He has not violated his own precedent. In fact Sidney Powell in a brief before the court praised Judge Sullivan for a precedent ruling of his in the Stevens case, where he appointed an independent a investigator to investigate prosecutorial misconduct, after the case had been dropped by the AG in light of that misconduct. So not only did Sidney Powell recognize that Judge Sullivan has the authority to appoint an amicus, she recognized that Sullivan has the authority to do much more than that.
Facts prove you wrong yet again. 20 times in this trial he has ruled against amicus filings that would have been in favor of flynn.
Now he is doing what the SCOTUS ruled he can't do just a few weeks ago on this topic before he asked for amicus filings against flynn.
this very much shows a conflict of interest.
So this point is disproved if you had bothered to read facts and stop ignoring them you would have already known this.
Judge Sullivan did not say that Flynn should be charged with treason. After viewing the statements of offenses by Mr. Flynn in the Special Counsel's sentencing memorandum, much of which is redacted, Judge Sullivan said that he would not and could not withhold from expressing his "disgust and disdain" for the criminal conduct of the defendant and then wondered aloud to the prosecutor if there's a point where conduct of that sort would be considered treasonous. Which was a rhetorical point really for expressing his level of outrage with Flynn's conduct and has he had already accepted the charges and the pleas and had entered them into the record and with that the trial phase of the case was over.
The judge called him a traitor to his country. that very much is accusing him of treason. That is also conduct unbecoming and grounds for dismissal or recusal.
as a judge you are to remain neutral.
The prosecution was over with. Pleas entered and accepted and a judgement rendered. Barr was too late.
Flynn has changed his plea to not guilty based on new evidence. THis is a constitutionally protected right of an individual.
again if you would actually pay attention to facts you would know this already.
There was no new or exculpatory evidence presented in the motion. Zero of the documents cited in it were new to the DOJ. Indeed almost all of those documents were dealt with by the prosecutors in Powell's Brady demand, at a time when Bill Barr was the AG, so even Sullivan knew of them.
Actually there is a ton of new information that the judge ignored because of his bias against the defendant. He ignored perjured testimony. The evidence is clear that the former prosecutor did not turn over all evidence to the defense
including evidence that the FBI said that flynn was innocent and didn't lie.
facts do not care about your feelings. The judge ignored all of this.
What lies did the prosecutor make? Can you cite any? Or is that just your own rant?
He has lied for months that he handed over all the evidence he didn't.
Since February 2018, Van Grack -- who now heads the DOJ's Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) unit -- has been obligated to comply with D.C. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan's standing order in the Flynn case to produce all evidence in the government’s possession “that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.”
What Van Grack didn’t inform the court about – and didn’t provide to Flynn – was the newly unsealed January 4, 2017 "Closing Communication" from the FBI Washington Field Office, which recommended the FBI close its investigation of Flynn, as its exhaustive search through government databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts."
He lied to the court. again if you wouldn't ignore facts you would know this already, but you will ignore this as well.
'I say so' is all you do. You ask others for proof for your false claims while never providing or citing any proof for any of them yourself. You have at best a elementary school kid's understanding of the law and the Constitution. So arguing with you often feels pretty much like arguing with a child.
facts state otherwise you not only didn't disprove anything all of your arguments have already been disproved by facts.
yes talking to a leftist is like a school kid. all they do is stamp their feet and yell and scream that they are right even when they
are proven wrong.
Made you should stop projecting yourself onto other people.
