« "British court rules against Christopher Steele ..." just the news | Main | "My Covid-19 symptoms have lasted more than 100 days..." Statnews »

12 July 2020


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

JM Gavin

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of the law and criminal procedure is that a trial judge is neither the prosecutor nor the defense. The judge is not a party to the case in any manner. As such, the trial judge doesn't have the right to request the en banc hearing or any other rights associated with criminal proceedings.

The trial judge is bound to obey the existing directive of the Appeals Court. The Appeals Court should now hold Judge Sullivan in contempt, and consider sanctions, to include civil confinement or impeachment.



JM Gavin

The Democratic House will not impeach.


The business with Sullivan is just another sign that the Democratic Party has been take over by anti-American anti-Western communists and their fellow travelers. Law and constraint of law by constitution are weapons to be wielded against their enemies when convenient and irrelevancies to be ignored when inconvenient.

The "muh constitution! muh bowtie!" crowd are utterly ineffectual because no one is playing by their rules anymore. What rules are the neo-Dems playing by, and if we don't start playing by their rules is there any hope?

By fundamental nature I am a moderate and have been all my life, but I see no middle ground to bridge. They want a new order, not just in the US but in all of the Western countries, where if European people exist at all it will be as tax serf minorities paying for their continued dispossession and eventual national extinction.

Why do they want this? European nations, working class included, rejected communism with guns in hand during the conflicts that followed World War 1. The communist failure using violence was followed by a long period where they reevaluated their strategy, eventually settling on Gramsci's peaceful Long March (through the institutions). Communists correctly saw that destruction of European nations was a prerequisite to their desired world order.

Money-first establishment Republicans destroyed our American institutional right-wing by the late 1960's (NOT the left) because they assessed them as the more serious short term threat to the money-first financialist world-order they wanted to build after discarding Bretton-Woods. So we were left defenseless while the Long March plodded on leading us to the disaster we face today.

JM Gavin

COL Lang,
I concur that impeach won't happen. Regardless, Judge Sullivan lacks standing to make his request. If the Appeals Court entertains his request, this will set the precedent that a judge is a party to judicial proceedings. Most clear-headed judges might realize that this isn't a good thing for them, as it would expose judges to a host of negative actions.

Or I am wrong on all of this? Does Judge Sullivan (or any judge) have standing to make such a request?


English Outsider

From this interview and many other statements there seems to be no doubt in Barr's mind that "Russiagate" was fake -


But there seem to be indications that AG Barr considers all this won't get cleared up until after the forthcoming elections.

What are the chances of the Flynn case getting dragged out that long as well? If the next administration is Democrat would the DOJ change its current position?

"the wheels of justice grind slow and they do run slow because we have due process and we follow the process." says the Attorney General. Very proper, but has he considered the possibility that if there's a change of administration those wheels will stop grinding entirely?



IMO, Barr is trying to have the cake and eat it too.

One one hand he’s saying the coup attempt is unprecedented and terrible for the rule of law. On the other hand he is implying that it is too hot a potato and he’s gonna punt to the next administration as “due process requires thoroughness”.

Note the contrast with how fast Mueller moved and the “due process” in the Assange case.

In the case of Flynn, a Biden DOJ could reverse course and partner with Judge Sullivan to incarcerate Flynn.

Keith Harbaugh

Sidney Powell has filed "Flynn’s Opposition to Rehearing En Banc":

My view on what should happen is that
the Circuit Court should preserve the right of a district judge to question government's motions to dismiss in extreme cases,
but that in this specific case the facts the govt laid out in ECF 198 are quite sufficient to support its motion to dismiss.
How the Circuit Court could preserve that general flexibility while requiring that Judge Sullivan end his fishing expeditions and efforts to prolong this specific case is not clear to me.

Keith Harbaugh

On 2020-07-20 the DOJ filed a brief with the Circuit Court opposing an en banc hearing:


at scribd:

Comparing the three briefs,
IANAL, but the Sullivan/Wilkerson brief sounded impressive to me in its marshalling of legal precedents.
Then I read the Flynn/Powell brief, which seemed to get the facts and priorities right,
far better than the Sullivan/Wilkerson brief,
but I wasn't sure if it successfully addressed the legal precedents.
Then happily along came the DOJ brief,
which sure sounds like it successfully addresses the precedents
Of course the Circuit Court's opinion is what counts.

Finally, Margot Cleveland has a recap and some ideas on what may happen next:

Chuck Light

I would ask whether the original three judge panel of the DC Circuit actually conferred the status of "party" for the purposes of FRAP Rules 35 and 40 on Judge Sullivan by directing him to file a response to Flynn's Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Did the original panel make Judge Sullivan a party, for the purposes of FRAP Rule 35 by forcing him to respond in opposition to the original petition?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad