The Constitution Requires Judge Emmet Sullivan’s Lawless Amicus Order Against Michael Flynn Be Overturned

The Federalist ^ | May 14, 2020 | Margot Cleveland

[tennmountainman]

Exactly!

[DesertRhino]

It was not legitimate. It is illegal as hell to unmask for political purposes.

[thoughtomator]

DC Circuit would have to overturn their own precedent to not agree, at which point it definitely goes to SCOTUS.

[Thank You Rush]

“”The government’s motion to dismiss highlighted new evidence uncovered by an outside U.S. attorney, Jeff Jensen””

What on earth is an OUTSIDE U. S. Attorney?

[Desslok]

and the DOJ withdrew the case because it was deemed fraudulent to begin with and never should of happened.

It’s over judge. You can’t extended it into overtime just to garner amicus briefs to smear Flynn, Trump and Barr.

DOJ will undoubtedly go to the DC Appeals Court and petition them stop the proceedings and yank the power cord out of Sullivan.

If it wasn’t Flynn but some 18 yr old kid accused of robbing a liquor store (and the judge pulls this stunt) would we even have this debate? Nope.

[gloryblaze]

...What on earth is an OUTSIDE U. S. Attorney?

He was hired by Barr to lend a fresh eye. He is from "outside" the DOJ.

[Thank You Rush]

Absolutely incredible!! An op-ed written by the judge who is asked to serve in the case? What is happening? They don’t know enough to even keep their mouths shut about cases they will be hearing? Some people here are old enough to remember the furor caused by President Nixon when he remarked on the Charles Manson trial and here we have a judge showing clearly his bias...

Improper political influence?? He’s kidding, right? They are in WASHINGTON, DC where the only thing that matters is POLITICAL INFLUENCE!

“”The same day Judge Sullivan named Judge Gleeson to serve in the amicus curiae role, the Washington Post ran an op-ed co-authored by Gleeson, entitled, “The Flynn case isn’t over until the judge says it’s over.” “The Justice Department’s move to dismiss the prosecution of former national security adviser Michael Flynn does not need to be the end of the case—and it shouldn’t be,” he opened. Then, after misrepresenting the Rule 48(b)’s “leave of court” requirement, Gleeson suggests dismissal of the Flynn case would be inappropriate because “the record reeks of improper political influence.””

[Fido969]

I think the Fokker case clearly addresses this issue, and provides an immediate remedy.

[ptsal]

Also see Post 14 - http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3844781/posts

. Good lead... thanks

On April 5, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) overturned the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the District Court) in United States v. Fokker Services B.V., finding that the requirement of court approval to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act does not grant judges the authority “to second-guess the Executive’s exercise of discretion over the initiation and dismissal of criminal charges.”1 The District Court opinion had provoked considerable interest from both prosecutors and the defense bar, raising questions over the interplay between prosecutorial discretion and judicial review of criminal settlements. In finding the District Court had overstepped its authority, the D.C. Circuit confirmed that charging decisions (as opposed to sentencing) are firmly within the purview of the executive branch, and that deferred prosecution agreements concern the core prosecutorial decisions about what charges to bring and, if brought, whether to dismiss them.

https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2016/04/dc-circuit-affirms-primacy-of-prosecutorial-discre

United States v. Fokker Servs. BV, No. 15-3016

Fokkering Judge Sullivan.

[semimojo]

...never right before a change of power -days or hours- and certainly not without a national security issue...

Where did you hear that?

There are on average over 10k unmasking requests each year - that's more than 27 each day.

Why would they stop before a transition?

Besides, you don't think an unknown American talking about US sanctions with the Russian ambassador is relevant to national security?

[semimojo]

He was the target of the wiretap.

You don't think we would have been monitoring Kislyak otherwise?

[DOC44]

“The unmasking was legit and unremarkable. It happens thousands of times each year.
The leaking to the press was the crime”

Yes the leaking to the press is the crime but considering the timing of these requests; after the election and up to the day of Trumps inauguration. What was their interest... Obamma’s reign was over and what could they do with any information they received.... except to undermine Trumps presidency? Coup material.

[semimojo]

It is illegal as hell to unmask for political purposes.

But it would have been malpractice by the intelligence and diplomatic community not to request the unmasking of an American discussing sanctions with Kislyak.

Are you saying he should have stayed anonymous?

[semimojo]

...but considering the timing of these requests; after the election and up to the day of Trumps inauguration.

That's when the calls took place.

What was their interest... Obamma’s reign was over and what could they do with any information they received.... except to undermine Trumps presidency?

I hope our government never loses interest in Americans' discussions about sanctions with the Russian government.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

The problem is that this isn't a charging decision because he already has been convicted. At this point, it's at sentencing. And Rule 48(b) changed the common law rule that the government could nolle pros without leave of court.

It's not clear cut either way.

[DOC44]

“”...but considering the timing of these requests; after the election and up to the day of Trumps inauguration.””

“That’s when the calls took place.”

“”What was their interest... Obamma’s reign was over and what could they do with any information they received.... except to undermine Trumps presidency?””

“I hope our government never loses interest in Americans’ discussions about sanctions with the Russian government. “

WOW... I must be on the wrong board. But I never go to DU.

[P-Marlowe]

No. This was a targeted wiretap. They knew Flynn was in the DR. They were monitoring Flynn, not Kislyak.

[AndyJackson]

And if denied it goes to the Supreme Court. AJ Ginsberg just wrote an opinion in a 9-0 case a week ago reversing the 9th circus for this behavior making exactly the same points.

[P-Marlowe]

I hope our government never loses interest in Americans' discussions about sanctions with the Russian government.

Wow. You’re discussing Russian sanctions. Maybe they should take an interest in YOU!!!!

[thirst4truth]

Judge Sullivan is going senile. There is clearly something wrong with him. Its frightening the partisan evil going after Flynn, the left is really beginning to scare me.