He’ll Eventually Prevail, but Flynn
Stands to Lose the Mandamus Fight
National Review,
by
Andrew C. McCarthy
Original Article
Posted By: Pluperfect,
8/16/2020 5:16:26 AM
G eneral Michael Flynn is going to lose the battle. That was the takeaway from Tuesday’s hearing before the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Flynn will eventually win the war, but President Trump’s first national-security adviser is still in a slog, and there are more scraps ahead.
The battle in question is Flynn’s petitioning of the D.C. Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus against federal district judge Emmet Sullivan. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. It is something of a last resort, when a judge is acting so lawlessly that the damage could be incurable if a higher court fails to intervene.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 8/16/2020 6:19:59 AM (No. 511429)
I'll wait to see what happens, but I have exactly zero faith in the integrity of the modern federal "judiciary" after practicing law for forty years. Maybe they'll surprise me.
33 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
bighambone 8/16/2020 6:24:39 AM (No. 511430)
Clearly the Democrats want to push back any resolution of the Flynn matter in the courts until after the November election. To that end, the article advises that the Circuit Court consists of a bunch of Democrat judges who outnumber the couple of Republican judges on the court. So since this is a highly political case plus the fact that recent history has shown, clearly since President Trump was elected, that the Federal Courts are a completely political animal and have turned into a super legislature, that we have our answer as to the Circuit court’s decision.
The Democrats thinking that Biden-Harris will be elected, know if that happens that the old Obama-Biden crew would be reinstalled in the Justice Department, will withdraw the current Justice Department motion to drop the charge against Flynn, and allow the Flynn criminal persecution to move to Judge Sullivan sentencing Flynn to a prison term. In fact Sullivan would probably push the Justice Department to add a charge of perjury against Flynn as he has already suggested.
President Trump obviously wants to see the Federal Courts resolve the Flynn matter quickly by dismissing the current bogus charge against Flynn which would be the most favorable outcome for Flynn. While the Democrats want Trump to have to pardon Flynn for committing a crime that he did not commit. Clearly if Sullivan gets the case back he will slow walk it past the election. If Trump wins, Sullivan will eventually have to drop the Flynn case. But even if Trump looses, Trump will still hold the so-called “Trump Card” a presidential pardon on the current bogus charge.
Whatever happens, the Democrats don’t want Flynn out there in public with all charges against him dropped during the run-up to the election spilling out all the old Obama-Biden anti-American corrupt and inept bones to the American Public.
24 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
judy 8/16/2020 6:45:39 AM (No. 511441)
These so called judges should be ashamed. The Obama WH & JD are the ones who should be on trial , not Flynn. The DC courts are more corrupt than the media.
30 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Rama41 8/16/2020 8:31:36 AM (No. 511534)
Another possibility, knowing Sullivan's mind. He can take no action whatsoever until after the election. Then, if Trump loses, he'll continue to put off further action until after the inauguration.
6 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
JunkYardDog 8/16/2020 9:44:10 AM (No. 511641)
I don't understand-if Flynn and DOJ are in the right to dismiss charges, why are we allowing the courts to run amok based upon their own hubris? Is Flynn a prisoner of the court's processing system?? If the court (=Sullivan) has no power to keep it going, and everybody knows it, why are we allowing this once-in-a-lifetime behavior to continue? The judges seem high on their own power-its time to remind them who they are and what they do.
9 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
HotRod 8/16/2020 9:58:47 AM (No. 511657)
Who would enforce the judge's order, if the defendant fails to comply? In this case, the jurisdiction is the Feds. So, could the DOJ, through it's subordinate law enforcement agencies, elect to take no action? It would not have to say anything or make any statements. Just don't act.
There are valid reasons for the DOJ to ignore the judge in this case, and a fight between the administration and the judiciary may be what is needed to bring judicial misconduct into very bright lights!
4 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
stablemoney 8/16/2020 10:11:14 AM (No. 511670)
McCarthy has no idea what will happen. We will have to wait and see. Thanks to Sidney Powell, who has gotten so much done. Mr. McCarthy failed to address the issue of the FISA warrants, which allowed this to go forward, but the FISA warrants, and all evidence gathered under protection of these warrants is now rotten, and will have to be expunged. The Democrats are going to lose, but they want it to happen after this election.
7 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
bpl40 8/16/2020 10:13:54 AM (No. 511674)
What is especially appalling is the callousness of the Circuit Court towards the toxic precedent they are allowing against the Constitutionally provided (rather mandated) separation of powers. Unless the SCOTUS moves in swiftly to strike this down all future rogue judges will claim this inequity as refuge.
8 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 8/16/2020 1:11:47 PM (No. 511879)
Sullivan, with his "contemplations", has become an embarrassment to the court. It seems to me that even if Sullivan hasn't actually DONE any of these things, his mere speculation implies bias. Further, although neither Flynn or the government requested Sullivan's removal, that doesn't mean the Appeals Court couldn't consider that as an appropriate solution to bring this sordid mess to a close. EVERY judge of the en banc KNOWS that proper resolution is that the case be dismissed. It's a certainty. Maybe some of them have private assurances that Sullivan will do that. But if they give Sullivan a pass by refusing mandamus and Sullivan turns it into a circus, the certain Appeal Court decision will NOT be kind to Sullivan. It will label him with arrogant bias for malfeasance even after his erratic actions were spotlighted. That could create a STRONG case for damages.
The most certain solution would be for the en banc court to remove Sullivan. Then, the case WILL be done. They may want minimal embarrassment for Sullivan and to give him a chance to redeem himself. But he could be too stubborn to take advantage of it. That will drag the whole court back into the muck. How likely is the second scenario to happen?
4 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
NYbob 8/16/2020 1:20:34 PM (No. 511889)
If ever there was a need for a Warren Commission style investigation into the entire American court system and the supposed checks and balances on judges and courts, it is now. Impossible, unless the other two branches of Government get together to examine what happened to justice and Congress and other Presidents like having a biased justice system they can use to destroy or intimidate their enemies. Perhaps only a second Revolution can reform an out of control government.
4 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Pluperfect"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)