the reason why Judge Emmet Sullivan Hires “High-Powered” DC Lawyer to Represent His Interests in Flynn Case…
(theconservativetreehouse.com)
Comments (141)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
This is crazy - the judge hired a defense lawyer?? Flynn is an innocent man, just LET HIM GO ALREADY
People hire a defense attorney for a reason. Think about why you would hire one.
I'd hire because my part in framing Flynn is going to be exposed. Per Sundance's post, Flynn's first judge, Contreras, was on the FISA court and friends of Page and Strzok. Sundance noted how fishy that was way back when. Suddenly Contreras recused and Sullivan was "randomly" chosen to replace him. The key questions being, did Contreras recuse voluntarily, or did Justice Roberts tell him to step down; and just how was this choice of Sullivan handled?
The fact that the judge hired a defense lawyer to defend his handling in this case only underscores how far off the rails Sullivan has gone.
I think he's trying to drag things out. On one hand, this lawyer helps shield him from rebuke. On the other, he might find some obscure way to either appeal or seek some other type of review to drag this out even further.
One interesting point is that Sidney did NOT request a stay of proceedings in Sullivan's court in her petition for a writ of mandamus--something that has been sought in other writs that #appellatetwitter has been digging up--and no stay has been entered by the DC Court of Appeals last I heard. I wonder if this affords him the opportunity for further tricks, though it may also be tactical on Sidney's part, by leaving him an out of dismissing the case as he should have already done.
If a judge is being accused of professional misconduct then it is not unusual for him or her to hire counsel to address it. In fact, it would be stupid not to. Many people on this thread won’t understand or know so they will see it as more than it is. Now, it is very unusual for a judge to be accused of professional misconduct in a mandamus appeal, but when he is, not uncommon to hire counsel.
But who's accused him of judicial misconduct? The panel wants an explanation directly from him why he refuses to dismiss the charges. I didn't read anything in their order accusing him of misconduct? Did you? So why hire outside counsel for a case he's not party to?