Judge Sullivan’s circus of a proceeding in the matter of Michael Flynn keeps adding new acts. Or, in the most recent development, an old act.
Sullivan ordered Covington & Burling, the firm that originally represented Michael Flynn, to be added as an interested party in the matter. The law firm complied by entering its appearance.
Flynn’s current counsel has alleged that Covington & Burling represented the General ineffectively. In a January filing, Sidney Powell stated:
Mr. Flynn’s guilty plea (and later failure to withdraw it) was the result of the ineffective assistance of counsel provided by his former lawyers, who were in the grip of intractable conflicts of interest, and severely prejudiced him.
Did this statement make Covington & Burling an “interested party”? If so, Sullivan could have ordered the firm to appear back then, when there was an actual controversy before him.
Now, there is no controversy. Both the prosecution and the defense — the only real parties of interest — are in agreement as to the proper disposition of this case. They agree it should be dismissed.
Therefore, it seems to me that instead of adding acts to this circus and/or bringing back old ones, Judge Sullivan is obligated to fold up the tents.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.