Michael Flynn Loses Appeal. Full Court Rejects Dismissal Recommendation By AG Bill Barr

Knowing that someone is trying to trap you in a "lie" doesn't make any easier to remember details from things you said months earlier, Fort!
Not months. And yes, of course he remembers what he discussed. And he knew he wasn't supposed to be doing that.

And how is it a "trap"? Are you implying that they KNEW he would lie? And so he did... that makes it a trap? Okay then... what's the problem?
 
Were you going to show me proof the FBI agents that interviewed Flynn have changed their minds about his truthfulness?
Yes, it's called the prosecutor's official report and the FBI documents, where the facts show Flynn lied. These are facts. No, nobody is going to say, "Well, he didn't seem like he was lying at the time, so these facts can't be right!". Stop being silly.
 
CNBC has this story up here that the DC Court of Appeals rejected the request by Michael Flynn to enforce the Dept of (In)Justice’s request, planted by Donnie Deathcount henchling AG Barr, for dismissal of his case. The vote was 8-2.

If you recollect, Justice Sullivan appointed a special master to review the case for dismissal and invited third parties to respond to the request. Justice Sullivan denied the request for dismissal. Flynn appealed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. In a 2-1 decision (led by Trump appointee Naomi Rao), a panel determined Sullivan would have to follow the DoJ request and dismiss the case. Sullivan appealed to the full Court.

Today’s ruling smacks down the Trump appointee (any surprise there?) and:

In an 8-2 ruling, the appeals court judges indicated that Flynn’s request was premature, since U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan of Washington had not yet even ruled on the dismissal request by the Justice Department.
The Court also dismissed Flynn’s request that Judge Sullivan be removed from the case. That was also denied. The case goes back to Judge Sullivan for ruling and potential Flynn sentencing.

Fake News

The question under review 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. Here, the writ would direct Judge Sullivan to end his highly irregular inquiry into the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against Flynn and just grant that motion, as the law requires.

The Court, Sullivan's fellow judges, have simply given Sullivan an opportunity to grant the dismissal motion, as the judge’s lawyer hinted at the hearing. If he does not, maybe there will still be time for Flynn to win a reversal on appeal.


Sullivan — an erratic, irascible man who has been a judge for 36 years — has unleash his inner crazy, knowing it won’t make a difference in the end. If the circuit judges were not more tentative they might otherwise be in reining him in.

Your erroneous claims aside, The Justice Department’s solicitor general has never formally moved for a writ of mandamus against Sullivan.
 
Judge Sullivan’s Alternative Universe
We need to distinguish two things: The merits of the mandamus petition versus the merits of Justice’s motion to dismiss the case — i.e., the motion Sullivan has failed to grant and signaled he would not grant, which is what prompted Flynn to seek mandamus.

Never before has a district judge, on his own motion, been granted en banc reconsideration of such a panel ruling. The Justice Department’s research indicates that only one other judge has ever tried, and that judge was rebuffed. By contrast, Sullivan’s lawyer, Beth Wilkinson, emphasizes: Never before has a circuit court issued a writ of mandamus against a district judge who has not yet even conducted a hearing on a dismissal motion, much less denied it.

So, it’s a contest of the “never befores.”

Wilkinson is a very able advocate, but to hear her describe how Sullivan has presided over the case, after watching how Sullivan has presided over the case, was to be transported to an alternative universe.

In her argument, Wilkinson feigned astonishment that anyone could possibly imagine the highly experienced, well-respected judge would do anything other than follow the law — and if the law requires dismissal, well then, by God, how could anyone think he wouldn’t dismiss? Indeed, she tartly observed that Sullivan originally wanted to conduct his hearing on the Justice Department’s dismissal motion in mid-July; had Flynn not sought mandamus, had the Justice Department not gone along, and had the circuit had not indulged what she described as the baseless, overwrought petition, this case might have been over a month ago.

Sure.

If you’re keeping score, early in the proceedings, the highly experienced judge did not seem to have taken the few minutes he would have needed to review the file he’d inherited. Sullivan wildly implied that Flynn — a decorated 30-year combat commander, who is charged with a false-statements process crime that interviewing agents did not think he committed and that had no obstructive effect whatsoever on the Trump–Russia investigation — had “sold your country out” and might be guilty of “treason.” The judge eventually apologized, adding that he “felt terrible about that.” I’m sure that made General Flynn feel much better.

In more recent times, Sullivan has floated the nearly equally lunatic notion that Flynn should be prosecuted for contempt due to his “perjury” because — like a zillion other defendants, including an untold number during Sullivan’s long tenure — Flynn initially pled guilty but later moved to withdraw his plea and claimed innocence. In the interim, Sullivan appointed an amicus curiae (friend of the court), former federal judge John Gleeson, a partisan Democrat selected for the gig only after co-authoring a Washington Post op-ed that accused the Trump administration and its Justice Department of corruption in dropping Flynn’s case.

The role assigned to Gleeson by Sullivan is to argue against dismissal — i.e., to act as a court-appointed prosecutor against Flynn, under circumstances where the only authority with constitutional power to prosecute, the Justice Department, has announced it is dropping the case. Gleeson’s 73-page brief conveys that he expects to challenge the Justice Department’s explanation of its legal theory that Flynn is not guilty of the false-statements charge, its assessment of the strength of the case, its decision that pursuing the case would not be a meritorious expenditure of its resources, its internal deliberations about the case, and its motives for dismissing it — though Gleeson ultimately backtracked, at least for now, on the suggestion that he would subpoena witnesses and conduct additional factfinding.

Sullivan also invited other amici to weigh in, notwithstanding that there is no rule permitting amicus briefs in criminal cases (the defendant in such a case already has to contend with the limitless resources of the Justice Department). This was remarkable because, to quote a Judge Sullivan ruling, “The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal cases”; consequently, the judge has denied dozens of applications to file amicus briefs, including in the Flynn case.

Yes indeedy, how could anyone possibly get the nutty idea that straight-arrow Sully plans to do anything other than follow the law and dismiss the case?
 
Not a Thought Crime
There is no doubt about the lawlessness of what Sullivan has contemplated doing. Rule 48(a) purports to require “leave of court” before the Justice Department may dismiss a case, it unconstitutionally infringes on the executive authority — at least in a case where the defendant agrees to a dismissal that will end the case with prejudice (i.e., where the prosecutor is not violating due process by dismissing to get a tactical advantage). In a case such as Flynn’s, the presiding judge must grant the dismissal.

During the argument, some circuit judges took umbrage at this image of the lower court reduced to a rubber stamp. But that is not Flynn’s or Justice’s doing; it is what happens when Congress enacts a constitutionally dubious rule that should not have brought the court into the dismissal equation in the first place.

That is why Flynn should win the case. But, to repeat, winning the case is different from winning the mandamus.

However, a “thought crime” is not enough for mandamus. Yes, Judge Sullivan has set the stage for a travesty, but he has not actually done anything irreparable yet.

Reluctant to think ill of their longtime fellow jurist, most of the circuit judges seem prepared to suspend disbelief and accept Ms. Wilkinson’s assurance that Sullivan will follow the law. And even acting solicitor general Wall concedes that it is proper for a judge to hold some kind of hearing on a dismissal motion, although for nothing other than the limited purpose of making sure the judge understands the Justice Department’s rationale. (In Flynn’s case, it would also be proper to hold no hearing, given that the prosecution’s very detailed submission elucidates that no tactical advantage is sought over Flynn and shows that the Justice Department has proper reasons — even if Sullivan disagrees with them.)

A mandamus writ is supposed to issue only if there is no adequate alternative relief. Flynn can’t really make that showing because if Sullivan grants the dismissal motion, Flynn gets exactly the result he wants. The Justice Department could complain that the executive is already being damaged by the hearing process Sullivan is putting in place; but again, Justice did not seek mandamus. And if Sullivan retreats and grants the motion, the way Wilkinson suggests he might, Justice won’t have much to complain about.

On the other side of the mandamus ledger, the circuit has to be concerned that granting the writ would open the floodgates to other litigants who seek to appeal right away whenever the district judge allegedly makes an error. The regular, orderly appellate process calls for waiting until the end of the district-court proceedings to raise all claims of error. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland seemed especially concerned that such a precedent could not easily be limited.

Back in Judge Sullivan’s Court
To the surprise of none, the full court, that tilts heavily Democrat, ruled against mandamus, returning the case to Judge Sullivan. Will he drag his feet to make General Flynn sweat it out? The circuit court indicated disapproval of that prospect. Will Sullivan, despite all the rabble-rousing, just grant the dismissal motion without much more fanfare, as his lawyer suggested he might? That would be a pleasant surprise, but don't hold your breath. Will the judge turn the hearing into a circus and try to put the Trump Justice Department on trial? Will Sullivan deny the dismissal motion and perhaps even try to sentence Flynn? I have to think the Justice Department would petition for mandamus at that point, and its case would be strong.

Lots of questions. They cannot be answered until Judge Sullivan makes his next move.
 
He pled guilty because they threatened to go after his son. What they had on "tape" was the result of the Carter Page FISA Court debacle. It's the way that scum like Brennan and Clapper used their intelligence agencies to go after the Trump Administration.
Don't forget Comey and Obama in all this.
But you're right, Clapper is NSA ( essentially above CIA and FBI at least on spying, meaning when they were spying on Flynn and others, (even before the campaign we know) before they had even acquired the bogus FISA warrants, he had to have given the okay on that, which means if theyu came after him, he'd throw Obama under the bus in 2 seconds.
 
We need a re-education camp for lawyers.
Grand Jury clause said:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; ...
  1. An infamous crime is one that goes on a person's record for life, or has the effect of depriving a person of civil rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms.
  2. All felonies, sex offenses, crimes of domestic violence, and serious crimes, anywhere in the jurisdiction of the United States, are, by law, infamous crimes.
  3. Except for a court martial of a proper, established, narrowly prescribed jurisdiction, all infamous crimes alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the United States require the indictment of a grand jury to prosecute in court by law.
  4. If the grand jury declines to indict, then by law the defendant is exonerated and free to go, and cannot be tried again or convicted on that matter.
  5. Coerced confessions and unwarranted wiretaps are not admissible in court as evidence against a defendant.
  6. Law enforcement officers, judges, defense attorneys, and district attorneys are not allowed to take any adverse actions against a defendant's life, freedom, or possessions outside the law, or over, above, or beyond the law.
Double jeopardy said:
... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
 
We need a re-education camp for lawyers.
Grand Jury clause said:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; ...
  1. An infamous crime is one that goes on a person's record for life, or has the effect of depriving a person of civil rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms.
  2. All felonies, sex offenses, crimes of domestic violence, and serious crimes, anywhere in the jurisdiction of the United States, are, by law, infamous crimes.
  3. Except for a court martial of a proper, established, narrowly prescribed jurisdiction, all infamous crimes alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the United States require the indictment of a grand jury to prosecute in court by law.
  4. If the grand jury declines to indict, then by law the defendant is exonerated and free to go, and cannot be tried again or convicted on that matter.
  5. Coerced confessions and unwarranted wiretaps are not admissible in court as evidence against a defendant.
  6. Law enforcement officers, judges, defense attorneys, and district attorneys are not allowed to take any adverse actions against a defendant's life, freedom, or possessions outside the law, or over, above, or beyond the law.
Double jeopardy said:
... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
What does that have to do with the topic under discussion?
 
CNBC has this story up here that the DC Court of Appeals rejected the request by Michael Flynn to enforce the Dept of (In)Justice’s request, planted by Donnie Deathcount henchling AG Barr, for dismissal of his case. The vote was 8-2.

If you recollect, Justice Sullivan appointed a special master to review the case for dismissal and invited third parties to respond to the request. Justice Sullivan denied the request for dismissal. Flynn appealed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. In a 2-1 decision (led by Trump appointee Naomi Rao), a panel determined Sullivan would have to follow the DoJ request and dismiss the case. Sullivan appealed to the full Court.

Today’s ruling smacks down the Trump appointee (any surprise there?) and:

In an 8-2 ruling, the appeals court judges indicated that Flynn’s request was premature, since U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan of Washington had not yet even ruled on the dismissal request by the Justice Department.
The Court also dismissed Flynn’s request that Judge Sullivan be removed from the case. That was also denied. The case goes back to Judge Sullivan for ruling and potential Flynn sentencing.

Fake News. The Court didn't reject dismissing the case, the Court refused to order Circus Sullivan to dismiss the case before Sullivan had an opportunity to rule on dismissing the case.

This is still a prosecution without a prosecutor, and a guilty plea without a crime. The tenor of this opinion is such that anything else from Sullivan, but a dismissal is likely to get shot down no matter which three jurists end up hearing the appeal, a subtext that Sullivan can’t possibly miss in all of the talk about speculative harms rather than actual damage done by Sullivan’s proposed process.

 
What does that have to do with the topic under discussion?
Felonies and other infamous criminal charges are life-ruiners. Fucking asshole pervert piece-of-shit Democrat lawyers always want to "have it made" and they're constantly trying to make it progressively easier and easier on themselves to ruin anyone's life in court without accepting any responsibility or accountability for their life-ruining actions under color of law. Obviously you've never had "frenemies" or shirt-tail relatives or in-laws bent on playing practical jokes and pulling other "party" stunts to ruin your life, and enjoying themselves at the expense of your freedoms and rights.
 
Knowing that someone is trying to trap you in a "lie" doesn't make any easier to remember details from things you said months earlier, Fort!
Not months. And yes, of course he remembers what he discussed. And he knew he wasn't supposed to be doing that.

And how is it a "trap"? Are you implying that they KNEW he would lie? And so he did... that makes it a trap? Okay then... what's the problem?
There's a difference between someone's story not matching things they said at an earlier time and someone deliberately telling lies. If it hadn't been for the higher ups at the FBI, the CIA, the NSA and the Justice Department overruling the field agent's belief that Flynn wasn't lying this is a case that NEVER would have seen the light of day!
 
Were you going to show me proof the FBI agents that interviewed Flynn have changed their minds about his truthfulness?
Yes, it's called the prosecutor's official report and the FBI documents, where the facts show Flynn lied. These are facts. No, nobody is going to say, "Well, he didn't seem like he was lying at the time, so these facts can't be right!". Stop being silly.
You said that you had proof that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn had changed their minds about him not lying. That's not a prosecutor's report or the FBI documents that came out of the Washington office and were pushed by people like Page and Strozk! You obviously don't have proof...just admit it.
 
overruling the field agent's belief that Flynn wasn't lying
The lawyers are getting in trouble with the bar already.

The field agent's "belief" or alleged "belief" or claimed "belief" is a subjective and personal experience or feeling, inherent to one person only; not something possible for others to adjudicate in a court of law. That's a matter for mental health court, do decide if the field agent was suffering from delusions and might be a danger to himself or others, or gravely disabled, unable to practice law, or defend himself in civil commitment proceedings; those doctors-cum-lawyers are in more serious trouble yet with the bar.

If the "field agent" reported something Flynn allegedly said at some time or another, then that is third-hand testimony, completely inadmissible in court of law.

Whether a "field agent" claims to "believe" the second-hand story or not is even less relevant to any possible legal
 
So, for the first time in American history that I know of, a judge is going to prosecute a case without a prosecutor, thereby trampling all over the Separation of Powers that our Constitution requires. We are officially no longer a nation of laws, we are a nation of men who can ignore the law for political purposes. Sullivan is going to do whatever he wants, but if he does not rule in Flynn's favor then this whole bullshit case will end up in the Supreme court, where it will be dismissed.

So I guess now in this batshit crazy nation of ours it is perfectly OK for a judge to be the judge, the jury, the prosecutor and perhaps even the executioner.

The Deep State is like a bull dog. It has ahold of Flynn and refuses to let go.

In the end Trump will pardon Flynn but that will not offset or rectify the expense and difficulty Flynn has been put through.
 
So, for the first time in American history that I know of, a judge is going to prosecute a case without a prosecutor, thereby trampling all over the Separation of Powers that our Constitution requires. We are officially no longer a nation of laws, we are a nation of men who can ignore the law for political purposes. Sullivan is going to do whatever he wants, but if he does not rule in Flynn's favor then this whole bullshit case will end up in the Supreme court, where it will be dismissed.

So I guess now in this batshit crazy nation of ours it is perfectly OK for a judge to be the judge, the jury, the prosecutor and perhaps even the executioner.

The Deep State is like a bull dog. It has ahold of Flynn and refuses to let go.

In the end Trump will pardon Flynn but that will not offset or rectify the expense and difficulty Flynn has been put through.

I'm not a lawyer, ok? But it seems to me that Flynn has a case for suing for his legal fees and damages once this crap is finally over. I don't think he can sue Judge Sullivan, but he can sue the DOJ and should IMHO. Will his case be weaker if he get pardoned? I would think it would be better for him if the case goes to the SCOTUS where they would rule in his favor and finally dismiss the case. I don't see any other possible outcome, you cannot have a rogue federal judge deciding who should be prosecuted and who shouldn't. That decision is solely within the powers of the Executive, NOT the Judicial Branch.

Interested to see if Sullivan dismisses the case before it gets to the SCOTUS; not likely but he's a strange bastard. Possible though, with a very strongly worded diatribe against Flynn and the DOJ. I think he's a hardcore Anti-Trumper and wants to take his shot at the president leading up to the election. He's got to know that even if Trump is defeated, he will surely pardon Flynn before he leaves office and there isn't jack-shit Sullivan can do about that. Double jeopardy. So this is about politics, finding any possible way to hurt Trump in November.
 
What does that have to do with the topic under discussion?
Felonies and other infamous criminal charges are life-ruiners. Fucking asshole pervert piece-of-shit Democrat lawyers always want to "have it made" and they're constantly trying to make it progressively easier and easier on themselves to ruin anyone's life in court without accepting any responsibility or accountability for their life-ruining actions under color of law. Obviously you've never had "frenemies" or shirt-tail relatives or in-laws bent on playing practical jokes and pulling other "party" stunts to ruin your life, and enjoying themselves at the expense of your freedoms and rights.
The foreign agent pled guilty to a felony.
 
So, for the first time in American history that I know of, a judge is going to prosecute a case without a prosecutor, thereby trampling all over the Separation of Powers that our Constitution requires. We are officially no longer a nation of laws, we are a nation of men who can ignore the law for political purposes. Sullivan is going to do whatever he wants, but if he does not rule in Flynn's favor then this whole bullshit case will end up in the Supreme court, where it will be dismissed.

So I guess now in this batshit crazy nation of ours it is perfectly OK for a judge to be the judge, the jury, the prosecutor and perhaps even the executioner.

The Deep State is like a bull dog. It has ahold of Flynn and refuses to let go.

In the end Trump will pardon Flynn but that will not offset or rectify the expense and difficulty Flynn has been put through.
You are dead right. Flynn's counsel strongly hinted that if the Court left that ball in Sullivan's hand that he would do the right thing and dismiss the case, so, we'll see. If he doesn't, then Flynn can demonstrate actual harm from Sullivan's independent frolic, and right back to court he goes.
 
So I guess now in this batshit crazy nation of ours it is perfectly OK for a judge to be the judge, the jury, the prosecutor and perhaps even the executioner.

The Deep State is like a bull dog. It has ahold of Flynn and refuses to let go.

In the end Trump will pardon Flynn but that will not offset or rectify the expense and difficulty Flynn has been put through.
The Deep State creates its own 'morality' which may or may not have anything to do with traditional American morals and values. No, their 'morals' change with political expediency and how much power they can gather and maintain. Then they bend the law to favor their oh-so 'moral' cause.
 
So I guess now in this batshit crazy nation of ours it is perfectly OK for a judge to be the judge, the jury, the prosecutor and perhaps even the executioner.

The Deep State is like a bull dog. It has ahold of Flynn and refuses to let go.

In the end Trump will pardon Flynn but that will not offset or rectify the expense and difficulty Flynn has been put through.
The Deep State creates its own 'morality' which may or may not have anything to do with traditional American morals and values. No, their 'morals' change with political expediency and how much power they can gather and maintain. Then they bend the law to favor their oh-so 'moral' cause.

Often the Deep State’s morality depends mainly on profit, either profit for the military industrial complex or profit for the large corporations that are friends of the Deep State.
 

Forum List

Back
Top