Sorry, but she's not a witness nor is she under oath. She has no duty to respond to that question. He's treating her like a witness, not counsel.Quote:
If they are privileged. That's not privileged.
Also, saying she wouldn't answer would be a tacit admission she did. Was in a no-win situation and didn't really hurt to admit it.
In a situation where you care what the judge thinks? Sure. Here? His animus is so obvious, why do you care about collegiality with the Court? Different strokes.Quote:
Where did I say she has a duty to answer it?
It doesn't help her client to fight the judge on a non-issue.
This won't end until December, or more likely January. Trump can't do anything while the appeal (and election litigation) will be pending in November. Sullivan is convinced Barr/Trump/Powell are all corrupt in their attempt to dismiss this case, and will just drag this out via pleadings for at least 45 more days.aggiehawg said:
This clown show will continue on for a loong time. Sullivan orders Sidney to file a written motion regarding his recusal within a week.
His questioning made it clear he has a personal contempt for her that is impossible for him to hide.BMX Bandit said:
Not listening, only following here. Do you think he baited her into that?
Yep. He can't sentence him - wouldn't that lead to a filing for Writ of Habeas Corpus? Sydney said she would go to the USSC - curious what the procedure would be?Quote:
This won't end until December, or more likely January. Trump can't do anything while the appeal (and election litigation) will be pending in November. Sullivan is convinced Barr/Trump/Powell are all corrupt in their attempt to dismiss this case, and will just drag this out via pleadings for at least 45 more days.
Fair enough - reasonable minds can differ on that one.Quote:
You can be non-collegial and still not do things to hurt your client. What good does it do to get into a fight with the judge over that?
I think she did what was best for Flynn. Easy to second guess here when you not there.
Yes, and it was a weird trap for him to spring today "I'm worried about this june 2019 letter to the AG from Powell when she hadn't been admitted yet to this case as his counsel by the court" and asking the DoJ in detail about any responses/minutes/communications made as a result.BMX Bandit said:
You can be non-collegial and still not do things to hurt your client. What good does it do to get into a fight with the judge over that?
I think she did what was best for Flynn. Easy to second guess here when you not there.
She'll never practice before Sullivan again. Clearly, she has decided he will rule against her client likely, but has decided to just go all in (as he has).Aggie Jurist said:
Frankly, I would have been more concerned with some of her criticism of the Court in her last filing. That was over a line I probably would not have crossed.
As likely as Hillary being sworn in later today.Quote:
Doesn't help our chances at her ever serving as AG, but, that was a distant prospect at best.
So...50/50?BMX Bandit said:As likely as Hillary being sworn in later today.Quote:
Doesn't help our chances at her ever serving as AG, but, that was a distant prospect at best.
Sullivan has screwed this case up procedurally. Then DC Circuit en banc allowed him to do so by jumping on representations made by Sullivan's counsel that he likely would grant the motion to dismiss, claims she walked back later but the DC Circuit didn't care and hung their hat on that and gave the case back to a seriously compromised judge.jac4 said:
This is tough for a lay person (like me) to follow. For lawyers on here, what's the best guess of the ultimate outcome?
-Sullivan drags his feet and stalls as long as he is able? Then Flynn charges are dropped in January or so?
-Flynn charges stay?
-Any chance Sullivan gets impeached or disbarred for this ridiculousness? I assume not since he is a Dem.
Because it will never happen and Sullivan knows it.Quote:
Why doesn't Barr just come out and say, "Judge Sullivan, we have requested an IG review this case from the very beginning and since you have made yourself a party in this case, we have asked the NSA to provide the IG with all communications you have had since this case has begun. We have nothing to hide, would you like to proceed?"
Are you having as hard of a time listening to this BS and trying to follow what is real and what is just made up out of thin air?Aggie Jurist said:Because it will never happen and Sullivan knows it.Quote:
Why doesn't Barr just come out and say, "Judge Sullivan, we have requested an IG review this case from the very beginning and since you have made yourself a party in this case, we have asked the NSA to provide the IG with all communications you have had since this case has begun. We have nothing to hide, would you like to proceed?"
Granted I haven't practiced in federal court for a looonng time but I have never heard of a judge who was this combative and going off on tangents having no bearing on the issue of the Rule 48(a) unopposed motion.Aggie Jurist said:
Yep. I expect this in Mississippi state court - not Federal. It's embarrassing for our system.
I've had a federal magistrate go off a bit and attack me personally (had to do with the jurisdiction and his belief my office had poached a client from a local firm). But the District Court judges have remained professional. Sullivan is a clown.Quote:
Granted I haven't practiced in federal court for a looonng time but I have never heard of a judge who was this combative and going off on tangents having no bearing on the issue of the Rule 48(a) unopposed motion.
Just wondered if the courts had changed that much since I retired.
lol, so "what is our goal, to get him to lie?" isn't real?aggiehawg said:No Gleeson said the DOJ's reasons supporting the MTD are not real, they are pretext and that's why Sullivan should deny.VegasAg86 said:
Did he really say it is pretextual? Doesn't that mean it should be dismissed?
Feed just stopped for me.
