Skip to comments.Von Spakovsky & Malcolm: Flynn judge disagrees with own rulings by letting outsiders fight dropping charges [Good read]
Posted on 05/13/2020 5:47:41 PM PDT by jazusamo
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivans order soliciting comments from outsiders opposed to the Justice Departments motion to throw out charges of lying to FBI agents against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is highly unusual and contradicts earlier rulings by the judge.
Sullivans order, issued Tuesday, solicits friend of the court (amicus curiae in legal parlance) briefs from third parties on the request by the Justice Department to halt the prosecution of Flynn. It is particularly odd because Sullivan previously resisted all third-party efforts to intervene in the case. The judge did this a total of 24 times, according to Flynns lawyer, Sidney Powell.
Moreover, the new order directly conflicts with Sullivans Dec. 20, 2017 order, in which he said: The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal cases.
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which issues rulings that are binding on Judge Sullivan, has taken an expansive view of the Rinaldi case. In U.S. v. Fokker Services (2016), it held that, while Rule 48(a) appears to give a trial court discretion as to whether to grant the motion, that discretion is limited.
Importantly, the appeals court said the rule is designed to protect defendants against harassment from the government routinely dismissing and then refiling charges. It does not confer on courts any substantial role in determining whether charges should be dismissed.
And heres a crucial point the appeals court made: It explicitly rejected the view that a trial judge should be permitted to deny a dismissal motion based on his or her personal belief that a defendant should stand trial or that any remaining charges would fail to address the gravity of the defendants conduct.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
This piece gets into the law on why judge Sullivan is doing what he is and also that the DC District Appeals Court probably won't agree with him.
Dershowitz: Judge should dismiss Flynn case or be impeached
“If this judge has the gall to not throw this out, he ought to be impeached.
Remember that judges only have jurisdiction for cases and controversies,” Dershowitz said.
“Theres no controversy here.
Both sides agree this case should be dismissed.
This judge has no power to do anything else. And if he asserts that power, he has violated the Constitution.”
My take: Someone very (very) high up is desperate to keep Flynn from talking.
I agree 100%. If the Judge wants to disprove this, he should remove the GAG order immediately!
More information. Sullivan's decision on amicus looks like it contradict his past rulings.
United States v. FLYNN (1:17-cr-00232) Dec. 17, 2017 in particular.
Current DC Court rules LocalRulesJanuary_2019.pdf if interested.
As someone correctly pointed out, Obama let slip that Flynn committed perjury. Most people jumped on that commit, correctly pointing out the Flynn was not charged with perjury.
Well, surprise, surprise. As part of Sullivan’s order, he asked this judge to look into perjury charges on Flynn. The pretzel logic is this: When Flynn swore under oath that he lied to FBI, when in fact he didn’t lie, then he committed perjury.
This is clearly a coordinated effort that includes both Obama and Sullivan. Most likely the Lawfare group is leading this.
Yes the request that the extra judge argue that Flynn committed perjury and should be held in contempt is particularly outrageous. Flynn is trying to withdraw his guilty plea because he’s innocent. To find him guilty of a crime for having pled guilty when he was really innocent, is just twisted.
Once again, all kinds of technical “crimes” that no reasonable judge or prosecutor would ever pursue.
Sullivan is pulling this kamakaze move because he was given an offer he couldn’t refuse.
I'm not sure what the legal ramifications are, but this case is very different because there was no trial.
I wish Flynn well, but I've been saying for months that he's facing a serious legal quandary of his own making.
Thanks, I’ve thought about that also and have no idea if that will affect this.
How much of those billions in Iran funding found their way into Sullivan’s pockets?
Support Free Republic Folks, Donate Today!
My guess that this rigmarole is an attempt to prevent any hearings on the wrongdoing Flynn's lawyers and the DOJ document releases have brought to light, at least until after the election. If Biden wins, all of it will be deep-sixed.
To find him guilty of a crime for having pled guilty when he was really innocent, is just twisted.
So the corrupt FBI beats a false confession out of someone, then when they recant the false confession, the court charges them with perjury. Kafkaesque.
Do you have a legal citation to support this? Every plea deal in a criminal case is signed under the threat of more serious charges, isn't it?
Couldn't the defendant who pleads guilty to manslaughter to avoid a murder charge say the same thing? "This was extortion. I was under duress when I signed that plea deal."
Isn’t every guilty plea bargain of an innocent person perjury by this logic?
Flynn signed his plea agreement under penalty of perjury.
AC, any competent lawyer will tell you that the facts mean more than the wording on a piece of paper if the facts are backed up by their own pieces of paper and testimony.
Lawyers write documents all the time that do not stand in part or totally because there are mitigating conditions and standards that have to be met in order for these to be valid. For example, two items that you are consistently ignoring, the standards of duress and informed consent.
False analogy. If a defendant were to were allowed to withdraw a guilty plea to manslaughter in a plea agreement, then the prosecution would be allowed to return to the original charge of murder. In this case the DOJ does not want to bring any charges. A judges role is to mediate disputes between litigants. Here there is no dispute; they both want the case dismissed.
Someone very (very) high up is desperate to keep Flynn from talking.
And drag it out until after the election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.