Replies

Clearly the panel was concerned about politics, and not the law or the rights of the accused.

So....the Judge CANNOT be the ACCUSER and sit to hear the evidence. Flynn, cannot face his accusers any longer in this court. Flynn is DENIED his 4 th Amendment rights in this process.

Sullivan should file a complaint with the DOJ, or the upper level court, to hear his charges. However, he must grant Flynn his innocence and freedom while he plays prosecutor.

Judge Sullivan has, with the help of partisan democratic lawyers, now accused Flynn of a crime. He has also accused the DOJ, and the AG of not prosecuting the case for political reasons, which may be criminal.

Exactly, and it becomes clear now as to what Sullivan is up to: he is trying to set up another impeachment. Wall knows the implications of what Sullivan is doing (underlining mine):

Mr. Wall:

I think Judge Rao, that the separation of powers harms here. You're right, they can be very subtle and very abstract in a lot of cases, I think they are stark in its concrete here as it comes, because here we know from that what transpired below and from the briefs in this court that what the District court is contemplating is a sort of intrusive, fact intensive inquiry into what they say are a host of factual questions.

Why did particular prosecutors not signed the brief? Why did the Attorney General make this decision? Was he right on these various grounds? What about the uncharged conduct? With respect to the Turkey statements…we're going to have to breathe and apparently put on evidence in defence of all of that so that the District Court can then reach a decision, one circuit law compels him to grant the motion, and I think that it is an intrusive process and it is gonna harm the executive and he can't ignore that it is playing out in a politicized environment that I think is made worse by the kind of…honestly that sort 70 page almost polemic that amicus filed which alleges that the President and the Attorney General have engaged in grave misconduct.