Message from @Tel Locus
Discord ID: 724949930489151499
Bill Clinton's impeachment case
Welcome, <@!248602935330603008>.
they ruled that perjury isn't enough of an offense to be impeachmment over
found it, the Samuel Chase impeachment trial
I was referring to Judges being removed/impeached for abiding to political influence
They are not suppose to be political in any way.
That's why they have the terms they have.
basically Samuel Chase was tried for ruling with political bais
Ohhh
I see now
He was the CJ for the Clinton trial
?
I honestly don't know who the CJ was at that time.
CJ?
Chief Justice.
no gods no, Samuel Chase was a Jefferson era judge
yeah that guy
I spent ages combing through old records reading up on that case
William Rehnquist...He was CJ
During the Clinton Impeachment trial
sorry if I got confusing trying to info dump before work
overall the chase impeachment trials kinda make it hard to remove judges for political bias
Seems to me that in the Chase case, political bias wouldn't count under "high crimes and misdemeanors" and wasn't an "indictable offense".
Ideally, though, judges should be impartial...
Though I'm definitely not a lawyer just like legal smackdowns
Flynn did a doozy a few days ago
I honestly didn't keep up with it. What was the doozy?
The response just hammered the Amicus
Just read through the Case impeachment trial... yeah that doesn't just suck, it's actually scary.
And then cited the same judge that wrote it as to why everything should be dropped
I'll give this a read...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-and-justice-department-respond-court-appointed-amicus
Still though, a Judge cannot use a prosecutor to give an anecdotal backlash and most certainly cannot ACT as a prosecutor. These 2 things are now textbook illegal and go into indictment territory. This Judge Sullivan is playing with fire.
The former of what I mentioned was ruled into law by the Surpreme Court about a month ago.
it's in the conclusion
I would love to see the DoJ actually go after Judge Sullivan with indictments 🤣
They have sufficient public record to do it.
A federal judge once wrote:
[A] prosecutor can do justice by the simple act of going back
into court and agreeing that justice should be done. * * *
It is easy to be a tough prosecutor. Prosecutors are almost
never criticized for being aggressive, or for fighting hard to
obtain the maximum sentence, or for saying "there's
nothing we can do" about an excessive sentence after all
avenues of judicial relief have been exhausted. Doing
justice can be much harder. It takes time and involves
work, including careful consideration of the circumstances
of particular crimes, defendants, and victims—and often
the relevant events occurred in the distant past. It requires
a willingness to make hard decisions, including some that
will be criticized.
This case is a perfect example. * * *
By contrast, the decision []he has made required
considerable work. Assistant United States Attorney . . .
had to retrieve and examine a[n] . . . old case file. . . . He
requested and obtained an adjournment so his office could
have the time necessary to make an extremely important
decision. United States Attorneys' offices work with limited
resources. The effort that went into deciding whether to
agree to vacate [two counts against defendant] could have
been devoted to other cases. * * *
This is a significant case, and not just for [the defendant].
It demonstrates the difference between a Department of
Prosecutions and a Department of Justice. It shows how
the Department of Justice, as the government's
representative in every federal criminal case, has the
power to walk into courtrooms and ask judges to remedy
injustices.
Gleeson wrote this in response to Loretta Lynch
crap, I gtg to work. I lost track of time