Gregg Jarrett: Flynn judge wrong to allow anti-Trump former Watergate prosecutors to interfere in case – IOTW Report

Gregg Jarrett: Flynn judge wrong to allow anti-Trump former Watergate prosecutors to interfere in case

FOX: It’s a sure sign of desperation whenever lawyers try to raise President Richard Milhous Nixon from the dead.

And so it is that a group of former Watergate special prosecutors this week resurrected the Ghost of Watergate Past in a last-ditch effort to keep alive the federal court case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

The gang, adopting the sobriquet “Watergate Prosecutors,” asked permission from U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to allow them to intervene in the Flynn case so they can – to put it bluntly – tell his honor how to think and what to do.

The judge issued an order Tuesday indicating he will soon accept “amicus curiae” (“friend of the court”) submissions in the case.

But in trial court proceedings involving crimes, only prosecutors and defense attorneys are permitted to be heard. Judges are supposed to render decisions based on evidence and arguments presented by the parties involved, not outside interests.    

The prosecution of Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general, has been on life-support since the Justice Department belatedly moved last week to dismiss charges against him. He was accused of making false statements to the FBI during an interview that was nothing more than a devious perjury trap designed to “get Flynn to lie.” The FBI was creating a crime, not investigating one. READ MORE


20 Comments on Gregg Jarrett: Flynn judge wrong to allow anti-Trump former Watergate prosecutors to interfere in case

  1. This all appears to be self-defeating and just plain stupid. The momentum is finally building against the Obama coup attempt and Sullivan’s purely political ruling shows him to be the bad guy here. Flynn innocent and Sullivan guilty is not going to help the left.

    15
  2. Judge Sullivan seems to have made so many mistakes on the Flynn case it would seem that he’s in need of a public spanking by Barr. Look a little deeper into his background and you may well find instances of conduct or comment that should have caused him to recuse himself from this case and if so, his failure to do so should itself have been enough for a mistrial. I wonder what the process is of removing a Federal Judge from the bench.

    14
  3. all those creeps would be doing would be recycling garbage.
    Literally.
    I don’t care how many or what color ribbons and bows they try to put on it, it is still a pile of shit.
    They can’t play ‘pig in the poke’ with this anymore- Flynn’s lawyer (PBUHer) has shown us what is inside the bag. The ‘cat’ is OUT.
    Inquiring minds want to know who is funding them.
    We already know why.

    9
  4. I thought he was a Judge whose job it was to make judgements.
    That’s what he’s paid to do.
    Not exacerbate the issue in the media.
    Do your damn job you lazy bastard

    10
  5. “I wonder what the process is of removing a Federal Judge from the bench.”

    Impeachment by Congress.

    There’s another possibility, but that would require Congressional action as well as judicial actions.

    4
  6. Just because one is a judge does not mean that the individual is either knowledgeable or competent in legal matters.

    As an example let us refer to former judge and US Attorney General Eric Holder.

    This judge would be proof positive of that assertion.

    I confirmed that with my niece who is an attorney.

    Just sayin’.

    4
  7. @ scr_north:

    I wonder what the process is of removing a Federal Judge from the bench.

    Just ask Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL).

    A particularly maddening side note about Hastings: He was the #2 Dem on the House Rules Committee, the committee responsible for writing the rules for the even more particularly maddening “impeachment inquiry” into President Trump.

    8

Comments are closed.