New Brief In Michael Flynn Case Pulls
Back Curtain On The Coming Circus
The Federalist,
by
Debra Heine
Original Article
Posted By: earlybird,
5/19/2020 1:45:27 PM
On May 18, several filings hit the docket in the Michael Flynn case, but not the one conservatives anticipated since Judge Emmet Sullivan’s shocking announcement last week that he intended to seek input from amicus curiae on whether to grant the government’s motion to dismiss the criminal charge against Flynn.
Those on the right decrying Judge Sullivan’s judicial overreach anticipated the prosecuting U.S. attorney to promptly petition the D.C. Circuit Court for a writ directing Judge Sullivan to dismiss the case. Instead, conservatives caught a glimpse of the circus Judge Sullivan has invited into his courtroom.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
earlybird 5/19/2020 2:02:18 PM (No. 416050)
Correction to OP comment: Heine has included the amicus brief filed by 15 state attorneys general and discusses it in this article.
She also discusses Judge Sullivan’s alter ego, retired Judge (former prosecutor) Gleeson’s latest. It’s clear that Gleeson is itching to get into the middle of this.
The first issue Gleeson intends to explore concerns the court’s authority to deny a motion to dismiss and the standard. Second, Gleeson noted he intended to identify “any additional factual development I may need before finalizing my argument in opposition to the government’s motion in this case.” Finally, Gleeson intends to discuss whether Flynn should be ordered to explain to the court why he should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury.
It is the second issue that gives away the game—and illustrates the lawlessness of Judge Sullivan’s order. Judge Sullivan and Gleeson want to relitigate the decision not to prosecute Flynn. But that is not for the judiciary to do, it is an executive branch decision.
11 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
justavoter 5/19/2020 2:18:45 PM (No. 416059)
Sullivan and Gleeson need to take a lesson from Justice Thomas about the role of the judge. I watched the PBS special last night about Justice Thomas (excellent by the way) and Justice Thomas' view on the role as judge was to listen to both sides and decide the controversy. If no controversy, then nothing needs to be added or taken away by the judge. It is not the judges responsibility nor obligation to enter the argument.
16 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
stablemoney 5/19/2020 2:22:10 PM (No. 416064)
This is such a fiasco that Sidney Powell may elect to stand back and watch the catastrophe, at least so the nation can see the horror. In the end, it is going nowhere, but the Judge is smearing his own face in the mud, his nose is in the ditch, scraping the bottom. Powell may decide to amuse herself and watch.
11 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
coyote 5/19/2020 2:50:46 PM (No. 416095)
Apparently they are not going to let justice stand in the way of a good lynching.
14 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 5/19/2020 2:55:59 PM (No. 416099)
I also saw Justice Thomas' "Created Equal and it was inspiring. I agree that "It is not the judges responsibility nor obligation to enter the argument.", However, the role of the courts is not specifically defined in the Constitution. It does logically flow from the court's role but the justice system, as are the other branches, are, within reason and law, self defining. Sullivan's desire to take action is not prohibited. His action to abscond with the Executive's charging power is clearly illegal. His intent to allow amicus briefs in a criminal trial, which exists only on the barest of technicalities, is also on shaky legal grounds.
The right answer is, after giving Sullivan enough rope to hang himself, to get a higher court to intervene and stop the insanity. One article said that the DoJ could file such a motion and they should. It is THEIR power that Sullivan is trying to usurp; on top of being grossly unfair to Flynn.
13 people like this.
Wasn't there a point that the prosecutors offered no jail time for Gen.Flynn, and that was also denied by the judge?
Why did the government continue to delay sentencing in THIS particular case?
Is there something prohibiting Gen. Flynn from speaking freely while the case is being adjudicated?
5 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Highvoltage 5/19/2020 3:41:26 PM (No. 416139)
It's a circus for sure and Sullivan is the clown. Has anyone ever seen such a travesty of justice. How did this guy ever get to be a judge; I suspect he was appointed by a Demortat.
7 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
MickTurn 5/19/2020 3:41:47 PM (No. 416140)
Sullivan needs to go to the ZOO and get the Gorilla's input, in PERSON...it would be a beating to watch!
4 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
john56 5/19/2020 4:37:00 PM (No. 416189)
I'm not up to the legal niceities, but perhaps Ms Powell and the DOJ prosecution need to say, Thank you, Judge Sullivan for your time, but we would like to appeal this decision to a higher court. And to the court above that one (Supreme Court). By the end of next week.
3 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
preciosodrogas 5/19/2020 6:47:11 PM (No. 416284)
I think there is a question of whether a crime was committed. Did LtG lie to the FBI? Did the LtG lie to the Court? As to the FBI, was there a valid criminal investigation? Was he sworn to tell the truth? Did he mislead the FBI? Did his statements obstruct the process of a legal investigation? I can see where the DOJ is not pursuing that issue. Clearly, DoJ knows there are all kinds of problems with making anything stick that involves the FBI.
As to the Court, well LtG did swear under penalty that he was telling the truth when he knew he was lying - that's of perjury - knowingly making false statements under oath is ounsihable perjury. It may also be seen as contempt of court; and the court might even mull over the idea of obstruction of justice or that LtG assisted the FBI in perptrating a crime on the court or even that LtG was an accessory to the crime (the subversion of justice by tyhe FBI). That does not excuse what the FBI did, instead it is a consideration for sentencing. All of what happened with the FBI would be examined at a sentence perjury hearing and may mitigate punishment.
I think the judge may have a point. The FBI and, no matter how he didn't want to do it, with the assistance of LtG, was using the court to continue their crimes and the judge is rightly affronted, insulted, and p.o'd by it. I agree what the FBI did stinks but don't lie to the court is the rule - the Rule of Law, that must be upheld. I think all the attackes will only alienate the court. The judge is not going after the lie to the FBI he is going after the lie to his court. Just a bad situation all around. But no matter what happens LtG comes out a winner because whatever happens he gets the truth out and the bad guys (FBI) gets nailed for it. But he must face the court. I think a better move for LtG wojuld be to seek a different venue based on the jiudges apperant bias, but it would be a long shot.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "earlybird"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
But wait…there’s more since this article was published. According to a tweet from Catherine Herridge:
#FLYNN 12+ State Attorneys General led by Ohio AG Dave Yost file amicus brief in support DOJ’s motion to dismiss without commentary, “because such punditry disrobes the judiciary of its cloak of impartiality.” @CBSNews @ClareHymes22