Former US attorney on judge's
'outrageous' decision in Flynn case:
I thought I'd 'seen everything'
Fox News,
by
Julia Musto
Original Article
Posted By: Harlowe,
5/13/2020 11:19:47 AM
Former U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman thought he had "seen everything" over the course of his career until a federal judge opened the door Tuesday for legal experts and other outside parties to oppose the Justice Department’s motion to drop the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Appearing on "Fox & Friends," Tolman said he believed Judge Emmet Sullivan's decision was "outrageous" and that the Washington D.C. judge had turned himself into an "activist," willing to set aside rules, ethics, and precedent in favor of partisanship.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 5/13/2020 11:23:02 AM (No. 409931)
Cause for Impeachment and removal from the bench, I hope.
30 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
aasilver 5/13/2020 11:28:53 AM (No. 409941)
Looks like the deep state got to him.
17 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Starboard_side 5/13/2020 11:31:11 AM (No. 409944)
Same "judge" who presided over the Sen. Steven's case that was later dismissed for prosecutor mis-conduct. Sound familiar here?
Seems this "judge" will allow anything the prosecutors want to do. Wonder how is other decisions have gone over his years on the bench.
Coincidence he was assigned this case, and what are the odds?
20 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 5/13/2020 11:31:46 AM (No. 409946)
Never underestimate the racial solidarity with Zippy.
17 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
seamusm 5/13/2020 11:35:56 AM (No. 409952)
Judicial idiocy and arrogance. The Supremes just slapped down similar behavior by the Ninth Circuit Court, 9-0 with Ginsberg writing the opinion. Our Chief Justice needs to end such judicial activism - but I'm not holding me breath.
23 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
JHHolliday 5/13/2020 11:38:41 AM (No. 409954)
I am not an attorney so I am not sure where a judge’s personal immunity from liability ends and when he can be sued. There is no “absence of malice” here, just the opposite. This is a personal vendetta against General Flynn and he should be due a massive settlement.
25 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
moonlightflip 5/13/2020 12:28:52 PM (No. 409999)
Not a surprise: bitter leftists also wear black robes.
3 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Jethro bo 5/13/2020 12:32:54 PM (No. 410003)
I have sat on two criminal juries and been through Voir Dire on seveal others. In every case, it is emphasized multiple times that its the State's responsibility to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the defendent's right that the state must do the job of proving. Its not the right of the Court to allow non State arguments or evidence. That is a fundamental deprivation of the defendent's rights. Of course, one would expect a Clinton Judge to completely disregard the defendent's rights (as Judge Sullivan did as he help defeat Senator Steven's reeelction and thus switching the balance of the Senate in Obambi's favor).
14 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
droopydog 5/13/2020 12:38:06 PM (No. 410009)
Weren't we supposed to get some really awesome information this week?...declassified blockbuster releases, etc. I know it's only Wednesday, but I want blockbusters and I want them now! Time to start playing hard ball...scratch that, bean ball!
5 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
DCGIRL 5/13/2020 1:13:04 PM (No. 410044)
Apparently, Obama has something on this judge. Remember, the Obama Administration has dirt on all the judges.
4 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
bighambone 5/13/2020 1:39:29 PM (No. 410066)
Well clearly the Federal Judiciary is seriously politicized. Here we have a liberal Democrat Judge who was nominated by Bill Clinton, who has always taken the side of the Obama Justice Department holdovers, who clearly wanted Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 election, as they politically persecuted General Flynn. That Judge has already made comments publicly in the courtroom that were adverse to Flynn without foundation. So what do you expect that particular Judge would do? What he could attempt to do is bring in some liberal Democrat aligned law entity to take the place of the current Justice Department prosecutors who filed the motion to drop the charge against Flynn, and go ahead persecuting Flynn. Will the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court allow that Judge to get away with that?
6 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
DennisM 5/13/2020 2:03:39 PM (No. 410093)
Judge has gone rogue.
0 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
john56 5/13/2020 2:06:39 PM (No. 410096)
Heck, if I were a Republican, I'd expect jail time for a traffic ticket in front of a DC judge. Solitary if I was a pro-Trump Republican.
If any of the deep state coup plotters are tried in DC, expect them to walk.
2 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
shamus 5/13/2020 2:35:03 PM (No. 410116)
This judge allowed Ted Stevens be railroaded in 2008. He's an embarrassment to the bench.
3 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
hoopsfan 5/13/2020 3:43:16 PM (No. 410163)
Hasn't Chief Justice Roberts assured us that there is no such thing as partisan judges?
3 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
EQKimball 5/13/2020 3:45:14 PM (No. 410166)
The motion to dismiss is a procedural courtesy, as the court has no jurisdiction to order the prosecution to proceed. Allowing bystander amici to argue against the motion is gratuitous and of no legal, as they lack standing to argue against the government's motion.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Harlowe"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)