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 ...
DC courts: outlaws from USA constitutional law, most of the time. Serving DC’s owners, USA enemies for decades now.
indicates the higher court is taking it very seriously....”
If the court were taking this seriously it would have acted and ended it.
Sullivan will not be shot down. The higher court is facilitating him. This is not a legal question, it is purely political and “legal reasoning” has nothing to do with it.
Nope. Because his blackmailers told him not to dismiss.
No difference. IMHO.
[mad_as_he$$] Because his handlers told him not to dismiss."[TXnMA] Nope. Because his blackmailers told him not to dismiss.
Because of his own self-interest. Just look at the truly massive Brady (discovery) violations that he condoned in his courtroom. He needs to keep control of the case for his own sake. Note that the Flynn Petition asked, in part, for the D.C. Circuit to "assign the case to another judge for any additional proceedings."
Still don’t understand why they are having oral arguments. Is it because the Appeals court wants to hear directly from him.
Were that true and critical, Trump could just issue a pardon.Whatever it might be cant be as important as Flynn getting an acquittal - and the ability to sue some people for libel.
Will the Judge be present to explain, or will his hirelings explain?
Just as a followup to my comment at #31,
06/08/2020 FORM 72 submitted by arguing attorney, Jeffrey B. Wall, on behalf of Respondent USA.
06/10/2020 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE [1846486] filed by Jeffrey B. Wall and co-counsel Jocelyn Ballantine on behalf of Respondent USA [20-5143] (Wall, Jeffrey)
As previously noted, Sydney Powell for Michael Flynn and Beth Wilkinson for Judge Sullivan.
Sked for June 12, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.
Thanks for the followup.
I didn’t think Judge Sullivan would risk speaking for himself; but I didn’t know for sure.
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.