Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A judge is allowed to rule on any motion set before him right? Or do you understand the job of judges differently than I do? This acknowledgment was again NOT endorsed by ANY prosecutor who wasn't a political appointee. This included the actual prosecutors.The government did prosecute. Sentencing is up to the judge. Now the DOJ wants a backsy. The judicial has to rule if they'll allow it. As to what law Flynn broke. False Statements in Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1001
And again making statements like "bogus" guilty plea without being able to back it up doesn't give you credibility.
The case is withdrawn, The DOJ has acknowledged prosecutorial misconduct.
Sullivan is obstructing justice.
What does clearly contrary to manifest public interest mean?Yup...right from the Trump playbook.
Thou shalt not in any way shape or form abridge Trump's almightiness - the means don't diss him or his friends, and corruption isn't corruption when applied to the Mighty T & Co.
Not that you Stalinists follow any laws, but...
{
In United States v. HSBC Bank USA back in 2013, then-Judge Gleeson said that the government has near-universal power to withdraw a case it has brought before the court.
Strassel added, “He then goes to quote U.S. v Pimentel: "A court is generally required to grant a prosecutor's Rule 48(a) motion unless dismissal is 'clearly contrary to manifest public interest.'"
}
Now, you have an IQ of purple, which is why you're a communist, but Gleeson is the the one that Sullivan illegally appointed as special prosecutor since there is no actual prosecutor. But Gleeson already stipulated that what DOJ did ends the issue.
What a tangled web the deep state weaves.
Corrupt motherfuckers
I could, for instance, claim that withdrawal, in this case, would undermine fate in the impartiality of the justice system. Something that's contrary to the public interest. considering the unusual nature of this dismissal. No actual exculpatory evidence was presented and the actual prosecutors who handled the prosecution didn't endorse the motion.
I could argue for instance that the precedents set in the motion to dismiss are contrary to the public interest.
He has a long history with the Bush family including the old man. Probably still talks to them all the time. The only people that hate Trump more than Democrats are the Bush family and maybe Romney.I’m with you guys. This judge should be arrested and thrown in jail immediately. He’s obvious a Trump hater.
Yep you're right I fully expect that Sullivan will do the will of his mentors the Bush family. He will also be overturned on appeal.A judge is allowed to rule on any motion set before him right? Or do you understand the job of judges differently than I do? This acknowledgment was again NOT endorsed by ANY prosecutor who wasn't a political appointee. This included the actual prosecutors.The government did prosecute. Sentencing is up to the judge. Now the DOJ wants a backsy. The judicial has to rule if they'll allow it. As to what law Flynn broke. False Statements in Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1001
And again making statements like "bogus" guilty plea without being able to back it up doesn't give you credibility.
The case is withdrawn, The DOJ has acknowledged prosecutorial misconduct.
Sullivan is obstructing justice.
Find me one precedent for this, just one?
Of course, he does. Check youtube, you'll find dozens of videos of judges holding people in contempt, most of them funny as hell. It doesn't matter if your standing before him on charges of jaywalking if you commit perjury or contempt of court the judge can and will add those charges. And who's running? I've answered everything you asked and sourced when asked. So far that's more then you can say.What does clearly contrary to manifest public interest mean?Yup...right from the Trump playbook.
Thou shalt not in any way shape or form abridge Trump's almightiness - the means don't diss him or his friends, and corruption isn't corruption when applied to the Mighty T & Co.
Not that you Stalinists follow any laws, but...
{
In United States v. HSBC Bank USA back in 2013, then-Judge Gleeson said that the government has near-universal power to withdraw a case it has brought before the court.
Strassel added, “He then goes to quote U.S. v Pimentel: "A court is generally required to grant a prosecutor's Rule 48(a) motion unless dismissal is 'clearly contrary to manifest public interest.'"
}
Now, you have an IQ of purple, which is why you're a communist, but Gleeson is the the one that Sullivan illegally appointed as special prosecutor since there is no actual prosecutor. But Gleeson already stipulated that what DOJ did ends the issue.
What a tangled web the deep state weaves.
Corrupt motherfuckers
I could, for instance, claim that withdrawal, in this case, would undermine fate in the impartiality of the justice system. Something that's contrary to the public interest. considering the unusual nature of this dismissal. No actual exculpatory evidence was presented and the actual prosecutors who handled the prosecution didn't endorse the motion.
I could argue for instance that the precedents set in the motion to dismiss are contrary to the public interest.
“Third, there is also case law. In Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (1977) which addressed precedent under Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529 (1960) dealing with the dangers of multiple prosecutions. There are also related cases in Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121 (1959), and Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187 (1959). The Rinaldi decision involved a petitioner convicted of state offenses arising out of a robbery, who believed that the government should have moved to dismiss a federal offense arising out of the same robbery under the Department’s Petite policy. The Court laid out the standard for such motions. The thrust of that controversy concerned double jeopardy and dual jurisdictions. However, the point was that the rule is key in protecting such constitutional principles and that courts should be deferential in such moves by the Department: “In light of the parallel purposes of the Government’s Petite policy and the fundamental constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, the federal courts should be receptive, not circumspect, when the Government seeks leave to implement that policy.”
There are also lower court decisions on this inherent authority.”
President Obama Declares “There Is No Precedent That Anybody Can Find” For The Flynn Motion [He May Want To Call Eric Holder]
You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.
Last time: does a judge have the authority to institute new charges?
Of course, he does. Check youtube, you'll find dozens of videos of judges holding people in contempt, most of them funny as hell. It doesn't matter if your standing before him on charges of jaywalking if you commit perjury or contempt of court the judge can and will add those charges. And who's running? I've answered everything you asked and sourced when asked. So far that's more then you can say.What does clearly contrary to manifest public interest mean?Yup...right from the Trump playbook.
Thou shalt not in any way shape or form abridge Trump's almightiness - the means don't diss him or his friends, and corruption isn't corruption when applied to the Mighty T & Co.
Not that you Stalinists follow any laws, but...
{
In United States v. HSBC Bank USA back in 2013, then-Judge Gleeson said that the government has near-universal power to withdraw a case it has brought before the court.
Strassel added, “He then goes to quote U.S. v Pimentel: "A court is generally required to grant a prosecutor's Rule 48(a) motion unless dismissal is 'clearly contrary to manifest public interest.'"
}
Now, you have an IQ of purple, which is why you're a communist, but Gleeson is the the one that Sullivan illegally appointed as special prosecutor since there is no actual prosecutor. But Gleeson already stipulated that what DOJ did ends the issue.
What a tangled web the deep state weaves.
Corrupt motherfuckers
I could, for instance, claim that withdrawal, in this case, would undermine fate in the impartiality of the justice system. Something that's contrary to the public interest. considering the unusual nature of this dismissal. No actual exculpatory evidence was presented and the actual prosecutors who handled the prosecution didn't endorse the motion.
I could argue for instance that the precedents set in the motion to dismiss are contrary to the public interest.
“Third, there is also case law. In Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (1977) which addressed precedent under Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529 (1960) dealing with the dangers of multiple prosecutions. There are also related cases in Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121 (1959), and Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187 (1959). The Rinaldi decision involved a petitioner convicted of state offenses arising out of a robbery, who believed that the government should have moved to dismiss a federal offense arising out of the same robbery under the Department’s Petite policy. The Court laid out the standard for such motions. The thrust of that controversy concerned double jeopardy and dual jurisdictions. However, the point was that the rule is key in protecting such constitutional principles and that courts should be deferential in such moves by the Department: “In light of the parallel purposes of the Government’s Petite policy and the fundamental constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, the federal courts should be receptive, not circumspect, when the Government seeks leave to implement that policy.”
There are also lower court decisions on this inherent authority.”
President Obama Declares “There Is No Precedent That Anybody Can Find” For The Flynn Motion [He May Want To Call Eric Holder]
You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.
Last time: does a judge have the authority to institute new charges?
Of course, he does. Check youtube, you'll find dozens of videos of judges holding people in contempt, most of them funny as hell. It doesn't matter if your standing before him on charges of jaywalking if you commit perjury or contempt of court the judge can and will add those charges. And who's running? I've answered everything you asked and sourced when asked. So far that's more then you can say.What does clearly contrary to manifest public interest mean?Yup...right from the Trump playbook.
Thou shalt not in any way shape or form abridge Trump's almightiness - the means don't diss him or his friends, and corruption isn't corruption when applied to the Mighty T & Co.
Not that you Stalinists follow any laws, but...
{
In United States v. HSBC Bank USA back in 2013, then-Judge Gleeson said that the government has near-universal power to withdraw a case it has brought before the court.
Strassel added, “He then goes to quote U.S. v Pimentel: "A court is generally required to grant a prosecutor's Rule 48(a) motion unless dismissal is 'clearly contrary to manifest public interest.'"
}
Now, you have an IQ of purple, which is why you're a communist, but Gleeson is the the one that Sullivan illegally appointed as special prosecutor since there is no actual prosecutor. But Gleeson already stipulated that what DOJ did ends the issue.
What a tangled web the deep state weaves.
Corrupt motherfuckers
I could, for instance, claim that withdrawal, in this case, would undermine fate in the impartiality of the justice system. Something that's contrary to the public interest. considering the unusual nature of this dismissal. No actual exculpatory evidence was presented and the actual prosecutors who handled the prosecution didn't endorse the motion.
I could argue for instance that the precedents set in the motion to dismiss are contrary to the public interest.
“Third, there is also case law. In Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (1977) which addressed precedent under Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529 (1960) dealing with the dangers of multiple prosecutions. There are also related cases in Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121 (1959), and Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187 (1959). The Rinaldi decision involved a petitioner convicted of state offenses arising out of a robbery, who believed that the government should have moved to dismiss a federal offense arising out of the same robbery under the Department’s Petite policy. The Court laid out the standard for such motions. The thrust of that controversy concerned double jeopardy and dual jurisdictions. However, the point was that the rule is key in protecting such constitutional principles and that courts should be deferential in such moves by the Department: “In light of the parallel purposes of the Government’s Petite policy and the fundamental constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, the federal courts should be receptive, not circumspect, when the Government seeks leave to implement that policy.”
There are also lower court decisions on this inherent authority.”
President Obama Declares “There Is No Precedent That Anybody Can Find” For The Flynn Motion [He May Want To Call Eric Holder]
You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.
Last time: does a judge have the authority to institute new charges?
Of course he does not.
I said last chance....but I will give you one more opportunity to accept the truth, as painful as that may be to you:
“Judge Emmet Sullivan's decision to appoint a retired federal judge to argue against the Justice Department's entirely proper decision to end the criminal prosecution of General Michael Flynn is designed to circumvent the constitutional limitation on the jurisdiction of federal judges.
The Constitution limits this jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. There must be disagreement between the parties that requires resolution by a judge. If the parties agree, there is nothing for the judge to decide.
In the Flynn case, the prosecution and defense both agree that the case should be dropped. Because there is no longer any controversy between the parties to be resolved, there is no longer any case properly before the judge. His only job is to enter an order vacating the guilty plea and dismissing the case with prejudice.
But Judge Sullivan does not want to do that. He apparently thinks Flynn belongs in prison. He has as much as said that. So, he has manufactured a fake controversy by appointing a new prosecutor because evidently he does not like what the constitutionally authorized prosecutor — the Attorney General — has decided. The new prosecutor has been tasked to argue for the result that Judge Sullivan prefers.”
Judge Sullivan: A Prosecutor in Robes
“Judge Sullivan is a case study for the need of judicial accountability
There is nothing holding Judge Emmet Sullivan accountable for his actions. Nothing.” Judge Sullivan is a case study for the need of judicial accountability
If someone stands in a courtroom, gets sworn in, pleads guilty to something and then claims he didn't do what he claimed he did later. Does he not, in fact, commit perjury? Either the first or the second time? So do you assert that lying in a courtroom while under oath doesn't compel you to be truthful? Or is your assertion that one can only commit one criminal act?
As for the rest, you keep on making statements and try to represent them as facts. I've yet to see you being able to support any of them tough. What specifically have I said that is wrong?
Of course, he does. Check youtube, you'll find dozens of videos of judges holding people in contempt, most of them funny as hell. It doesn't matter if your standing before him on charges of jaywalking if you commit perjury or contempt of court the judge can and will add those charges. And who's running? I've answered everything you asked and sourced when asked. So far that's more then you can say.What does clearly contrary to manifest public interest mean?Yup...right from the Trump playbook.
Thou shalt not in any way shape or form abridge Trump's almightiness - the means don't diss him or his friends, and corruption isn't corruption when applied to the Mighty T & Co.
Not that you Stalinists follow any laws, but...
{
In United States v. HSBC Bank USA back in 2013, then-Judge Gleeson said that the government has near-universal power to withdraw a case it has brought before the court.
Strassel added, “He then goes to quote U.S. v Pimentel: "A court is generally required to grant a prosecutor's Rule 48(a) motion unless dismissal is 'clearly contrary to manifest public interest.'"
}
Now, you have an IQ of purple, which is why you're a communist, but Gleeson is the the one that Sullivan illegally appointed as special prosecutor since there is no actual prosecutor. But Gleeson already stipulated that what DOJ did ends the issue.
What a tangled web the deep state weaves.
Corrupt motherfuckers
I could, for instance, claim that withdrawal, in this case, would undermine fate in the impartiality of the justice system. Something that's contrary to the public interest. considering the unusual nature of this dismissal. No actual exculpatory evidence was presented and the actual prosecutors who handled the prosecution didn't endorse the motion.
I could argue for instance that the precedents set in the motion to dismiss are contrary to the public interest.
“Third, there is also case law. In Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (1977) which addressed precedent under Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529 (1960) dealing with the dangers of multiple prosecutions. There are also related cases in Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121 (1959), and Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187 (1959). The Rinaldi decision involved a petitioner convicted of state offenses arising out of a robbery, who believed that the government should have moved to dismiss a federal offense arising out of the same robbery under the Department’s Petite policy. The Court laid out the standard for such motions. The thrust of that controversy concerned double jeopardy and dual jurisdictions. However, the point was that the rule is key in protecting such constitutional principles and that courts should be deferential in such moves by the Department: “In light of the parallel purposes of the Government’s Petite policy and the fundamental constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, the federal courts should be receptive, not circumspect, when the Government seeks leave to implement that policy.”
There are also lower court decisions on this inherent authority.”
President Obama Declares “There Is No Precedent That Anybody Can Find” For The Flynn Motion [He May Want To Call Eric Holder]
You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.
Last time: does a judge have the authority to institute new charges?
Of course he does not.
I said last chance....but I will give you one more opportunity to accept the truth, as painful as that may be to you:
“Judge Emmet Sullivan's decision to appoint a retired federal judge to argue against the Justice Department's entirely proper decision to end the criminal prosecution of General Michael Flynn is designed to circumvent the constitutional limitation on the jurisdiction of federal judges.
The Constitution limits this jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. There must be disagreement between the parties that requires resolution by a judge. If the parties agree, there is nothing for the judge to decide.
In the Flynn case, the prosecution and defense both agree that the case should be dropped. Because there is no longer any controversy between the parties to be resolved, there is no longer any case properly before the judge. His only job is to enter an order vacating the guilty plea and dismissing the case with prejudice.
But Judge Sullivan does not want to do that. He apparently thinks Flynn belongs in prison. He has as much as said that. So, he has manufactured a fake controversy by appointing a new prosecutor because evidently he does not like what the constitutionally authorized prosecutor — the Attorney General — has decided. The new prosecutor has been tasked to argue for the result that Judge Sullivan prefers.”
Judge Sullivan: A Prosecutor in Robes
“Judge Sullivan is a case study for the need of judicial accountability
There is nothing holding Judge Emmet Sullivan accountable for his actions. Nothing.” Judge Sullivan is a case study for the need of judicial accountability
Yeah he's working for Jeb Bush.
his decision will be overturned rather quickly on appeal.
Jo
What are you going on about giving me chances? I answered it 2 times already. You asked if a judge is allowed to add different charges. Here I'll illustrate another judge doing it.Of course, he does. Check youtube, you'll find dozens of videos of judges holding people in contempt, most of them funny as hell. It doesn't matter if your standing before him on charges of jaywalking if you commit perjury or contempt of court the judge can and will add those charges. And who's running? I've answered everything you asked and sourced when asked. So far that's more then you can say.What does clearly contrary to manifest public interest mean?Yup...right from the Trump playbook.
Thou shalt not in any way shape or form abridge Trump's almightiness - the means don't diss him or his friends, and corruption isn't corruption when applied to the Mighty T & Co.
Not that you Stalinists follow any laws, but...
{
In United States v. HSBC Bank USA back in 2013, then-Judge Gleeson said that the government has near-universal power to withdraw a case it has brought before the court.
Strassel added, “He then goes to quote U.S. v Pimentel: "A court is generally required to grant a prosecutor's Rule 48(a) motion unless dismissal is 'clearly contrary to manifest public interest.'"
}
Now, you have an IQ of purple, which is why you're a communist, but Gleeson is the the one that Sullivan illegally appointed as special prosecutor since there is no actual prosecutor. But Gleeson already stipulated that what DOJ did ends the issue.
What a tangled web the deep state weaves.
Corrupt motherfuckers
I could, for instance, claim that withdrawal, in this case, would undermine fate in the impartiality of the justice system. Something that's contrary to the public interest. considering the unusual nature of this dismissal. No actual exculpatory evidence was presented and the actual prosecutors who handled the prosecution didn't endorse the motion.
I could argue for instance that the precedents set in the motion to dismiss are contrary to the public interest.
“Third, there is also case law. In Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (1977) which addressed precedent under Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529 (1960) dealing with the dangers of multiple prosecutions. There are also related cases in Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121 (1959), and Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187 (1959). The Rinaldi decision involved a petitioner convicted of state offenses arising out of a robbery, who believed that the government should have moved to dismiss a federal offense arising out of the same robbery under the Department’s Petite policy. The Court laid out the standard for such motions. The thrust of that controversy concerned double jeopardy and dual jurisdictions. However, the point was that the rule is key in protecting such constitutional principles and that courts should be deferential in such moves by the Department: “In light of the parallel purposes of the Government’s Petite policy and the fundamental constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, the federal courts should be receptive, not circumspect, when the Government seeks leave to implement that policy.”
There are also lower court decisions on this inherent authority.”
President Obama Declares “There Is No Precedent That Anybody Can Find” For The Flynn Motion [He May Want To Call Eric Holder]
You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.
Last time: does a judge have the authority to institute new charges?
Of course he does not.
I said last chance....but I will give you one more opportunity to accept the truth, as painful as that may be to you:
“Judge Emmet Sullivan's decision to appoint a retired federal judge to argue against the Justice Department's entirely proper decision to end the criminal prosecution of General Michael Flynn is designed to circumvent the constitutional limitation on the jurisdiction of federal judges.
The Constitution limits this jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. There must be disagreement between the parties that requires resolution by a judge. If the parties agree, there is nothing for the judge to decide.
In the Flynn case, the prosecution and defense both agree that the case should be dropped. Because there is no longer any controversy between the parties to be resolved, there is no longer any case properly before the judge. His only job is to enter an order vacating the guilty plea and dismissing the case with prejudice.
But Judge Sullivan does not want to do that. He apparently thinks Flynn belongs in prison. He has as much as said that. So, he has manufactured a fake controversy by appointing a new prosecutor because evidently he does not like what the constitutionally authorized prosecutor — the Attorney General — has decided. The new prosecutor has been tasked to argue for the result that Judge Sullivan prefers.”
Judge Sullivan: A Prosecutor in Robes
“Judge Sullivan is a case study for the need of judicial accountability
There is nothing holding Judge Emmet Sullivan accountable for his actions. Nothing.” Judge Sullivan is a case study for the need of judicial accountability
Was he denied the right to a lawyer?
Of course, he does. Check youtube, you'll find dozens of videos of judges holding people in contempt, most of them funny as hell. It doesn't matter if your standing before him on charges of jaywalking if you commit perjury or contempt of court the judge can and will add those charges. And who's running? I've answered everything you asked and sourced when asked. So far that's more then you can say.What does clearly contrary to manifest public interest mean?Yup...right from the Trump playbook.
Thou shalt not in any way shape or form abridge Trump's almightiness - the means don't diss him or his friends, and corruption isn't corruption when applied to the Mighty T & Co.
Not that you Stalinists follow any laws, but...
{
In United States v. HSBC Bank USA back in 2013, then-Judge Gleeson said that the government has near-universal power to withdraw a case it has brought before the court.
Strassel added, “He then goes to quote U.S. v Pimentel: "A court is generally required to grant a prosecutor's Rule 48(a) motion unless dismissal is 'clearly contrary to manifest public interest.'"
}
Now, you have an IQ of purple, which is why you're a communist, but Gleeson is the the one that Sullivan illegally appointed as special prosecutor since there is no actual prosecutor. But Gleeson already stipulated that what DOJ did ends the issue.
What a tangled web the deep state weaves.
Corrupt motherfuckers
I could, for instance, claim that withdrawal, in this case, would undermine fate in the impartiality of the justice system. Something that's contrary to the public interest. considering the unusual nature of this dismissal. No actual exculpatory evidence was presented and the actual prosecutors who handled the prosecution didn't endorse the motion.
I could argue for instance that the precedents set in the motion to dismiss are contrary to the public interest.
“Third, there is also case law. In Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (1977) which addressed precedent under Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529 (1960) dealing with the dangers of multiple prosecutions. There are also related cases in Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121 (1959), and Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187 (1959). The Rinaldi decision involved a petitioner convicted of state offenses arising out of a robbery, who believed that the government should have moved to dismiss a federal offense arising out of the same robbery under the Department’s Petite policy. The Court laid out the standard for such motions. The thrust of that controversy concerned double jeopardy and dual jurisdictions. However, the point was that the rule is key in protecting such constitutional principles and that courts should be deferential in such moves by the Department: “In light of the parallel purposes of the Government’s Petite policy and the fundamental constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, the federal courts should be receptive, not circumspect, when the Government seeks leave to implement that policy.”
There are also lower court decisions on this inherent authority.”
President Obama Declares “There Is No Precedent That Anybody Can Find” For The Flynn Motion [He May Want To Call Eric Holder]
You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.
Last time: does a judge have the authority to institute new charges?
Of course he does not.
I said last chance....but I will give you one more opportunity to accept the truth, as painful as that may be to you:
“Judge Emmet Sullivan's decision to appoint a retired federal judge to argue against the Justice Department's entirely proper decision to end the criminal prosecution of General Michael Flynn is designed to circumvent the constitutional limitation on the jurisdiction of federal judges.
The Constitution limits this jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. There must be disagreement between the parties that requires resolution by a judge. If the parties agree, there is nothing for the judge to decide.
In the Flynn case, the prosecution and defense both agree that the case should be dropped. Because there is no longer any controversy between the parties to be resolved, there is no longer any case properly before the judge. His only job is to enter an order vacating the guilty plea and dismissing the case with prejudice.
But Judge Sullivan does not want to do that. He apparently thinks Flynn belongs in prison. He has as much as said that. So, he has manufactured a fake controversy by appointing a new prosecutor because evidently he does not like what the constitutionally authorized prosecutor — the Attorney General — has decided. The new prosecutor has been tasked to argue for the result that Judge Sullivan prefers.”
Judge Sullivan: A Prosecutor in Robes
“Judge Sullivan is a case study for the need of judicial accountability
There is nothing holding Judge Emmet Sullivan accountable for his actions. Nothing.” Judge Sullivan is a case study for the need of judicial accountability
Yeah he's working for Jeb Bush.
his decision will be overturned rather quickly on appeal.
Jo
A judge is allowed to rule on any motion set before him right? Or do you understand the job of judges differently than I do? This acknowledgment was again NOT endorsed by ANY prosecutor who wasn't a political appointee. This included the actual prosecutors.The government did prosecute. Sentencing is up to the judge. Now the DOJ wants a backsy. The judicial has to rule if they'll allow it. As to what law Flynn broke. False Statements in Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1001
And again making statements like "bogus" guilty plea without being able to back it up doesn't give you credibility.
The case is withdrawn, The DOJ has acknowledged prosecutorial misconduct.
Sullivan is obstructing justice.
Find me one precedent for this, just one?
A judge is allowed to rule on any motion set before him right? Or do you understand the job of judges differently than I do? This acknowledgment was again NOT endorsed by ANY prosecutor who wasn't a political appointee. This included the actual prosecutors.The government did prosecute. Sentencing is up to the judge. Now the DOJ wants a backsy. The judicial has to rule if they'll allow it. As to what law Flynn broke. False Statements in Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1001
And again making statements like "bogus" guilty plea without being able to back it up doesn't give you credibility.
The case is withdrawn, The DOJ has acknowledged prosecutorial misconduct.
Sullivan is obstructing justice.
Find me one precedent for this, just one?
The dishonorable Sullivan is obstructing justice. I urge AG Barr to have Sullivan arrested.
Yes, I understand judges differently than you do. Where you see a dictator in a robe who is god, I see the actual job of a judge. A judge is required to uphold the law.
American Jurisprudence was designed around an adversarial where prosecution and defense present a case. The job of the judge is to decide points of LAW presented by the two sides and arbitrate disputes based on law.
The judge is not the law, but the referee. This dishonorable lout Sullivan is obstructing justice and should be arrested and prosecuted just like Roger Stone - with a predawn raid on his home by paramilitary goons.
Give it a rest. Rape is a crime so no. Asking you questions you know the answer to and then confronting you when you lie, yes. Or compelling you to answer questions in a larger investigation by including your son in a plea deal, yes. That's how it works. Cases, where somebody pleads guilty to something without some form of coercion, are rare.If someone stands in a courtroom, gets sworn in, pleads guilty to something and then claims he didn't do what he claimed he did later. Does he not, in fact, commit perjury? Either the first or the second time? So do you assert that lying in a courtroom while under oath doesn't compel you to be truthful? Or is your assertion that one can only commit one criminal act?
As for the rest, you keep on making statements and try to represent them as facts. I've yet to see you being able to support any of them tough. What specifically have I said that is wrong?
If the police suspect that you were speeding, do they have the legal right to rape your wife and continue to do so until you confess?
Because that is EXACTLY what the Inquisition did with Gen. Flynn. When Andrew Weissman who headed the Inquisition (we now know that Grand Inquisitor Mueller-Torquemada was in the 4th stage of Alzheimer's and was a figurehead to distract from the makeup of the witch hunt) moved to try and get Flynn to perjure himself against the president, which was the purpose of the entrapment that Comey and Obama had devised, the LtG. refused. Weissman used the traditional tactics of the KGB, he bankrupted the LtG. He froze the bank accounts, any securities as to deny the LtG. any defense.
But this failed, so Weissman and his gangsters threatened LtG. Flynn's lawyers, Robert Kelner and Stephen Anthony. We now know, thank to the document release, that Weissman engaged in extortion of Covington & Burling (C&B) the firm that employee by making the credible threat that if Kelner and Anthony did not convince LtG. Flynn to confess, the KGB and department of Injustice would launch an assault on C&B. In other words, they compromised the Flynn defense team to work against the interests of their client through extortion to destroy their firm if they did not.
This did not work, at least not initially. KGB agent Peter Strzok along with KGB lawyer cooked up some fabricated charges against the son of LtG. Flynn (also Michael) based on the now discredited Russian Collusion conspiracy theory. The KGB and department of Injustice basically took a page from the 14th century Spanish Inquisition. In that first inquisition they would rape the wife and daughters of the victim until they confessed. Many men would stand up to the torture that Torquemada would levy, but the attacks on their family would break them.
So that's what our KGB and DOI did, they raped Flynn's family, Crooked fuck Weissman is on tape in the newly released exculpatory teling Flynn that if he doesn't confess, they will throw HIS SON in prison and sell his grandchildren into slavery (place them in foster care). Meanwhile they cut a side deal with Kelner and Anthony to back off of C&B, whom the department of Injustice had already begun assaulting AND drop the bogus charges against Flynn Jr. if the would JUST GET FLYNN TO CONFESS.
Flynn had lost his home, every dime he had, and now the gangsters were attacking his family. He withstood more coercion than 90% of us would, but he finally confessed to the fabricated charges by the KGB.
WE KNOW ALL OF THIS, it's in the document dump.
Yet that corrupt pile of shit Sullivan obstructs justice.
What does clearly contrary to manifest public interest mean?
I could, for instance, claim that withdrawal, in this case, would undermine fate in the impartiality of the justice system. Something that's contrary to the public interest. considering the unusual nature of this dismissal. No actual exculpatory evidence was presented and the actual prosecutors who handled the prosecution didn't endorse the motion.
I could argue for instance that the precedents set in the motion to dismiss are contrary to the public interest.
I don't believe this is an arrestable crime....but, a judge can be impeached.
When I become Queen of America, hopefully forthwith, my rule will be that a judge who is overturned thrice must find another line of work.
Do I have your vote?
I don't believe this is an arrestable crime....but, a judge can be impeached.
When I become Queen of America, hopefully forthwith, my rule will be that a judge who is overturned thrice must find another line of work.
Do I have your vote?
I disagree. Sullivan is obstructing justice. 18 US Code 73 1503. It is a felonious act.
WE must restore the rule of law in this nation or we are done.
Give it a rest. Rape is a crime so no. Asking you questions you know the answer to and then confronting you when you lie, yes. Or compelling you to answer questions in a larger investigation by including your son in a plea deal, yes. That's how it works. Cases, where somebody pleads guilty to something without some form of coercion, are rare.If someone stands in a courtroom, gets sworn in, pleads guilty to something and then claims he didn't do what he claimed he did later. Does he not, in fact, commit perjury? Either the first or the second time? So do you assert that lying in a courtroom while under oath doesn't compel you to be truthful? Or is your assertion that one can only commit one criminal act?
As for the rest, you keep on making statements and try to represent them as facts. I've yet to see you being able to support any of them tough. What specifically have I said that is wrong?
If the police suspect that you were speeding, do they have the legal right to rape your wife and continue to do so until you confess?
Because that is EXACTLY what the Inquisition did with Gen. Flynn. When Andrew Weissman who headed the Inquisition (we now know that Grand Inquisitor Mueller-Torquemada was in the 4th stage of Alzheimer's and was a figurehead to distract from the makeup of the witch hunt) moved to try and get Flynn to perjure himself against the president, which was the purpose of the entrapment that Comey and Obama had devised, the LtG. refused. Weissman used the traditional tactics of the KGB, he bankrupted the LtG. He froze the bank accounts, any securities as to deny the LtG. any defense.
But this failed, so Weissman and his gangsters threatened LtG. Flynn's lawyers, Robert Kelner and Stephen Anthony. We now know, thank to the document release, that Weissman engaged in extortion of Covington & Burling (C&B) the firm that employee by making the credible threat that if Kelner and Anthony did not convince LtG. Flynn to confess, the KGB and department of Injustice would launch an assault on C&B. In other words, they compromised the Flynn defense team to work against the interests of their client through extortion to destroy their firm if they did not.
This did not work, at least not initially. KGB agent Peter Strzok along with KGB lawyer cooked up some fabricated charges against the son of LtG. Flynn (also Michael) based on the now discredited Russian Collusion conspiracy theory. The KGB and department of Injustice basically took a page from the 14th century Spanish Inquisition. In that first inquisition they would rape the wife and daughters of the victim until they confessed. Many men would stand up to the torture that Torquemada would levy, but the attacks on their family would break them.
So that's what our KGB and DOI did, they raped Flynn's family, Crooked fuck Weissman is on tape in the newly released exculpatory teling Flynn that if he doesn't confess, they will throw HIS SON in prison and sell his grandchildren into slavery (place them in foster care). Meanwhile they cut a side deal with Kelner and Anthony to back off of C&B, whom the department of Injustice had already begun assaulting AND drop the bogus charges against Flynn Jr. if the would JUST GET FLYNN TO CONFESS.
Flynn had lost his home, every dime he had, and now the gangsters were attacking his family. He withstood more coercion than 90% of us would, but he finally confessed to the fabricated charges by the KGB.
WE KNOW ALL OF THIS, it's in the document dump.
Yet that corrupt pile of shit Sullivan obstructs justice.
There's a very easy way to not fall into a perjury trap. Not that it was but fine. Tell the truth. There is no way the FBI could throw Flynn's son in jail. Unless of course, that son committed a crime. Hyperbole doesn't change that fact.
We know that Flynn lied. If for no other reason and there are more reasons that both Pence and Spicer told the same lie and then said Flynn lied to them. So who do you believe, Pence, Spicer and... Flynn or... well nobody?
As for Mueller. See this is the problem I always have. You guys keep on claiming "no collusion" collusion is a word without legal meaning but meaning in English. Mueller established that the Trump campaign engaged in collusion as defined in a dictionary.
Legally though in order to prosecute it has to able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that that collusion rose to the level of criminal conspiracy which has a legal meaning. Mueller decided he couldn't. He did, however, specify that Trump wasn't charged on obstruction by virtue of his position which is a far cry of saying he's innocent of it.
I don't believe this is an arrestable crime....but, a judge can be impeached.
When I become Queen of America, hopefully forthwith, my rule will be that a judge who is overturned thrice must find another line of work.
Do I have your vote?
I disagree. Sullivan is obstructing justice. 18 US Code 73 1503. It is a felonious act.
WE must restore the rule of law in this nation or we are done.
....perhaps I'll add the Guillotine to my platform.
Would that get your vote????
