Posted on 06/08/2020 9:28:13 AM PDT by jazusamo
Oral arguments are set to take place this week, when U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan will have to explain why he has not signed off on the Justice Departments motion to dismiss its case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
The hearing marks another extraordinary turn in an extraordinary -- and seemingly interminable -- case that has brought pressure upon both the Justice Department and the judge overseeing it. After calling into question the DOJs choice to drop Flynns prosecution, Sullivan is now in the position of defending his own decision.
~snip~
Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that prosecutors may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. Retired Judge John Gleeson, chosen by Sullivan to file an amicus curiae brief, claimed in a May Washington Post op-ed he co-authored that this means a motion to dismiss is actually just a request. As a judge in 2013, however, he wrote that courts are generally required to grant a prosecutors Rule 48(a) motion unless dismissal is clearly contrary to manifest public interest.
Trump allies have criticized Sullivan's handling of what was initially thought to be the coda of Flynn's legal saga.
"What I see is the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure dont allow for what Judge Sullivan is doing," former Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker told Fox News in May. Whitaker said that prosecutors are the ones who decide which cases they pursue, and that "theres really no discretion on the judge based on the current state of the law."
~snip~
In 2009, Judge Sullivan presided over the case of former Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who had been found guilty of lying on a Senate ethics form before a whistleblower in the FBI revealed that evidence had been withheld from Stevens.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
This azzclown should be given a choice: sign off or your azz is going to jail instead.
Easy. Because his handlers told him not to dismiss.
Easy. Because his handlers told him not to dismiss.
In 2009, Judge Sullivan presided over the case of former Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who had been found guilty of lying on a Senate ethics form before a whistleblower in the FBI revealed that evidence had been withheld from Stevens.
—
Gee, what a coincidence. Sullivan must be the go-to judge for deep-state kangaroo courts.
Flynn is the Deep State's LAST hanging thread of symbolism of "Trump-Russia collusion" and they can't let that go! Sullivan is running-out-the-clock on the already run-out clock.
Wasn’t his ten days up last week?
There’s no way that Obama isn’t behind the scenes pulling Sullivan’s strings.
Yeah. And his argument was stupid, but about 45 pages long.
The ‘Shadow President’ is still giving the orders.
“unless dismissal is clearly contrary to manifest public interest.”
That is what he will claim.
I think they are threatening him now by DOJ appealing the decision to aquit Raffekian over the FARA charges.
-PJ
This review by a higher court is moving at light speed for the courts. Usually everything is set for many weeks later, especially when a defendant is not in custody.
Just pointing this out. Numerous legal eagles have said that the short timeline on this indicates the higher court is taking it very seriously.
The whole thing is very curious to put it mildly. After it is dismissed with prejudice, I hope Flynn will tell us whatever it is that he knows that caused the “gag order.” He is the only one from the Mueller prosecutions that is still under a gag order.
He was ordered to (I believe) appear before the circuit court in that ten days and his attorney only submitted the brief in writing.
If that is the case I hope the Circuit Court ripped Sullivan for that and told him in no uncertain terms to appear.
I suppose we got our money’s worth. /s
“Oral arguments are set to take place this week, when U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan will have to explain . . .”
Will the Judge be present to explain, or will his hirelings explain?
I didn’t bother to read the entire article.
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.