• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge hires high-powered D.C. attorney to defend his actions in Flynn case Judge Emmet G. S

JANFU

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,408
Reaction score
38,964
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ae4d5e-9d0c-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html

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. The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is now examining the judge’s actions and the larger case against Flynn after lawyers for President Trump’s former national security adviser asked the court to force Sullivan to toss Flynn’s guilty plea.

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. The Justice Department almost never drops a case once it has essentially won a conviction, a signed guilty plea, as Attorney General William P. Barr ordered earlier this month.
Click to expand...

Trump & Barrs destruction of the legal system
1 of 3 Branches is upholding the law & the independence of the Judiciary
 
Last edited:
JANFU said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ae4d5e-9d0c-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html



Trump & Barrs destruction of the legal system
1 of 3 Branches is upholding the law & the independence of the Judiciary
Click to expand...

Dude, as this filters down to the state level, if you are found no guilty, the judge can charge and retry you again. In fact, if you plead not guilty and are found innocent, he can then squandr more of your money by re-charging you with perjury because you really were guilty. Then we have separation of powers. The judge is judicial, the prosecution is executive branch.

He’s wasting Fylnn’s time and money “just because”.
 
Justice Department ran by Barr dismissed the case. Trump owns Bar and Trump wanted the case dismissed so Bar did it.

But that's not justice.

Flynn plead guilty twice.

The judge wants to see if he can still try Flynn.

In this case, I think the judge should try Flynn since Trump getting Flynn off seems corrupt.
 
JANFU said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ae4d5e-9d0c-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html



Trump & Barrs destruction of the legal system
1 of 3 Branches is upholding the law & the independence of the Judiciary
Click to expand...

A judge having to hire a lawyer to respond to a higher court's order?

What does Sullivan have to hide?

btw, the appeal court's order was to Sullivan. There is no reason for them to accept anyone as Sullivan's lawyer.

This might just piss off the appeals court. We'll have to wait and see.
 
From all I've followed in the people he's hired, it looks like Sullivan is not going to be bullied by the Executive Branch, and is going to do his best to provide unencumbered justice. Too bad for Trump, Barr & Flynn. Couldn't happen to a better bunch!
 
Chomsky said:
From all I've followed in the people he's hired, it looks like Sullivan is not going to be bullied by the Executive Branch, and is going to do his best to provide unencumbered justice. Too bad for Trump, Barr & Flynn. Couldn't happen to a better bunch!
Click to expand...

It looks to me like Sullivan has hired a defense lawyer. I'm just wondering what he thinks he might need to defend himself against.
 
Chomsky said:
From all I've followed in the people he's hired, it looks like Sullivan is not going to be bullied by the Executive Branch, and is going to do his best to provide unencumbered justice. Too bad for Trump, Barr & Flynn. Couldn't happen to a better bunch!
Click to expand...


Why would a judge hire a lawyer when the DC appeals court panel only asked for his explanation on why he ignored the DOJ?!?
 
Mycroft said:
It looks to me like Sullivan has hired a defense lawyer. I'm just wondering what he thinks he might need to defend himself against.
Click to expand...
Who better?

Beth Wilkinson to represent him in defending his decision to a federal appeals court in Washington,
Click to expand...
*emphasis added
 
Barnacle said:
Why would a judge hire a lawyer when the DC appeals court panel only asked for his explanation on why he ignored the DOJ?!?
Click to expand...
Please refer to post #8 above.
 
Chomsky said:
From all I've followed in the people he's hired, it looks like Sullivan is not going to be bullied by the Executive Branch, and is going to do his best to provide unencumbered justice. Too bad for Trump, Barr & Flynn. Couldn't happen to a better bunch!
Click to expand...

This is strange. Maybe Sullivan is thinking he is going to be brought up on ethics charges.
 
Chomsky said:
Please refer to post #8 above.
Click to expand...


Doesn't make sense, Chomsky. He's a federal judge who can't put down on paper his reason for refusing to comply with the DOJ?!?

Is he expecting the appeals court to throw him into the slammer? :lol:

Nope; I think there is more to that story ...
 
TurtleDude said:
This is strange. Maybe Sullivan is thinking he is going to be brought up on ethics charges.
Click to expand...
Are you saying given the circumstances, he wouldn't be wise to consult counsel in drafting his reply?

(I'm happy to defer to you in these type of matters)
 
Chomsky said:
Are you saying given the circumstances, he wouldn't be wise to consult counsel in drafting his reply?

(I'm happy to defer to you in these type of matters)
Click to expand...

I honestly don' t know what exactly he is facing so it is hard to give you an opinion. I never saw anything like that when I was constantly appearing before federal courts but the Sixth Circuit didn't get this type of DC drama.
 
this hire should aid his efforts to protract the matter beyond the first week of november
 
chuckiechan said:
Dude, as this filters down to the state level, if you are found no guilty, the judge can charge and retry you again. In fact, if you plead not guilty and are found innocent, he can then squandr more of your money by re-charging you with perjury because you really were guilty. Then we have separation of powers. The judge is judicial, the prosecution is executive branch.

He’s wasting Fylnn’s time and money “just because”.
Click to expand...

"Just because" Flynn pled guilty. :lamo
 
TurtleDude said:
This is strange. Maybe Sullivan is thinking he is going to be brought up on ethics charges.
Click to expand...

Bingo!

Doesn't Sullivan already have a staff of clerks/attorneys? If so what would be the need for him to hire a high profile D.C. atty. ? The D.C. circuit has given him 10 days to provide an explanation for his bazaar behavior. Also the D.C. circuit offered the government an invitation to respond in its discretion within the same ten-day period.

I read Sullivan's sua sponte order calling on third parties to file amicus briefs and appointing one, very special amicus to essentially stand in the place of the state itself as prosecutor to oppose the defense’s requested relief is a joke and Sullivan should know it. No amicus is permitted at a trial court level because the criminal rules do not explicitly allow it. No third party can ‘stand in’ for the power of the State. Sullivan knows that which is why his order expressly states, falsely, that the civil rules of procedure (which do allow participation of amici’s) apply to all district court actions. Do you agree with that Turtle?
 
Barnacle said:
Doesn't make sense, Chomsky. He's a federal judge who can't put down on paper his reason for refusing to comply with the DOJ?!?

Is he expecting the appeals court to throw him into the slammer? :lol:

Nope; I think there is more to that story ...
Click to expand...

Not really. We've all seen Barr lie for Trump. Anyone with 1/2 a brain will be covering their ass every which way whenever they're going against the wishes of Barr, he is the AG after all, and can use the weight of the entire legal system to attack Trump's enemies. Trusting Barr to be honest is as stupid as trusting Trump to be honest as both men have proven definitively they are not..
 
Last edited:
Barnacle said:
Doesn't make sense, Chomsky. He's a federal judge who can't put down on paper his reason for refusing to comply with the DOJ?!?

Is he expecting the appeals court to throw him into the slammer? :lol:

Nope; I think there is more to that story ...
Click to expand...
I think you're jumping to conclusions, and Sullivan just wants to get it right. Who better to navigate the appellate court, than a prominent defense lawyer experienced in appeals?

But let me ask you this:

"Do you believe Brett Kavanaugh was guilty of something during his confirmation hearings?"

Because Kavanaugh hired her (Wilkenson) then, if you're not aware?

I see what Fox & the Trump media machine are doing with this story as we speak. I would hope you're not watching or reading them, and getting crazy conspiracies.
 
TurtleDude said:
I honestly don' t know what exactly he is facing so it is hard to give you an opinion. I never saw anything like that when I was constantly appearing before federal courts but the Sixth Circuit didn't get this type of DC drama.
Click to expand...
It's a high profile political case involving the White House & the highest levels of DOJ.

Did you ever see an instance like Sullivan hiring Gleeson? If not, then it seems the judge is setting some precedents here, including with Wilkinson.

BTW, this is the same Wilkinson that was retained by Brett Kavanaugh for his confirmation hearings.
 
Chomsky said:
It's a high profile political case involving the White House & the highest levels of DOJ.

Did you ever see an instance like Sullivan hiring Gleeson? If not, then it seems the judge is setting some precedents here, including with Wilkinson.

BTW, this is the same Wilkinson that was retained by Brett Kavanaugh for his confirmation hearings.
Click to expand...

Nothing like this
 
Chomsky said:
Bingo!
Click to expand...

I think this might be another "ITO" scenario. I think Sullivan might be a bit over his head in this level of intrigue and political machinations masquerading as a legal matter.
 
vesper said:
Bingo!

Doesn't Sullivan already have a staff of clerks/attorneys? If so what would be the need for him to hire a high profile D.C. atty. ? The D.C. circuit has given him 10 days to provide an explanation for his bazaar behavior. Also the D.C. circuit offered the government an invitation to respond in its discretion within the same ten-day period.

I read Sullivan's sua sponte order calling on third parties to file amicus briefs and appointing one, very special amicus to essentially stand in the place of the state itself as prosecutor to oppose the defense’s requested relief is a joke and Sullivan should know it. No amicus is permitted at a trial court level because the criminal rules do not explicitly allow it. No third party can ‘stand in’ for the power of the State. Sullivan knows that which is why his order expressly states, falsely, that the civil rules of procedure (which do allow participation of amici’s) apply to all district court actions. Do you agree with that Turtle?
Click to expand...
Oh come-on Vesper, Sullivan is most likely hiring her for her D.C. appellate expertise. This is an appellate case.

As to your amicus concerns, I've seen amici often in criminal appellate matters, haven't you? Turtle's surely a better guy than me for this, but I'm sure I'm on high ground concerning the appellate courts.
 
Chomsky said:
Oh come-on Vesper, Sullivan is most likely hiring her for her D.C. appellate expertise. This is an appellate case.

As to your amicus concerns, I've seen amici often in criminal appellate matters, haven't you? Turtle's surely a better guy than me for this, but I'm sure I'm on high ground concerning the appellate courts.
Click to expand...

This is a trial court matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom