| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Judge Sullivan - ordered to explain his reasons for not granting the DOJ motion to dismiss - has hired a lawyer to apparently do his work for him. | |
| 2020-05-24 | |
[Twitter] This is incredible. The Court ordered Sullivan to respond, not his Atty
| |
| Posted by:Frank G |
| #16 Curiously Odd Decision by Judge Sullivan to Hire Beth Wilkinson |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2020-05-24 11:47 |
| #15 This story is so weird that I have to wonder whether the WAPO -- and I know this will shock you-- has its facts right. (The report is based on one anonymous source.) Judges can't "lose" appeals, and committing a reversible error is not an impeachable offense, leaving aside the fact that it's next to impossible to impeach a federal judge. At worst, the Court of Appeals bruises Judge Sullivan's ego, and I'm sure that's happened before. |
| Posted by: Matt 2020-05-24 11:22 |
| #14 setting cookie |
| Posted by: Mercutio 2020-05-24 11:17 |
| #13 You mean like this chap, Besoeker? |
| Posted by: Clem 2020-05-24 10:42 |
| #12 Any bets on how long before the race card comes out? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2020-05-24 10:21 |
| #11 Entitlement black robed tyrant answers questions? Good luck with that. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2020-05-24 09:09 |
| #10 Just who is paying for this sshow? You and me, I suppose. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2020-05-24 08:28 |
| #9 gibbets should be in shorter supply than ventilators due to excessive demand. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2020-05-24 08:10 |
| #8 It's not a legal 'trial'. He's been asked to justify his actions to the appellate. He is suppose to write his justification. He's now saying he didn't have any precedent or legal basis for his action? Just pulled it out of his a**? Now he needs to have someone else come up in legalese with an excuse? That is so infantile - Why did you do that? I don't know. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2020-05-24 07:20 |
| #7 Well, at least he realizes he's guilty. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru PB 2020-05-24 04:12 |
| #6 hiring outside council to help out is reasonable. Will the good judge also be hiring a dog to eat his homework? |
| Posted by: SteveS 2020-05-24 01:55 |
| #5 Stalling for time. |
| Posted by: Marilyn Tojo7566 2020-05-24 01:48 |
| #4 Confusing. So the lawyers at DOJ and FBI railroaded a man who ... hired a set of lawyers who ... refused to demand exculpatory evidence from the prosecution's lawyers, who ... secured a conviction from a judge who when confronted by a new defense lawyer demanding dismissal ... hired his own lawyers. Is it wrong to see this farce as a |
| Posted by: Lex 2020-05-24 00:25 |
| #3 Anyone would give the same legal advise. Get a lawyer before you speak to the law. I still hope they 86 this fucker. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2020-05-24 00:08 |
| #2 Responding to the Mandamas will be a big job. The District court has a dozen other judges who share staff and if Sullivan commandeered them to work on his response it would mess up the entire court. So, assuming you believe Sullivan's actions deserve a defense (personally I don't), hiring outside council to help out is reasonable. |
| Posted by: lord garth 2020-05-24 00:08 |
| #1 Conservative Tree House says he's hired, in effect, a Defense Atty. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2020-05-24 00:08 |