Posted on 05/27/2020 11:47:00 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sixteen former Watergate prosecutors on Wednesday said U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan should be allowed to review all the facts before deciding whether to grant a Justice Department request to drop the criminal case against President Donald Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
In a filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the former prosecutors said they feared the Justice Department was not acting in the public interest, and that Sullivan has the power to scrutinize the request in order to ensure that “the waters of justice are not polluted.”
Flynn filed an emergency petition with the federal appeals court on May 21, asking the court to force Sullivan's hand and toss the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
“Sixteen former Watergate prosecutors”
Yeah, that carries a lot of weight with me.
Plus, Flynn was USAF.
Did the Court of Appeals say they would accept briefs from outsiders? This is what got Sullivan into trouble in the first place.
Well let me remove all doubt. The fact that they have not come out demanding that former Obama administration officials be investigated for illegally spying on candidate Trump and most likely thousands of other Americans is enough to disqualify them from ever voicing their opinions on any legal matter.
Um, usually when you put something in quotations it means they are not your words, but you are quoting from the article. As I was.
I was not defending Sullivan.
You must be talking another Flynn, the one referenced is/was US Army.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn
The entire FBI case is based on "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree":
REPEAT: Your "Honor", Sullivan: Remember Brady?
Do you accept entrapment of the innocent, political activism and meting out punishment as legitimate FBI activities?
Or -- do you do so only when so instructed by your blackmailers?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Justice-loving America awaits your answer(s)...
TXnMA
How is the "Department of Justice" a judge's boss?
“Sullivan actually came into this case after the Trial judge recused himself without explanation, after Flynn pled guilty. “
According to this article, Sullivan came in shortly after Contreras took the Flynn plea but was very active in making the decision regards sentencing.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-an-unusual-turn-in-the-michael-flynn-case
My bad.
Hillary was a very junior — just out of law school — lawyer for the House Judiciary committee. Look how old she is? Any “Watergate Prosecutor” out there, and still kickin’, was either a junior go-fer like Hillary, or is so old as to be senile.
If he can get a quick sentencing done prior to the higher court review, he will. This guy is 100% committed to railroading Flynn, doesn’t care what it does to his reputation. To be so rabid about it that he’s willing to shred his reputation he has to either be being blackmailed or paid. No other explanation (certainly not Obama asked him nicely) makes any sense.
You know that eventually, Judge Sullivan will claim he’s protecting Flynn, arguing that once Flynn changed his plea, the government dropped the charges so they could be re-filed in a different courtroom and they could give him a more serious punishment than he would get under the plea agreement.
It’s bogus BS, but when his back is against the wall, he will try it.
Which tells you just how thoroughly corrupt and morally bankrupt Hitlery is.
Yes, but the NWO doesn't on merit, does it.
If she weren't related to the Rockefellers and known to be willing to tell any lie for the Deep State cause (e.g., to crucify Houston Project, CIA-past RMN), her legal career would have had to start over at the bottom, with those in the bottom 4% of their class at Podunk U. School of Law.
But she's a Rockefeller and so's Slick. They're cousins, which is why they were each willing to overlook the other's bent, sexual proclivities and why, when she wanted to look the Mommy (Dearest) role with cute offspring, she found Webb to "help."
>>>No one knows why the original judge recused himself. He just announced one day in court that he was recusing and then Sullivan was in.<<<
Maybe his chummy relationship with Strzok and Page had something to do with it?:
The Supreme Court case is US v. Sineneng-Smith. Not on point but generally states that courts ought not get out their box and too creative. The Ninth Circuit has ruled an arguments not raised before it. Fokker Services is the relevant DC precedent. Much closer to being on point and stand for the proposition that the “leave of court” requirement for dismissal is essentially just a rubber stamp- prosecutorial decisions are vested in the prosecutor and the prosecutor only. I’ve been espousing the view that, because Fokker Services is so plainly dispositive, consistent with usual practice the appellate court is signaling the judge that it will issue the writ and reverse him in that basis. This is commonly done to give the trial judge to gracefully back off an inappropriate decision before the court of appeal acts to reverse him
I was just wondering who or which Branch of Government has control of, in this case, a judge on the Federal District Court of D.C.?
Do Federal District Judges act independently or to whom are they responsible.
Appointed by Presidents and then .....?
Any help would be appreciated.
Three separate branches of government. Executive, legislative and judicial.
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.