Posted on 08/31/2020 9:19:44 AM PDT by janetjanet998
#Flynn Appeals court denies former National Security adviser @GenFlynn ’s effort to force a judge to immediately dismiss charges. 61 page opinion. ORDER attached.
Very predictable. Judges out of control.
Think she wanted immediate dismissal.
Gateway Pundit is calling this a win for Flynn, because it is a refusal of mandamus, which Sullivan wanted, so he could pick another judge to continue Flynn’s trial. So the appeals court sent it back to Sullivan to CLOSE the case. With dispatch. Meaning asap.
Any legal beagles out there know if the above is correct?
The Court had several options for directing Judge Sullivan to follow the law and the Constitution which he is ignoring. They chose to do nothing and used mandamus as the excuse. A political decision, no doubt.
Looks like Gateway Pundit has made a correction in the title of the article. They took out “RIGHTLY.” So it looks like GP has changed it’s tune on whether this was a good ruling.
Take it to the USSC. They’ve already ruled on this.
See post 65.
So if the DOJ is not prosecuting Flynn, will the Judge take over the case himself?
Ah. Thank you. That was very confusing.
You’re welcome.
So you are saying that when deciding a write of mandamus, the law governing mandamus should be ignored and something else should be done?
“Is a pardon next?”
Why would you need a pardon when the government has dropped the case.
No, they will let this play out to see just how corrupt Emmett is.
They want it to stall until beyond the election to keep Flynn out of this Administration, with the hopes that Trump will lose. That is the goal.
Pretty confusing IMHO. Here is the text of Sidney's Tweet:
1h: "The En Banc D.C. Circuit has denied the writ of mandamus requested by @GenFlynn -- split as expected along lines evident from the tone and tenor of the judges at oral argument. The opinion and dissents are here. https://sidneypowell.com/the-michael-t-flynn-case… It is a disturbing blow to the #RuleOfLaw"
No. Courts, especially Federal Courts of Appeals are reluctant to grant mandamus, with some good reasons. The Courts use appeals to correct and discipline District Judges, but an appeal can only be filed when the District Judge issues a judgment, which Judge Sullivan has refused to do.
The Court could have issued a Writ of Prohibitiion without granting mandamus. Such writs limits the options available to the District Judge. This would have probably been the best option given that the case was essentially dead and the only true option to Judge Sullivan was to dismiss. The Court could have done this, but chose not to do it. Why, because they liked what Judge Sullivan is doing it because it suits their political agenda.
Thank you!
So a court can issue a writ of prohibition without being asked?
Why didn’t Powell ask for a writ of prohibition?
And you are saying that the court was politically corrupt because they did not issue a writ of prohibition despite not being asked?
Yes, they can.
Why didn’t Powell ask for a writ of prohibition?
You'd have to ask her, I think that it would have been a better option.
And you are saying that the court was politically corrupt because they did not issue a writ of prohibition despite not being asked?
No. My opinon on their corruption was discussed in detail when the Court agreed to grant an en banc hearing. You are welcome to look at that. Check my posts
You are trolling. Goodbye.
Ah, name calling.
You knew the question about jurisdiction was coming, didn’t you?
Gratz! You got off the hook!
It was.Everything about this including the system is political.Sullivan is following obama’s orders. And the Court is protecting him. If the People don’t like that they should not have put obama in the White House.
Once the guilty plea was entered the case was over except for sentencing. Only the judge and the defendant were left, meaning that there is/was no more prosecutor left to call off the case.
That's what Sullivan realized and it's why the en banc appeals panel agreed with him. They are following the law, as disagreeable as that is. Courts aren't going to give you a shortcut when you can get to your goal by following their rules.
There is a way to end this but Powell hasn't tried it. She can request a withdrawal of Flynn's guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e).
Flynn appears to be factually innocent as described in that rule and therefore qualified to have his guilty plea withdrawn. But the prosecutor can't do it. It's up to the judge, and at this point Powell hasn't asked him to.
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.