Flynn. So this is going to be a threat about the Motion to Disqualify that Sidney and team filed last week seeking to have Judge Sullivan remove himself from the case. /1

I'm going to talk about the pleading generally first - a high level takeaway - and also the timing issues and then I'll go through it and that lastly I'll talk about what will/can happen with it. /2

There has not been a ton of commentary on this pleading from lawyers. The reason for that is I think two fold: 1. It is sometimes difficult for lawyers to talk about whether a judge is misbehaving for fear of retaliation or for fear of saying something inappropriate themselves./3

2. Folks want to support Flynn & criticizing things his counsel has done could be seen as disloyal to the team. I'm of the view that the truth is the truth on both scores, so I'm going to say what I think. As you all know I'm a big free speech proponent so I'm walking the walk./4

Moving to disqualify (or recuse) a judge is always difficult, particularly depending upon the reason you're asserting. And you have to make the motion to that judge not someone else to rule on first. The theory is that a judge should be expected to fairly evaluate the argument./5

Motion to disqualify or recuse are not often made. Usually there is no need for them. And often they deal more with a conflict of interest problem, rather than an allegation that the judge is biased or acting improperly. So, the kind of motion that has been filed here is rare. /6

To make this thread easier to type and follow, I'm going to call it a motion to recuse because it's shorter than "motion to disqualify" although "disqualify" is the word that the statute uses and the motion uses. If you're interested, the statutes that apply are at 28 USC 455. /7

I'm going to use "Sidney" to indicate who's arguing. This is just for ease of typing & understanding. It's NOT meant as a slight on Sidney personally or to exclude the whole team. It's just easier & also makes more sense than "Flynn" as he's not writing the motion obviously. /8

Okay, so some logistics first. Sidney filed the motion to recuse on Tuesday, the 7th, which was the deadline Sullivan set for any further motions. Sullivan thereafter issued a minute order saying the Govt had until the 14th to file any response. The Govt filed on the 9th. /9

Sullivan's minute order didn't say Gleeson could file a response. Normally the moving party has the option to file a Reply but whether Sidney will do that or not remains unknown. So far Sullivan has not set a deadline for that.Under the local rules it would normally be 7 days./10

Sullivan can shorten that time by order if he wants. The Govt's response (which I'll discuss at the very end) was only 2 pages, so he could well shorten the time for Sidney to file her Reply. Under the normal rules, it would be due the 16th. /11

Either way, it should be fully briefed by week's end & Sullivan could rule on it any time. Ordinarily a judge should rule on a motion to recuse before any other pending item because the point of recusal is he shouldn't BE ruling, so this will come before the motion to dismiss./12

Sidney's motion to recuse is 40 pages long & raises a number of issues, so I would expect Judge Sullivan to write a formal opinion on it rather than simply issuing an order ruling on it. So, it is anybody's guess as to when there will be a ruling. /13

Even the Court of Appeals will not expect Sullivan to rule on the motion to dismiss - with "dispatch" or no, until he has issued a ruling on the motion to recuse. /14

High level takeaway is Sullivan will almost certainly not disqualify himself. That order can be appealed & maybe even appealed on an interlocutory basis (meaning now, not after the whole case is resolved), but I'd have to double check that; @reeveslawstl do you know right off?/15

A motion to recuse is always a gamble as you never know if the judge will hold it against you, possibly even subconsciously. On the other hand, if you really think the judge is conflicted or biased or there is an appearance that he is, it is your duty as an advocate to file./16

Even then, it is a tricky thing & needs to be done with as much tact & diplomacy as possible if you are trying to get the judge to actually recuse. That's not what this motion does. This motion is almost literally on fire. /17

So, she either decided to just vent her spleen for Sullivan's edification or she figures he's going to deny the motion & she's writing for her "real" audience, which she perceives to be the Court of Appeals on an appeal from Sullivan's ruling. /18

Some might claim the discussion is so strong for "public" consumption, but what non-lawyers don't realize is that that would be improper, so I don't think that is what Sidney's doing. /19

That being said, there are some things in this motion that are kind of seriously problematic. My opinion is that Sidney's righteous indignation on behalf of Flynn got the better of her of few times in the arguments she's making. /20

It a frustration because even with the things that are questionable in the motion (which I'll flag), it's not like she's wrong really about the case overall & how unacceptable it is that Flynn has been treated so shabbily by our government. /21

I guess I'd say overall that it's a Howard Hughes kind of motion. Brilliant on the one hand; crazy on the other. /22