aggiehawg said:

---

Does the appointment of Gleeson as amicus curiae qualify as a final order to be the basis for an application for a writ of mandamus?

Because I'm not sure the minute order saying Sullivan would in the future entertain any interested party to apply for amicus curiae and set briefing schedules is the kind of order that could be appealed through a writ, since he hadn't actually done it yet.

Confusing as hell.

---

You can mandamus inaction or the lack of an order from the judge.

Pretty good analysis imho on how Flynn fits into the whole Obamagate disaster;

Quote:

---

In the second phase of the Spygate hoax, we watched as not one, but two separate investigations proved that nothing we were told initially was ever true. First, independent counsel Mueller found no evidence that there had ever been any collusion or cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia. Then, Inspector General Horowitz demonstrated that much of the investigation activity directed at the Trump campaign by the FBI and DOJ violated rules and regulations and was based on deliberate misrepresentations. While Horowitz bent over backward to claim that there was no evidence of political motivations, to most people the conclusion seemed clear. This was a political hit job from the outset.

We have now entered the third phase, the one in which we begin to see the inner workings of an attempted coup and to identify precisely what was done, by whom and on whose orders. The information that led the Department of Justice to walk away from the prosecution of General Flynn, which showed clearly that the highest levels of the FBI were directly involved in targeting and attempting to destroy the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, was only the beginning.

The revelations that forced prosecutors to stand down on any further efforts to send Flynn to prison came out of a grand total of four pages of redacted documents that had been declassified. That is nothing. What is coming when U.S. Attorney Durham starts handing down indictments in the near future will be a tidal wave by comparison.

The crest of that wave will reach all the way to the most senior levels of the FBI and the CIA, into the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Democratic Party's leadership, and, perhaps, into the White House itself. All efforts to characterize what happened as simply a few rogue FBI agents coloring outside the lines will be for naught. Some of the most powerful people in this country men and women who thought they had the right to decide for themselves who could sit in the Oval Office may well be headed for prison.

And, so, a line must be drawn. An IG report noting procedural errors and abuse of process is one thing. Suggestions that FISA court procedures be modified can be considered. A full accounting for how and by whom the first attempted coup in American history was carried out cannot be allowed.
Judge Sullivan, a Bill Clinton appointee, has drawn the line. No matter that General Flynn was railroaded, his reputation destroyed, and his family subjected to unimaginable psychological abuse. The inquiry will not be allowed to proceed any further. An "accounting" for the immensity of the abuse of power that begins with overturning Flynn's conviction is far too likely to take us deep into the halls of power.

Limits must be set. If that means perverting the entire American system of justice, so be it. The inquiry has come this far, and it will go no further.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Does the appointment of Gleeson as amicus curiae qualify as a final order to be the basis for an application for a writ of mandamus?

Because I'm not sure the minute order saying Sullivan would in the future entertain any interested party to apply for amicus curiae and set briefing schedules is the kind of order that could be appealed through a writ, since he hadn't actually done it yet.

Confusing as hell.

---

Candidly, I haven't done much mandamus work in federal court because I'm almost always just in scumbag (BK) court. In the BK court (at least in S.D. Tex.) the judges understand the necessity of timeliness and the fluidity of most cases so they'll issue an order with an explicit statement that it is appealable (and often for complex, novel, or important issues, they'll invite the parties to appeal and will craft a mechanism for keeping the BK case moving while the legal issue gets sorted out). So mandamus is not really in my wheelhouse.

That said, I think you raise both minute entries in your mandamus application. But someone with a lot more federal appellate experience than me should weigh in.

cbr said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Does the appointment of Gleeson as amicus curiae qualify as a final order to be the basis for an application for a writ of mandamus?

Because I'm not sure the minute order saying Sullivan would in the future entertain any interested party to apply for amicus curiae and set briefing schedules is the kind of order that could be appealed through a writ, since he hadn't actually done it yet.

Confusing as hell.

---

You can mandamus inaction or the lack of an order from the judge.

---

Meaning Sullivan's failure to rule on the DOJ's motion to dismiss and Flynn's Motion to Withdraw his plea?

The appointment of Gleeson would seem to weaken the case refusing to rule on the DOJ's motion to dismiss.

Sullivan has really screwed up this case.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/14/the-constitution-requires-judge-emmet-sullivans-lawless-amicus-order-against-michael-flynn-be-overturned/

blindey said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Does the appointment of Gleeson as amicus curiae qualify as a final order to be the basis for an application for a writ of mandamus?

Because I'm not sure the minute order saying Sullivan would in the future entertain any interested party to apply for amicus curiae and set briefing schedules is the kind of order that could be appealed through a writ, since he hadn't actually done it yet.

Confusing as hell.

---

Candidly, I haven't done much mandamus work in federal court because I'm almost always just in scumbag (BK) court. In the BK court (at least in S.D. Tex.) the judges understand the necessity of timeliness and the fluidity of most cases so they'll issue an order with an explicit statement that it is appealable (and often for complex, novel, or important issues, they'll invite the parties to appeal and will craft a mechanism for keeping the BK case moving while the legal issue gets sorted out). So mandamus is not really in my wheelhouse.

That said, I think you raise both minute entries in your mandamus application. But someone with a lot more federal appellate experience than me should weigh in.

---

I didn't do much federal appellate work either, mostly state appellate work and even that was rare. I wrote a lot of briefs when I was a law clerk but those were on substantive issues of law and not appellate procedures.

Your supposition that a law clerk came up with the amicus idea and they ran with it without thinking it through. What has happened since is an attempt at damage control and a poor one at that because all Sullivan really had to do was rescind that minute order inviting the briefs.

As Andy McCarthy said recently, a good judge (my emphasis) doesn't throw his hands up and declare I don't know what to do-----help! as Sullivan did.

Not a lawyer, just looking through all of this:

Is Sullivan trying to get himself tossed from the case and, in doing so, hold Flynn up until this can go through whatever higher channels exist for these sorts of things?

It feel like he wants out of the whole situation and is trying to stir up a s***storm in order to be "forced" out.

Secondary question for the lawyer types:

Under what circumstances does this not end up with Flynn going home?

aggiehawg said:

---

As Andy McCarthy said recently, a good judge (my emphasis) doesn't throw his hands up and declare I don't know what to do-----help! as Sullivan did.

---

I think he is saying "I don't know how to justify how I want to rule" more than he is saying he doesn't know what to do. He knows he has to dismiss the case, he's looking for a way around the rules.

panduh bear said:

---

Not a lawyer, just looking through all of this:

Is Sullivan trying to get himself tossed from the case and, in doing so, hold Flynn up until this can go through whatever higher channels exist for these sorts of things?

It feel like he wants out of the whole situation and is trying to stir up a s***storm in order to be "forced" out.

Secondary question for the lawyer types:

Under what circumstances does this not end up with Flynn going home?

---

Sullivan seems to be as confused as Mueller was after his report was handed in. Weird, would be the kindest way to put it.

Flynn goes home unless this is delayed until both Trump and Pence are removed from office.

VegasAg86 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

As Andy McCarthy said recently, a good judge (my emphasis) doesn't throw his hands up and declare I don't know what to do-----help! as Sullivan did.

---

I think he is saying "I don't know how to justify how I want to rule" more than he is saying he doesn't know what to do. He knows he has to dismiss the case, he's looking for a way around the rules.

---

And that's what makes him a bad judge.

Haven't seen this reported.

The biggest carrot for Federal Judges is appointment to a higher Court. Rumor has it that it's risky to not employee politically connected counsel when you're in front of certain judges.

Sullivan may be pondering how this case could affect his potential appointment to Court of Appeals.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't notice the date. I don't know why this just now showed up at the top of my incoming tweets. It wasn't retweeted by anyone. Strange.

VaultingChemist said:

---

Haven't seen this reported.

---

Hadn't seen that either.

But Mollie Hemingway called the Flynn/Kislyak call an "FBI product" recently and I questioned how she knew that since Comey denied briefing Obama about it. And McCabe in his book said Clapper learned of the call from his counsel Bob Litt and Clapper briefed Obama.

The only thing we seem to have a consensus on is that Obama had been fully briefed by someone sometime between December 29, 2016 and the January 4, 2017 WH meeting because he discussed it.

Thank you!

drcrinum said:

---

---

That's the old order from a few days ago.

Patentmike said:

---

The biggest carrot for Federal Judges is appointment to a higher Court. Rumor has it that it's risky to not employee politically connected counsel when you're in front of certain judges.

Sullivan may be pondering how this case could affect his potential appointment to Court of Appeals.

---

It's DOA now as long as the GOP holds the Senate. He'd never make it through confirmation hearings.

Based on an interview Sidney did a while back, she was asked how she got involved with the case. She said she'd been a spectator during the previous counsel.
Said she had the highest respect for Sullivan since he was the judge during the Enron case.
Lawyers, why would she be a "spectator" during a case? Curiosity? Did she not trust prosecution since some were prosecutors during Enron?
Based on her past dealing with Sullivan I think she knows he's on the take and whoever has been feeding her info does too.

Secolobo said:

---

Based on an interview Sidney did a while back, she was asked how she got involved with the case. She said she'd been a spectator during the previous counsel.
Said she had the highest respect for Sullivan since he was the judge during the Enron case.
Lawyers, why would she be a "spectator" during a case? Curiosity? Did she not trust prosecution since some were prosecutors during Enron?
Based on her past dealing with Sullivan I think she knows he's on the take and whoever has been feeding her info does too.

---

The central villain in her book about the Enron case was Mueller toadie Andrew Weissman. His involvement probably piqued her interest since she knows he's a crooked prosecutor and a real POS.

I don't recall if she'd ever had dealings with Van Grack, though, as he was a FARA guy at DOJ.

aggiehawg said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

The biggest carrot for Federal Judges is appointment to a higher Court. Rumor has it that it's risky to not employee politically connected counsel when you're in front of certain judges.

Sullivan may be pondering how this case could affect his potential appointment to Court of Appeals.

---

It's DOA now as long as the GOP holds the Senate. He'd never make it through confirmation hearings.

---

Historically, the presidency has been more important than the Senate for "Democrat leaning" judges.

You may be right at this point, but that's because Sullivan chose sides, not because a republican Senate would never confirm him.

Quote:

---

Yep. She loathes Weissman and she has said in interviews his appointment piqued her interest. She started appearing on conservative talk shows shortly after his appointment because of her book, License to Lie, which really could be subtitled, Andrew Weissman is a PoS .

---

Since it's Sydney, she's more than welcome to use my trademarked phrase.

ruddyduck said:

---

---

There are a few problems with that. Executive Privilege for one.

richardag said:

---

ruddyduck said:

---

---

Not sure whether stating this is wise/prudent.

---

They say the worst about him no matter what he says or does. **** it.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

richardag said:

---

ruddyduck said:

---

---

Not sure whether stating this is wise/prudent.

---

They say the worst about him no matter what he says or does. **** it.

---

True, won't argue.

Graham just issued a statement showing that he is not receptive to calling Obama, for obvious reasons, like executive privilege.

You'd never get any admission of anything. He probably would shrug off any request to appear and all but dare anyone to force the issue. It would be pointless, as he seems perfectly comfortable telling massively destructive lies to serve his own purposes anyhow. The truth would not be forthcoming.

Bunkhouse96 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

ruddyduck said:

---

---

There are a few problems with that. Executive Privilege for one.

---

According to the Dems, it's obstruction of justice to asset Executive Privilege.

---

I was just remembering Richard Nixon's response to the Pentagon Papers case. Personally he was in the clear since all of that crap happened under Kennedy and LBJ but he felt compelled to assert Executive Privilege for the protection of the office.