10 December 2015
Michael Flynn is seated next to Vladimir Putin at a dinner in Moscow to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Kremlin-linked English-language news service RT. “I didn’t even really talk to him,” Flynn later said. He was paid $45,000 for the appearance.
29 December 2016
Flynn speaks with Kislyak on the phone five times, on the day the Obama administration retaliates for Russian tampering in the 2016 election by expelling 35 Russian diplomats and announcing new sanctions against Russian intelligence services and agencies involved in hacking.
I think they send it back to Sullivan to rule on the motion. It would just be highly unusual for the Court of Appeals to intervene in an ongoing case to take a motion away from the trial judge. A precedent that could be chaotic.
The extent to which the trial court has discretion under the rule to not grant leave for the government to dismiss is a more tricky question and I think some people here have unrealistic expectations. There are thousands of appellate case finding judges abused their discretion to not grant leave for whatever relief is sought. The government has very broad discretion to dismiss cases, and I think that is how this case ends. Certainly, if there ever was a case to NOT grant leave to dismiss, this case is it, so politics aside, the case is a big deal.
I have practiced before the craziest federal judge in the country, who was once removed from hearing new cases as a sanction by the Fifth Circuit for his blatant misconduct and was subsequently restored to his full authority by the United States Supreme Court. Telling him that he’s an insane hack with no regard for the law is actively detrimental in his courtroom, and accomplishes nothing with the appellate court because they already know who he is.
Judge Sullivan is “fatally biased” because he took Flynn’s word when he pleaded guilty and excoriated the man for the crime he had just admitted that he’d committed.
I’m talking about on appeal…maybe I wasn’t being clear enough. A whackadoodle trial judge who behaves in arbitrary ways, makes decisions that don’t comport with the law during trial, etc., and who has the added benefit of having been declared unqualified and unethical presents an opportunity on appeal. Why wouldn’t you point out his history when appealing those rulings? You can argue that it’s not strictly relevant to the merits of an isolated decision, but fuck him. At trial level, sure, you take your dick punches with a smile because yeah, it would be insane to antagonize a judge like that…unless you’re absolutely sure you can get him to keep making mistakes, but I’d hardly call that a great strategy unless you’re desperate.
That is a risk you weigh. Having earned a remand though, you already proved yourself right and the judge wrong, so there’s always a risk that they’re resentful.
Yes, and that reminder comes in the form of an extensive litany of all the ways in which the trial court erred. “And he was deemed unqualified by the ABA” adds nothing to the argument, apart from looking hacky on behalf of your client.
Most trial court judges, in my experience, are respectful of the litigants and their positions on remand when they get reversed on appeal. I can’t imagine that would hold true after I have assaulted the judge’s qualifications for office.
