a mistake and Bush covered it.
Sullivan is a corrupt judge. Was he always corrupt? Don’t know. He is now.
From beginning to end this case has been an illegal and corrupt endeavor. Sullivan knows this, he knows it all. He was selected to be a part of this corrupt case.
I disagree about him being corrupt. That isn’t ipso facto his history. But I do believe he was corrupted by Obama on a racial simpatico level, as many American blacks were, including many some otherwise think of as politically conservative blacks.
“I disagree about him being corrupt.”
You can lead a horse to water…
The Flynn case is corrupt to the very core and Sullivan knows this. He can’t not know it as the DOJ has now admitted it. And yet…
If you have another explanation I’m all ears, but we both know the truth.
Sullivan is a Clinton appointee to the Federal DC court. He graduated from Howard Univ. early 70’s, went to Harvard Law, affirmative action enrollment: he is part of the firewall of the dc jurisdiction courts to protect all deep state criminals.
This action is a stall, cya protocol for the crit legal type judges and lawyers. His cred is about the resistance and especially covering for his affirmative action colleagues, in particular for obama who despises the military and patriots, and who hates General Flynn who is a stud military type who would not kowtow to obama’s transformational tyranny.
Has Wilkinson filed an entry of appearance yet?
Question….
Do the 3 judges on the Appellate Court have the final say on this?
Or can he ask that the entire Court have a say?
If one has to have a lawyer to explain to the court one’s conduct then one’s conduct should be excuse enough to remove oneself from the position.
Missed you Gator, my bad. Have you ever read the Federal
statute concerning “color of law” ?? Might apply here. Gen
Flynn has had a bad time, from some very bad people. If I
read the statute correctly,you could sue in federal court
ANY person,even a judge, if they infringed on your civil rights, misusing the law . Even the sheriff, anyone. Keep
posting
In my tendency to take people at their word when their word or deed stuns and rebukes pertinent rules, customs, and institutional norms, as his clearly did — to lawyer, jurist, and the lay public alike — I, like so many, view Judge Sullivan’s entire approach and demeanor in LTG Flynn’s case before him as too interested, litigant-like, wholly improper. What’s really up with this judge, in this case? I’d like to reiterate a guess seen floating around.
He’s officially the impartial federal judge, but he’s equally fulfilling the role as an unconstitutional partial activist/judicial advocate. You know the thing done by those judges who, in not earning their salaries and not doing their legally prescribed job on the bench, decide the law on a
partial and biased, distorted reading of the applicable law and a complete mistaking of a given case’s facts, mutually stipulated by opposing parties to the case.
So professionally unfit, then, Judge Sullivan reaches for and embraces, not the job requirements to be met for a competent, ethical, and positionally sustainable federal judge, but that of a party interested in a certain — ie, politically damaging — judicial outcome. He thus follows, the Lawyer’s so-called, default (here modified, if you will) Combined Rule of Law:
1. If the facts are against you, argue the law.
2. If the law is against you, argue the facts.
3. If the facts and the law are against you, yell like
hell.
4. If even hell is against you, delay, delay, delay.
In sum, fellow Insurrectionists, I submit: Pay no attention to the antics of that man, Sullivan, who purports to impartially, fairly, and under all applicable law, rule, and custom, judge and rule on the present case involving our accused general, our revered values, and our society’s core-being. He is merely exploiting his self-entitled opportunity to impress his political patrons and dons by operating invalid mechanical levers in order to deny a citizen his equal justice under law.
To wit: It’s all Oz-like wizardy, a charade and a sham. His real goal, in the end, is so indirectly to effect delay, in the hope for a Dem-Left sweep of government, at least of the Executive, for a final and decisive mulligan — ie, reinstatement of charges against LTG Flynn. To Judge Sullivan, it seems most likely in the end, the defendant and Trump compatriot is merely a symbol of the old regime — expendable political fodder in the neo-Marxist, Progressive march to the Newer Deal ahead.
God forbid.
Pay no attention to the antics of that man, Sullivan, who purports to impartially, fairly, and under all applicable law, rule, and custom, judge and rule on the present case involving our accused general, our revered values, and our society’s core-being.
With all due respect, I believe attention very much should be paid. He . . . and his widespread ilk . . . are very much enemies of our country and Constitution and are trying to destroy both. Their defense will require knowing what he as his fellows are doing so as to counter them, and eventually crush them.
Subotai Bahadur
Subotai,
Thanks very much for addressing my comment.
You add a probably necessary, indeed holistically deeper dimension to what I tried to convey overall.
Anyway, I certainly agree with you — someone whose contributing authorship to LI, if you’ll allow me to add, I greatly admire and respect.