Doubt absolute power of "deep-state," suckers?--Full Fed DC appeals ct. gets nigga's case vs. Flynn

Apollonian

Apollonian

Guest Columnist
Doubt absolute power of "deep-state," suckers?--Full Fed DC appeals ct. gets nigga's case vs. Flynn

[For previous reports on this case, see http://www.nnnforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=342850&highlight=Flynn , this site.]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Michael Flynn case to be reheard by full federal appeals court in D.C.​

Link: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...urt-in-dc/ar-BB17ntXJ?li=BBnb7Kz&OCID=DELLDHP

Ann Marimow 4 hrs ago

A federal appeals court in Washington will take a second look at a judge’s effort to scrutinize the Justice Department’s decision to drop its case against President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed Thursday to revisit U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan’s plan to examine the politically charged matter, reviving the unusual case testing the limits of the judiciary’s power to check the executive branch.

The court’s brief order set oral arguments for Aug. 11. The decision to rehear the case before a full complement of judges wipes out the June ruling from a three-judge panel that ordered Sullivan to immediately dismiss the case and said Sullivan was wrong to appoint a retired federal judge to argue against the government’s move to undo Flynn’s guilty plea.

In May, Sullivan refused to go along with the government’s request to end the criminal case against Flynn, who twice pleaded guilty to lying to federal agents about his contacts with Russia’s ambassador in Washington before Trump took office in 2017.

Instead, Sullivan asked retired federal judge John Gleeson to argue against the Justice Department’s request. That prompted Flynn’s attorneys to take the rare step of asking the appeals court to intervene midstream, and they accused Sullivan of bias.

The judge then retained a high-profile trial lawyer to represent him before the appeals court.

The order from the court Thursday suggests that the judges are seeking a narrowly focused argument on the question of whether Flynn should have waited to appeal until after Sullivan rendered a decision. The court told lawyers on both sides to be prepared at oral argument to address whether Flynn had “no other adequate means to attain the relief” he sought from the appeals court.

A majority of the 10 D.C. circuit judges to consider Sullivan’s request for rehearing agreed to the en banc review. The order does not state the vote of individual judges but indicates that Judge Gregory Katsas, who previously worked in Trump’s White House Counsel’s Office, did not participate.

The initial ruling against Sullivan from the three-judge panel cut short his plans to hold a hearing to examine the government’s decision.

Judge Neomi Rao, writing for the majority, found that “this is not the unusual case where a more searching inquiry is justified.”

In his dissent, Judge Robert L. Wilkins said it was unprecedented and premature for the appeals court to shut down Sullivan’s review. Sullivan, he wrote, should have an opportunity to evaluate the Justice Department’s change of heart.

Trump celebrated the initial ruling in a tweet and told reporters Flynn was “treated horribly.”

Flynn’s attorneys had urged the full appeals court to let the initial dismissal order stand.

“The district court has hijacked and extended a criminal prosecution for almost three months for its own purposes,” Flynn attorneys Sidney Powell and Jesse Binnall told the court.

“To allow Judge Sullivan to delay and generate litigation against a criminal defendant is unconstitutional,” they added, because the “Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case.”

Flynn, 61, was the highest-level Trump adviser convicted in former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Flynn initially pleaded guilty and cooperated with Mueller’s inquiry.

Instead of proceeding to sentencing, Attorney General William P. Barr in January ordered a review of Flynn’s case. He then moved to drop the prosecution, saying new evidence showed that the FBI interview of Flynn was conducted without “any legitimate investigative basis.” Therefore, any lies Flynn told about his contacts with Russia did not amount to a crime.

Flynn’s case has energized the president and his supporters, who say Flynn was set up by anti-Trump investigators in the FBI. But many current and former Justice Department officials view the reversal as a troubling sign of the department bending to pressure from Trump to protect his close advisers and friends.

Spencer Hsu contributed to this report.
 
Re: Doubt absolute power of "deep-state," suckers?--Full Fed DC appeals ct. gets nigga's case vs. Fl

Here's latest commentary (by Nunes and FOX News) on latest move by "globalists" to keep the Flynn case alive and kicking



[For previous reports on this case, see http://www.nnnforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=342850&highlight=Flynn , this site.]
 
Last edited:
Re: Doubt absolute power of "deep-state," suckers?--Full Fed DC appeals ct. gets nigga's case vs. Fl

Appeals Court Grants Judge Sullivan Request for Rehearing in Flynn Mandamus Case, Vacates Order Dismissing Charges​

July 31, 2020  News

Link: http://www.madnesshub.com/2020/07/appeals-court-grants-judge-sullivan.html

Sidney Powell, attorney for Michael Flynn, announced the D.C. Court of Appeals has accepted the request by Judge Emmet Sullivan for an en banc rehearing of a 2-1 mandamus order by a three judge panel of the court last month to dismiss the federal case against Flynn arising out of the corrupt Mueller probe on the unfounded Trump-Russia collusion hoax. The mandamus order was vacated by the Appeals Court.

Oral arguments before the entire 11 judges on Court of Appeals are scheduled for August 11.

Powell posted the order by the court:

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

BEFORE:Srinivasan, Chief Judge, and Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Garland,Griffith, Millett, Pillard, Wilkins, Katsas*, and Rao, Circuit Judges US Court of Appeals Columbia District

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing en banc, the responses thereto, and the vote in favor of rehearing en banc by a majority of the judges eligible to participate, it is ORDERED that this case be reheard by the court sitting en banc.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that the court’s order filed June 24, 2020, be vacated.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that oral argument before the en banc court be heard at 9:30a.m. on Tuesday, August 11, 2020.

The parties should be prepared to address whether there are “no other adequate means to attain the relief” desired. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004).

A separate order will issue regarding the allocation of oral argument time.

* Circuit Judge Katsas did not participate in this matter.

Of course, the leftist media cheered this continued harassment and abuse of General Michael Flynn.

MSN reported on today’s developments but forgot to mention that Flynn was set up, his documents were criminally tampered with and that the DOJ has yet to release the original 302 document following his 2017 interview.

The panel agreed, arguing that Sullivan did not have the authority to extend the prosecution if the DOJ wanted to pull out.

“In this case, the district court’s actions will result in specific harms to the exercise of the Executive Branch’s exclusive prosecutorial power,” Judge Neomi Rao, who was appointed to the D.C. Circuit by President Trump, wrote in the majority opinion last month.

“If evidence comes to light calling into question the integrity or purpose of an underlying criminal investigation, the Executive Branch must have the authority to decide that further prosecution is not in the interest of justice.”

So now today in America we have leftist judges who can extend the persecution of innocent men if charges are dropped against those men.
 
Last edited:
Re: Doubt absolute power of "deep-state," suckers?--Full Fed DC appeals ct. gets nigga's case vs. Fl

Another shyster cks in for analysis of this idiotic travesty. Consider: Appeals ct. decided, but now the "FULL" ct. voted to vacate (remove) the first appeals ct. order to drop charges and the case against Flynn. So most of these judges are Demon-rats (appointments)--why would they remove the original verdict UNLESS they plan to change things against Flynn and Trump?





[For previous reports on this case, see http://www.nnnforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=342850&highlight=Flynn , this site.]
 
Re: Doubt absolute power of "deep-state," suckers?--Full Fed DC appeals ct. gets nigga's case vs. Fl

One Way or Another, Corrupt Judge Emmet Sullivan Should Soon Be Off of the General Flynn Case​

Link: http://www.yourdestinationnow.com/2020/08/one-way-or-another-corrupt-judge-emmet.html

August 07, 2020

Corrupt and Crazy Judge Emmet Sullivan is in a bind. It looks like one way or another the Deep State judge will soon be off the General Flynn case.

It looks like Judge Emmet Sullivan will soon be removed from the General Flynn case. It almost appears inevitable. Techno Fog tweeted this yesterday:

It looks like his peers in the corrupt DC appeals court have come to a couple of conclusions. One possibility is that corrupt Judge Sullivan would disqualify himself for his perceived partiality in the Flynn case. No doubt the Judge is disturbed and possibly insane. Never has the court had to deal with the crazy actions of this corrupt judge. His actions not to throw this case out are an abomination of the justice system.

The other possibility is that the judge will be deemed biased and able to proceed, in which case Judge Emmet Sullivan will have to be removed from the case due to his bias, and another judge would have to take over.

Although, it looks like we may soon see Judge Sullivan no longer on the case, there are more corrupt judges in DC. So this charade of justice is not over yet.
 
Re: Doubt absolute power of "deep-state," suckers?--Full Fed DC appeals ct. gets nigga's case vs. Fl

Sullivan, the nigga "judge" in the Flynn case, is now PARTY in case against Flynn and must be removed fm the case

 
Re: Doubt absolute power of "deep-state," suckers?--Full Fed DC appeals ct. gets nigga's case vs. Fl

Further shyster analysis of this circus of a case

 
Re: Doubt absolute power of "deep-state," suckers?--Full Fed DC appeals ct. gets nigga's case vs. Fl

[For previous reports on this case, see http://www.nnnforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=342850&highlight=Flynn , this site.]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Should Judge Sullivan Be Disqualified from Flynn Case? An Appeals Court Is Asking​

Link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-sullivan-disqualified-flynn-case-103059773.html

Andrew C. McCarthy
National Review ●August 8, 2020, 5:30 AM

Maybe Judge Luttig was right all along.

I had the misgivings you’d expect back in late May, when I disagreed with J. Michael Luttig, the stellar scholar and former federal appeals court judge, regarding how the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals should handle the Flynn case.

At the time, that court’s three-judge panel had not yet heard oral argument on Michael Flynn’s mandamus petition — i.e., Flynn’s request that the panel find that federal district judge Emmet Sullivan was acting lawlessly. Sullivan had not only failed to grant the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the criminal case against Flynn; he had appointed a former federal judge (the overtly anti-Trump John Gleeson) to posit the argument abandoned by DOJ — to wit, that Flynn should proceed to sentencing because he had pled guilty to a false-statements charge, waiving his right to contest the case any further in exchange for the government’s agreement not to file any other charges. Basically, Flynn was asking the appellate court to order Judge Sullivan to dismiss the case.

In a Washington Post op-ed, Luttig contended that “there are ample grounds in the actions the district court has already taken for the appeals court to order that the government’s motion to dismiss be heard by a different judge, and it should so order.”

It is interesting to revisit this assessment in light of an order issued by the D.C. Circuit on Wednesday. The Circuit directed that the participants in the dispute over Judge Sullivan’s actions, including Judge Sullivan himself, must address the question of whether Sullivan should either recuse himself or be disqualified by the Circuit. Arguments in the case will be heard this coming Tuesday, August 11, in a rare en banc review by the full Circuit (i.e., all active judges who have not taken senior status, minus one who has recused himself, so it will be a ten-judge panel).

Let’s back up for a moment.

Back in May, I disagreed with Luttig because I thought the more important issue was prejudice to Flynn, not the harm Sullivan’s apparent bias was causing to the court’s integrity. At the time, the D.C. Circuit had given Sullivan ten days to respond to Flynn’s mandamus petition. I argued that, rather than reassigning the case to another judge, the Circuit should give Sullivan a chance to explain himself. If he was unable to do that to the Circuit’s satisfaction, I posited that the Circuit should then order him to dismiss the case.

After Luttig and I, among other commentators, weighed in on what the appellate court should do, a three-judge panel heard argument. The panel granted Flynn’s mandamus petition and ordered Sullivan to dismiss the case. The 2–1 majority reasoned that, with possible exceptions that do not apply in Flynn’s case, the Justice Department’s discretion to end a prosecution is unreviewable. A dissenting opinion countered that mandamus, which is an extraordinary remedy disfavored by courts absent truly egregious judicial lawlessness, was premature — i.e., that Sullivan should be permitted to conduct a hearing and, if he decided not to grant dismissal, Flynn could then appeal. That would be the normal route to appellate review in a criminal case.

After the panel ruled for Flynn, Judge Sullivan asked the Circuit to rehear the case en banc. Sullivan’s petition was remarkable because he is not a party in the case. The only parties in a criminal prosecution are the government and the accused. The judge is the arbiter, not a litigant. The court is not supposed to have a stake in the outcome. It is unseemly for a judge to act as if he has become invested in the outcome of a case the way a party is. It strongly suggests a loss of judicial perspective.

Nevertheless, the D.C. Circuit granted Judge Sullivan’s petition. It vacated the panel’s ruling and agreed to full-court review.

At first blush, this seemed like doom for Flynn. After all, the full court skews heavily Democratic: seven of the ten judges who will hear the case were appointed by Democratic presidents. There are only four Republican appointees, and as noted above, one (appointed by President Trump) has recused himself. In modern times, there are enough blatantly politicized judicial decisions that people can be forgiven for assuming that partisanship always trumps law. Indeed, in the three-judge panel decision, the two majority judges who ruled in Flynn’s favor were Republican appointees, while the dissenter was a Democratic appointee.

Nevertheless, the mandamus litigation in Flynn’s case is not a brute political matter. Anyone who listened to the oral argument could tell how reluctant the judges seemed about issuing a mandamus writ against Judge Sullivan, even if they were convinced that he was wrong on the law. Furthermore, the main Circuit precedent, United States v. Fokker Services B.V. (2016), which clearly indicates that the Justice Department’s dismissal motion should be granted, was written by Chief Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan. He is often touted as a potential Supreme Court nominee in a future Democratic administration. For him, then, the case is a Catch-22: Walking away from his own reasoning in Fokker would be a bad look, while ruling in Flynn’s favor would be very unpopular among Democrats. In addition, we should note that any of the Circuit’s judges could have asked for en banc review by the full court. None did. The case is being heard because Sullivan himself pressed the issue.

The complications presented by the mandamus dispute were evident in the Circuit’s initial order scheduling the rehearing en banc, which added an intriguing directive: “The parties should be prepared to address whether there are ‘no other adequate means to attain the relief’ desired” (quoting from the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Cheney v. U.S. District Court). I interpret this somewhat cryptic assertion to indicate that, while the Circuit judges have agreed to reconsider the panel’s ruling because courts are generally hostile to mandamus, that hardly means the judges approve of the circus that Sullivan has made of the Flynn proceedings.

The judges seemed to be signaling that they know the case should be dismissed, but they’d prefer not to slam a longtime district judge if there is some way to avoid doing so. Perhaps they could deny the writ, but couch the denial in a way that reminded Judge Sullivan that a court must neither take over the prosecutor’s role nor probe the executive’s decision-making in a matter that the Constitution commits to executive discretion.

That is what makes Wednesday’s subsequent order regarding the en banc proceeding so interesting. The Circuit instructs counsel for Flynn, the Justice Department, and Judge Sullivan to consider the effect of Congress’s disqualification statute (Section 455 of Title 28, U.S. Code). Specifically, the participants in the mandamus dispute are told to address the law’s mandate that a judge be disqualified “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” particularly if the judge “is a party to the proceeding.”

Manifestly, at least some of the Circuit’s judges (I’d wager most of them) are disturbed by the degree to which Judge Sullivan has exhibited bias and become invested in Flynn’s case. This is exactly the problem on which Judge Luttig focused back in May.

It could thus turn out that Luttig presciently homed in on the dispositive issue. I believe, though, that it’s more a matter of new developments breaking, perhaps inevitably, in favor of disqualification. At the time Luttig wrote his op-ed, I still think it would have been premature for an appeals court to jump in and disqualify Judge Sullivan. The parties were not pushing for Sullivan to be removed, just that he be directed to grant the dismissal motion. And even in making his disqualification argument, Luttig conveyed some hesitation. He said the Circuit panel should grant the mandamus but in a more limited way than Flynn was suggesting: Have Judge Sullivan pick a different adviser (someone other than the explicitly biased Gleeson), then promptly rule on the motion to dismiss, explaining his reasoning in full so the appellate court could review it.

That is not consistent with Luttig’s other suggestion of having the case reassigned to another judge. But it was right: As things stood back in May, Sullivan should have been given an opportunity to do the right thing. Most of us were hoping he’d correct himself, rather than need to be corrected by a higher court.

Plus, let’s put personalities aside, as well as the understandable distaste judges have for mandamus (which essentially asks them to dress down a colleague). A federal appeals court also has very practical reasons for discouraging mandamus. The regular appellate process calls for a criminal case to be appealed only at the end of the lower court proceeding. At that point, the trial or plea is over, sentence has been imposed, the judgment has been entered, and the appeals court can deal with all the claims of error at once, with finality. Courts do not want to encourage litigants to start viewing mandamus as a way to appeal to the higher court in the middle of the lower court proceedings, any time a party claims a judge has made an error. Chaos would reign and cases would never end.

That said, things have significantly changed in the nearly three months since we analysts first opined on the mandamus dispute.

For one thing, Judge Sullivan retained his own counsel to argue the case on his behalf before the panel, as if he were a party. Then, when the panel’s decision did not go the way he wanted it to go, he took the highly unusual step of seeking en banc review. As the Justice Department pointed out, Sullivan did not have standing to seek reconsideration; he is not a party and did not comply with the rules government officials are supposed to follow before seeking a rehearing.

More to the point, by seeking full-court reconsideration of the mandamus matter when both the Justice Department and Flynn are seeking dismissal of the case, Sullivan is both causing prejudice to the defendant and stoking suspicion about the executive branch’s motives. How, then, could Sullivan continue to be considered a fair and impartial judge, fit to rule on the Justice Department’s dismissal motion?

That question may signal something about the wisdom of the D.C. Circuit judges that I previously failed to appreciate. The Justice Department’s contention that Sullivan lacks standing seemed compelling to me. I was surprised when the Circuit appeared to ignore it in granting Sullivan’s request for full-court review; I thought they’d deny it and let the panel’s ruling stand. But is it possible that the Circuit saw this as a graceful off-ramp? When none of the Circuit’s judges asked for full-court reconsideration, that signaled to Sullivan that if he wanted it, he would have to ask for it himself. The Circuit judges probably calculated that if the irascible Sullivan made a formal application for rehearing en banc, it would be manifest that he had transformed himself into a party in the Flynn case. Then the Circuit could use the disqualification rule to nudge him aside for the sake of maintaining the judiciary’s reputation for objectivity. That would avoid all the downsides of issuing a mandamus writ while gently reminding lower court judges that they are supposed to remain umpires in these contests, not become one of the players.

To sum up, whatever one may have thought about the gravity of Sullivan’s irregular behavior back in May, he has now clearly crossed the Rubicon. It is incumbent on him to recuse himself. If he can’t bring himself to do that — a failure that would further demonstrate a lack of judicial detachment — the D.C. Circuit should disqualify him. Either way, the case should be reassigned to a new judge, who should promptly grant the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss.

I’ll conclude with a verity that seems sadly lost on Judge Sullivan: Granting the Justice Department’s dismissal motion would not be a judicial endorsement of the motion, much less a court ruling that Flynn is not guilty. Judge Sullivan is absolutely entitled to believe the Justice Department is wrong to dismiss the case, and that Flynn is as guilty as the day is long. What a judge is not entitled to do, however, is substitute his view for the prosecutor’s on the question of whether a prosecution should continue. In our system, separation of powers principles make that the Justice Department’s call.

More from National Review

•D.C. Circuit Orders Judge Sullivan to Respond to Flynn Mandamus Petition

•Federal Appeals Court Orders Judge Sullivan to Dismiss the Flynn Case

•Respectfully Dissenting from Judge Luttig on Flynn Mandamus


[For previous reports on this case, see http://www.nnnforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=342850&highlight=Flynn , this site.]
 
Re: Doubt absolute power of "deep-state," suckers?--Full Fed DC appeals ct. gets nigga's case vs. Fl

More interesting commentary/discussion on this circus

 
Re: Doubt absolute power of "deep-state," suckers?--Full Fed DC appeals ct. gets nigga's case vs. Fl

Our Elites Are Idiots: Listen to DC Appeals Court Judge Wilkins Blather On About Hypothetical with Nuns and Priests During General Flynn Hearing (VIDEO) ​

Link: http://www.stationgossip.com/2020/08/our-elites-are-idiots-listen-to-dc.html

[see vid at site link, above]

The General Flynn hearing today before the DC Appeals Court was an embarrassment to the nation and our legal profession.

The US Department of Justice dropped charges against General Flynn months ago now.
But the crooked Judge Emmet Sullivan refuses to drop the case against the abused Trump official.

This is clearly abusive behavior. You don’t have to be a constitutional scholar to see that.
The DC Appeals Court this morning is embarrassing itself.

At one point Judge Leon Wilkins started blathering on about a hypothetical case with nuns and priests. How bizarre!

Wilkins is one of the clown judges appointed to one of the top courts in the country!
 
Re: Doubt absolute power of "deep-state," suckers?--Full Fed DC appeals ct. gets nigga's case vs. Fl

Powell, the shyster for Flynn comes on at 7:40 into the vid to comment on the ct travesty of today

 
Re: Doubt absolute power of "deep-state," suckers?--Full Fed DC appeals ct. gets nigga's case vs. Fl

Good shyster's analysis/summary of a long, boring, hearing by corrupt scum

 
Re: Doubt absolute power of "deep-state," suckers?--Full Fed DC appeals ct. gets nigga's case vs. Fl

Appeals Court Denies Flynn Request To Dismiss Case, Says Judge Can Probe DOJ Reversal​

DC Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Flynn’s petition in an 8-2 ruling

Zero Hedge - August 31, 2020 10 Comments

Link: https://www.infowars.com/appeals-co...smiss-case-says-judge-can-probe-doj-reversal/

Michael Flynn’s request to force a judge to immediately dismiss his case was shot down by a federal appeals court on Monday.

In an 8-2 ruling, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Flynn’s petition to force Judge Emmett Sullivan to accept the Justice Department’s motion to drop charges without holding a hearing, according to The Hill.

Flynn’s request that Sullivan be forced to recuse himself was also struck down, after his legal team argued that the judge acted improperly when he appointed a partisan outside attorney to argue against the DOJ’s decision to drop the case, and that it was inappropriate to ask the full circuit court to revisit an earlier decision by a three-member panel of the DC Circuit to drop the case.

Unless Flynn’s lawyers appeal to the Supreme Court, Sullivan will be able to move forward with a hearing about the DOJ’s unusual reversal in the case, before deciding whether to allow the Trump administration to withdraw its charges against the president’s former close aide.

Flynn had pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. and agreed to cooperate with the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in 2016 election. –The Hill

The DOJ filed a motion to drop the case against Flynn in May, after it was revealed that the FBI engaged in a ‘perjury trap’ against the former Trump National Security Adviser.
 
Re: Doubt absolute power of "deep-state," suckers?--Full Fed DC appeals ct. gets nigga's case vs. Fl

FOX News int-views Flynn's lawyer on latest judicial outrage

 
Re: Doubt absolute power of "deep-state," suckers?--Full Fed DC appeals ct. gets nigga's case vs. Fl

Bongino analyzes the political situation regarding Flynn case--for it's all POLITICAL, see

 
Re: Doubt absolute power of "deep-state," suckers?--Full Fed DC appeals ct. gets nigga's case vs. Fl

Here the DOJ officially comments--so now nigga will have hearing w. his own appointed lawyer (who will argue about the DOJ dropping charges).

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top