Posted on 05/12/2020 4:59:56 PM PDT by Hostage
Now the purpose of the leaked conference call, aka instructions, from former President Barack Obama come into play. In a very unusual move today Michael Flynn’s judge, Emmet Sullivan, enters an order granting outside parties the time to enter amicus briefs (friend of the court) to assist in guiding the court; a briefing schedule to follow.
It looks like the judge wants to give former DOJ employees (2,000 signatures on letter) an opportunity to publicly undermine and undercut the position of the DOJ in moving to dismiss the charges. Infuriating, remarkable and transparently political.
Judge Sullivan even cited famously political Judge Amy Berman Jackson, a subtle hat/tip to President Obama’s recent May 8th instructions. Sullivan’s order can put to rest any contemplation of him holding corrupt prosecutor Brandon Van Grack to account; and only further delays removing the sword of damocles from atop Lt. General Michael Flynn.
The transparent purpose of allowing public comment, specifically from the Lawfare resistance group, is to undermine the DOJ and further create a political narrative around AG Bill Barr. However, on the positive side this might stir Barr to release even more damaging information to counter the political efforts of Judge Sullivan. Quite remarkable.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
Unfrigginbelievable.
I looked up Flynn and Wiki still lists his political affiliation as Democrat.
Dems will destroy any other Dem who attempts to put Country Over Party. Period.
Somebody have pictures of the naked judge with little boys?
Please provide examples of where this Clinton appointed judge was a ‘good guy’.
Instead of adjudicating the case presented by the parties, however, the court named three amici and invited them to brief and argue issues framed by the panel, including a question never raised by Sineneng-Smith: Whether the statute is overbroad under the First Amendment. ....
The Nation’s adversarial adjudication system follows the principle of party presentation. Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U. S. 237, 243. “In both civil and criminal cases, . . . we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.” Id., at 243
In other words, Sullivan doesn’t even have Ginsburg on his side.
Remember that those 2,000 former employees include Comey, McCabe, Page, Holder, Lynch, and every other bottom feeder ever employed in the DOJ.
The case has been adjudicated. Flynn pleaded guilty.
Find a comparable ruling addressing sentencing and you'll have something.
Nope. Sullivan still holds jurisdiction.
You beat me by ten minutes in bringing up this decision. I wonder if Flynn’s lawyer can file for an emergency appeal to SCOTUS. Their decision was unanimous that the lower courts are not parties to the controversies and should not be soliciting advice. That is simply not how it works and it never has been.
This is good, the battle is joined, full nuclear release, time for Barr to dump a semi-load of red meat on the system.
I wonder what the judge would say if he found out he is going to be interfering with a criminal investigation?
hope someone will post this as an article - maybe Epoch Times original:
12 May: AMAC: CIA Watchdog Sitting on Secret House Report Allegedly Critical of Brennan’s Role in Russian Meddling Assessment
by Ivan Pentchoukov and Jan Jekielek, Epoch Times
A separate, classified report holed up at the Office of the CIA Inspector General (IG) sheds damning light on the role then-CIA Director John Brennan played in the preparation of the report, former National Security Council Chief of Staff Fred Fleitz learned from House Intelligence Committee staff. A source familiar with the report’s fate would not deny that the report went to the office of the CIA IG.
The report states that Brennan overruled agency analysts who wanted to include strong intelligence in the assessment to show that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted Hillary Clinton to win the election, Fleitz says, citing conversations with House Intelligence Committee staffers. Brennan had also rejected analysts who wanted to strike weak intelligence from the report that suggested that Russia favored Trump, Fleitz said.
“So Brennan actually slanted this analysis, choosing anti-Trump intelligence and excluding anti-Clinton intelligence,” Fleitz told The Epoch Times...
Fleitz said he had personally reached out to acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell about releasing the House report. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence didn’t respond to a request for comment.
https://amac.us/cia-watchdog-sitting-on-secret-house-report-allegedly-critical-of-brennans-role-in-russian-meddling-assessment/
I presume that first Sydney Powell will file a motion to reconsider based upon this decision. Then appeal to the DC Circuit COA.
I presume that first Sydney Powell will file a motion to reconsider based upon this decision. Then appeal to the DC Circuit COA.
Already done. Saw it on the Trump thread here.
Find a comparable ruling addressing sentencing and you'll have something.
Those cases are already in the DOJ's brief in support of their motion to dismiss.
There are plenty of examples of prosecutors moving to dismiss charges, and even terminate imprisonment where the prosecutors realize the defendant, convicted or not, is innocent.
I think it would be challenging to find any case where the prosecutors declared the innocence of the defendant and the judge went on to impose a sentence anyway.
The only arguments the amicus briefs can make is that the DOJ is wrong, and they should be ignored. If the Court takes that position the entire process of federal criminal litigation just changed. At that point amicus briefs would be relevant for every trial and sentencing hearing.
Apparently since this is unconstitutional, the judge has declined these briefs 24 times in his own court.
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.