![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/shocked-face.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Why Sullivan hired a lawyer, and apparently, a very good one, is a mystery to me. The only thing going on is the requirement by the D.C. Circuit Court that he respond regarding his actions in the Flynn case. Here are the details from Fox News<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n U.S. District Court Judge Emmett G. Sullivan has taken the unusual step of hiring an attorney to represent him as an appeals court reviews his decision not to immediately grant the Justice Department’s<\/a> (DOJ’s) request to dismiss its case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn<\/a>. <\/b><\/p>\n Sullivan hired attorney Beth Wilkinson who, according to The Washington Post<\/a>, is expected to notify the D.C. Court of Appeals within the next week of her decision to represent him. Wilkinson reportedly is a go-to for high-profile officials in difficult situations. For example, she previously represented then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as he fought sexual misconduct allegations in 2018. <\/b><\/p>\n This is interesting. Kavanaugh was in a similar position as Flynn, with false accusations made against him. All Sullivan has done is make a complete ass of himself, and he can very easily correct this by just doing his job and ending the case against General Flynn. At that point, the Writ of Mandamus should become moot. At least I think it would. What seems like common sense to me and other normal people is something generally missing in the Judicial system.<\/p>\n The added representation compounded what has become an abnormal case, which is rooted in Flynn misleading the FBI about his contacts with Russia after the 2016 presidential election. Although Flynn pleaded guilty, he’s currently seeking to withdraw that plea as the Justice Department argues that the FBI had an insufficient basis to interview him in the first place. <\/b><\/p>\n The FBI and the DoJ under Obama has not covered itself in glory. There is a good chance that some very senior Obama officials are going to be prosecuted, and it looks like this whole thing is leading right into the Oval Office. Once the new facts came out and the DoJ announced they were dropping the charges, that should have been it. For some reason, Sullivan went off the rails. (Or his meds)<\/p>\n Rather than granting the DOJ’s dismissal, Sullivan appointed a retired judge to argue against the department\u2019s position and to consider whether Flynn should be held in criminal contempt for perjury. <\/b><\/p>\n Flynn’s attorneys responded with an emergency petition Tuesday arguing that Sullivan had \u201cegregiously\u201d overstepped his authority. They argued that the judge \u201chas no authority to adopt the role of prosecutor or change the issues in the case.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n \u201cThis is an umpire who has decided to steal public attention from the players and focus it on himself,\u201d the lawyers wrote. \u201cHe wants to pitch, bat, run bases, and play shortstop. In truth, he is way out in left field.\u201d Flynn’s lawyers are seeking to essentially bypass Sullivan in getting the case dismissed. <\/b><\/p>\n And with good reason. Sullivan is ignoring precedent, the law, the constitutional Separation of Powers, and a recent unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court on this very subject. (Different case) Asking for what are called amicus curiae<\/a> is simply not permitted in a criminal case. In fact, Sullivan had previously denied a motion by Flynn\u2019s defense team to submit amici curiae.<\/p>\n To turn around and ask for them in favor of a prosecution that the prosecutor wants to drop is unheard of. Of course, there was a nice long line of people suffering from terminal Trump Derangement Syndrome who were ready to go, all of whom know better. But, Trump Derangement Syndrome does affect smart people\u2019s judgment.<\/p>\n A long list of scholars, including Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, signed onto a brief arguing against the DOJ’s motion to dismiss.<\/strong><\/p>\n “This case is ultimately about judicial independence and the integrity of the Judicial Branch and therefore about the rule of law in our constitutional democracy,” the brief reads. <\/b><\/p>\n<\/p>\n