Posted on 05/13/2020 12:18:11 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
The fate of former national security adviser Michael Flynn lies in the hands of a federal judge with an established reputation of being a fiercely independent thinker.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, who was appointed to the bench in 1994 by former President Clinton, will determine whether to grant the request by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to drop charges against Flynn, who pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to federal agents about conversations he had with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
On Tuesday evening, Sullivan pulled a surprise, announcing in a court filing that he would allow interested parties to weigh in on the case with amicus briefs, an unusual move for a criminal prosecution, and enter a scheduling order “at the appropriate time.” The move was opposed by Flynn's lawyers, who argued that it would be inappropriate to allow third parties to weigh in on the case.
Sullivan has several options for responding to the DOJ motion beyond Tuesday’s action.
Sullivan could eventually move to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning Flynn’s case would be permanently dismissed and he could never be charged again for the same incident. Or, the judge could grant dismissal without prejudice, which would allow the case to be considered again — particularly if the White House flips in November.
Another option is for Sullivan to collect as much information as he sees fit before making a decision, which could include calling the U.S. attorney for D.C., Timothy Shea, and even Attorney General William Barr to testify.
He could also deny the motion, block the withdrawal of Flynn’s guilty plea and choose to proceed with sentencing the retired Army lieutenant general.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
GOP senators ask Barr, Grenell for names of Obama-era officials who 'unmasked' Flynn
GOP Sens. Ron Johnson (Wis.) and Chuck Grassley (Iowa) are pressing the Trump administration to release the names of Obama-era officials who "unmasked" former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
The Republican senators sent a letter dated Tuesday to Attorney General William Barr and acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell, urging them to release the names amid increased GOP scrutiny of the former Trump adviser's case.
“One of the most significant unanswered questions about what occurred during the 2016 election is how many Americans were ‘unmasked,’ at whose request, and for what purpose,” the lawmakers wrote.
Johnson and Grassley chair the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Finance committees, respectively. Their letter comes after several media outlets reported that Grenell declassified the names of Obama-era intelligence officials who sought to “unmask” Trump campaign associates such as Flynn who had been swept up in surveillance of foreign officials.
Identifying information of U.S. persons picked up during surveillance on a foreign individual must be hidden, or "masked," under U.S. law. Top intelligence officials can request that the identities be revealed.
This judge is trying to put an innocent man in jail. That’s all I need to know about him.
See if his name is on the unmasking lust.
This political hack has no way to proceed to the guilty verdict he desires.
You can’t be the judge and the persecutor, Judge Emmet Hacktivist.
Trump should send US Marshalls to arrest this menace.
In fact, all federal judges not on the SCOTUS should have their positions permanently eliminated.
To Hell with these criminal bastards.
I know.
I want to puke every time I see that. He is no damned judge. He is an activist, and is fully in bed with the Left when he can avoid being roped in by the law.
The fact that he has let this go on in this fashion proves it to me.
Despicable.
Sullivan went after the prosecution hard on the Ted Stevens case, so he was thought to be a good judge for Flynn. Then, suddenly, out of the blue, he did a 180 and called Flynn a traitor, and every other name. I thought “where did that come from”?
My guess is that just about that time they got to him somehow, either a Cayman Island bank account, a fat contract with a family member, or some heavy-duty blackmail.
Either way, if they could expose how they got to Sullivan - and Roberts for that matter - that would go a long way to cleaning up the Just Us system.
One take on this is that Judge Sullivan, during the 12/18 hearing, when he was going off on Flynn for treason etc, he got the prosecutor Van Grack to actually defend Flynn and make it clear Flynn was guilty of only a minor process 1001 crime of lying to FBI. Then Van Grack and possibly Weismann and maybe even Stzrok and McCabe might have to make a brief. Either way, the more it drags out, the better off Flynn looks, and more attention is put on the obvious corruption inflicted on him, which is dovetailing nicely with all of the DOJ releasing Russia Hoax testimony.
The United States Supreme Court just overturned by 9 - 0, a ruling made by the 9th Circuit for using exactly the same tactics.
The laughable meanderings of this Obama hack will not stand on appeal if he rules against Flynn. President Trump needs to end this parody now..
Instead of adjudicating the case presented by the parties, however, the court named three amici and invited them to brief and argue issues framed by the panel, including a question never raised by Sineneng-Smith: Whether the statute is overbroad under the First Amendment. ....
The Nation’s adversarial adjudication system follows the principle of party presentation. Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U. S. 237, 243. “In both civil and criminal cases, . . . we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.” Id., at 243
Even more damning in this case is what Ginsburg wrote in the cited Greenlaw case where she said:
“[o]ur adversary system is designed around the premise that the parties know what is best for them, and are responsible for advancing the facts and arguments entitling them to relief.” (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). As cogently explained:
“[Courts] do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. We wait for cases to come to us, and when they do we normally decide only questions presented by the parties.Counsel almost always know a great deal more about their cases than we do, and this must be particularly true of counsel for the United States, the richest, most powerful, and best represented litigant to appear before us.
And Ginsburg continues in Greenlaw: This Court has recognized that “the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 693 (1974)
So holdeth Ginsburg and her colleagues.
In this case, the United States has withdrawn from prosecution and sought to dismiss.
Like someone on Fox said, if he holds an actual hearing, the prosecution and defense will be sitting at the same table...both arguing for him to drop it.
Agenda.
Given that the prosecutor has dropped the case, the only reason a judge would want to keep this alive is to allow some time for further political grandstanding and media-headline manufacturing
An invitation to meet for lunch at Ft. Marcy Park.
No surprise there- None at all😑.
I was doing a search, and got that same damned verbiage from articles years ago about him being “fiercely independent” blah blah blah.
And they hold him up as some kind of effing hero in the Ted Stevens case, that should have been squashed immediately (repeated DELIBERATE misconduct by the prosecution, over months, repeatedly warned) and he only took action on the prosecutorial misconduct after the election was done and Stevens was defeated.
That a-hole makes me sick.
It’s probably about his standing in the liberal pack of hyenas that get together over martinis and expensive meals in the better restaurants in DC. Why give that up?
Yeah, see my post above regarding the Ted Stevens case. As far as I am concerned, Sullivan let them get away with murder until the election was over, then he dismissed the charges.
Boy, does he burn my ass.
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.