Perhaps, the most remarkable thing about U.S. District Judge Emmet’s Sullivan 43-page opinion explaining why he was dismissing Michael Flynn’s case was that it ended on such a note in the first place.
Sanctions please. I would like to simply see every lawyer involved explain their role in full. They can even take the fifth if they want. (Does taking the fifth have any effect on qualification for the bar?)
For deeper analysis on Sullivan’s opinion I highly recommend checking out Marcy Wheeler’s recent posts at https://www.emptywheel.net/
Among the things Judge Sullivan did in his order mooting the case against Flynn before him was to hold as judicial fact that Bill Barr’s new reality is false.
So I take it Sullivan won’t be going after DoJ for a likely corrupt withdrawal request as rule 48(a) was designed to address. I guess I can hope that he expects next year’s DoJ to pursue the matter.
I suppose it’s arguable that he has done more than his share. If nothing else it has been made clear to him that his job is ten times more difficult when the Department of Justice is the Department of Anything But.
So if now he wants to see Biden’s DOJ do some of the work, I don’t blame him.
IANAL, but I did read Judge Sullivan’s statement. To this non-lawyer it appeared to be extremely well documented and well-argued. It also read as a very strong slap in the face for Barr and the rest of the Trump lackeys. Too bad that’s all that it is, because those monsters are incapable of embarrassment or shame.
Judge Sullivan proved himself to be a man of great ethical character and moral judgement, and I think Biden should promote him.
Just imagine if Trump had won, and the DoJ continued to turn into his personal law firm…all of the various lawsuits and accusations they could bring to any enemies of Trump would have been a huge weight on the nation. It’s one of the paths that dictators use to undo democracies, and this case is a prime example of them doing so…allowing the DoJ to be capricious in how it applied justice was a big step towards ending our democracy. It’s a good thing we still have judges like Sullivan who won’t put up with the nonsense.
Our democracy isn’t safe though, there are judges would have gone along with this without question, and harmed our judicial system in the process. If Republicans get power again, we’ll be in far more danger as they are willing to go further down the road to destroying our system for their own power.
He truly has, and even though not a lawyer I was able to understand the perfidy that was going on through his rulings and the excellent writing about them
I listen to Preet, I listen to Dahlia, I listen to Ken White on All the President’s Lawyers, and the thing that has shocked me as a lay person is the back and forth discussion that keeps happening around whether tTrump can pardon himself. Everyone generally says he probably can’t, which sounds to my amateur legal ears a lot like “Maybe there’s gravity, but it has never really been through the courts yet.”
How can something like that even be discussed seriously?
I am no lawyer, but my understanding is that after a pardon you lose your right to plead the 5th (at least regarding the charges you were pardoned for). Is that correct? If so get him under oath once Trump and his crew of miscreants are no longer in power.
Legally speaking it’s open and shut, but the wild card is whether the individual judge would rule based on law and constitution as it’s commonly understood today or take a novel approach to untested laws and legal concepts.
Is judge Rao ruling on the hypothetical case?
Her tired analysis could somehow find a way to make gravity irrelevant I’m sure. Her opinion wouldn’t make any sense to you or I, but it would still be legal precedent.