U.S. appeals court orders judge to dismiss case against Michael Flynn

CNBC.com ^ | 6/24/2020 | Dan Mangan

[gwjack]

Just a headline for now. Gwjack

[nesnah]

I assume Flynn can now tell his side?

---

I’m assuming the gag order that’s been in place from the beginning of this travesty will be lifted. I further assume that General Flynn will have a whole lot to say about this and many other things.

Bammy’s sphincter just tightened up a we bit. Reggie will be a happy guy tonight.

[Tunehead54]

Now come the herd of TV lawyers pointing out the district judge’s options for delay or appeal.

---

Naw - he's done. A judge is bound by his district's court of appeal.

"Because of that, “we grant the petition for mandamus in part and

order the district court to grant the government’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss the charges against Flynn,”

the court said."

[SaxxonWoods]

The dissenting judge: ″ This appears to be the first time that we have issued a writ of mandamus to compel a district court to rule in a particular manner on a motion without first giving the lower court a reasonable opportunity to issue its own ruling,” Wilkins wrote. This is the first time a judge has attempted to be a prosecutor, so of course it's the first slap-down.

[freeandfreezing]

Here is the opinion.

[Lockbox]

I hope so, but never count out the Deep State.

[Tunehead54]

For reference - this thread:

Naw - He's done.

$20 says Sullivan will dismiss with prejudice. Takers?

Just got my $429 power bill ... ;-)

[freedomlover]

I’m not arguing with you on the law. I’m actually a lawyer.

But we all know this isn’t about the law, it’s about keeping the gag order on Flynn. That’s why this will NOT happen any time soon.

[mad_as_he$$]

No surprise.....sad.

[PGalt]

Thanks for the ping, bitt. Very good news. BUMP!

[RetiredArmy]

UGGGGGGGGGGG, YOU WATCH CNBC!!! Good grief!!!

[LeonardFMason]

IF Sullivan says “NO. Thanks.” he will likely be subject to removal from the bench. WHATEVER he does will be appealed to the court that just ORDERED him to dismiss the case.

This is a MAJOR “Bitch Slap” to Sullivan.

[LeonardFMason]

BTW, the REAL fireworks begin when Flynn starts talking.

Remember, he worked for Obama. He can start sling mud all over that administration.

He will talk about the absolute underhanded and corrupt tactics of the FBI.

This is JUICY.

[Erik Latranyi]

Remember, he worked for Obama. He can start sling mud all over that administration.

That is why they were trying to run the clock on Flynn....so he could not damage Biden before the election.

[AndyJackson]

First loose log of a rather large jam.

Someone who knows about these things told me that you can't fix a log jam by removing one log. You need dynamite.

[centurion316]

Thanks for the link to the opinion. It is a long read, but well worth the time. Judge Rao’s majority opinion is a major slapdown of everything that the Coup d’Etat cabal and their allies in the bar and the judiciary attempted to do here. Thank God for Sydney Powell and her hard work.

In his opinion, Judge Rao cites Fokker and points out the clear limitations in Rule 48 for the application of the “leave of the court” clause. It is there for the sole reason to protect defendants from prosecutorial harassment. Prosecutorial and Judiciary harassment was exactly what was going on before Attorney General Barr and Sydnel Powell weighed in on this travesty. The opinion is quite damning to what the Obama Administration tried to do.

[gwjack]

Nope; I’m not a CNBC viewer. But as I watch the markets daily to manage my portfolios, CNBC.com will send me breaking news.

It is all about the dollars for me.

Gwjack

[freeandfreezing]

I agree. The majority opinion shows just how far outside of the existing case law the position of Judge Sullivan and his amicus were. Their decide to include the sentence vacating the order appointing the amicus makes that point very clearly.

[Tunehead54]

Still time to get in on #46 - this thread.

I’m licensed in CA but my dues are maybe 25 years in arrears listed as “inactive” - no discipline, no nothing.

I didn’t practice - I worked (there is a distinction) for 10 years+ but it turns out you have to work with other lawyers whose interests are not their client’s or the opposition - just theirs. Back then any civil suit was 5 years of misery and the occasional heart attack or ulcers.

Present company excepted, of course. ;-)

At the time I thought PCs were going to be really big and went that direction. BTW - I was right.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

No, it would not give him standing. He has no personal interest in the case. To assert any kind of standing would make him a de facto party to a case he is presiding over.

Again, I don't believe that is correct. There is a U.S. Supreme Court case from 1957 in which a Court of Appeals had granted a writ of mandamus against a district court judge who had referred a case to a magistrate without the consent of the parties.

The judge filed with the Supreme Court an appeal of that Court of Appeals decision. The Court took the case, ruled on the merits rather than dismissing for lack of standing, and upheld the granting of the Writ by the Court of Appeals.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/352/249/

[AndyJackson]

So Judge Wilkins is a deep state hack too - arguing the irrelevant - that this court ordering dismissal tramps on Sullivan's discretion to order dismissal, precluding him from exercising that discretion to dismiss.

But such discretion is vacuous since he has no power to do anything except dismiss, and the COA does not overstep its authority in expeditiously doing what Sullivan failed expeditiously to do.