Posted on 06/25/2020 9:27:41 AM PDT by Red Badger
The federal judge who has continued the prosecution of Michael Flynn despite the Justice Department's motion to drop the case has halted scheduled hearings.
The Washington Examiner reports Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order late Wednesday after an appeals court sided with the DOJ's request.
Flynn, a retired lieutenant general, briefly served as President Trump's national security adviser.
He withdrew his plea of guilty to the charge of lying to FBI agents in special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia collusion investigation, claiming he was the victim of a "perjury trap."
Evidence recently unsealed in the case confirmed his claim, showing FBI agents -- after the bureau was prepared to close the investigation for lack of evidence -- discussing how to get him to lie.
The Justice Department moved to drop the charges, but Sullivan refused to sign off on the motion. Instead, he appointed a retired judge to argue against the DOJ.
Now he's pressed pause on the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but declaring a mistrial would have the same practical effect as dismissing the charges. Since the DOJ would be required to refile the charges after a mistrial only if they wanted to retry the case (and they are not going to do that), it would be over. I guess that could be a way to avoid dismissing the charges, but then Sullivan would be in contempt of court, considering he was ORDERED to dismiss the charges by a higher court.
To me, that seems too large an explanation. Judge Sullivan likely has idiosyncratic reasons that are hard for us to discern in full.
It's time for Flynn to argue denial of his 6th amendment right to a speedy trial.
-PJ
Second paragraph of the WND article credited Washington Examiner and gave the link:
“The Washington Examiner reports Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order late Wednesday after an appeals court sided with the DOJ’s request.”
simply crediting an article doesn’t give one license to steal it ...
I think you are probably correct if history is any indication of what’s to come. This judge has persecuted Flynn for years and doesn’t want to stop now. Appellate smackdown or not. It’s just a matter of what exactly has compromised Sullivan because his shadiness is on full display.
JEEZ!
Get a life!
With the dissenting opinion as his basis, Judge Sullivan will likely seek an en banc consideration in the Court of Appeals.
Even Sydney Powell said that in an interview I watched (with Dan Bongino, on YouTube). She said she’d been before Judge Sullivan on other cases, and thought he was a fair judge.
This judge has persecuted Flynn for years and doesnt want to stop now.
In addition, with seven judges on the DC Circuit appointed by Democrats to four appointed by Republicans, there is always the chance that an en banc partisan lineup may come to the rescue of Judge Sullivan. Indeed, to a greater degree than is commonly realized -- even by lawyers -- judges these days tend to have an avid interest in politics and make it a frequent subject of discussion among them. The exceptions tend to be conservatives with a strict moral view of their judicial role.
Finally, as in baseball, by watching the players one can learn a lot as to what is going on in the game. Flynn and his lawyer have been circumspect in their comments about the case. Even in winning an important victory, they are not acting like they have won the game yet.
Sullivan still has not signed the dismissal motion.
He’s stalling for time.....................
Well, we saw a *big* move to partisanship in judges with the Clintons. Clinton-appointed judges began having regular Clinton-appointee-only meetings to discuss cases and to assign ‘sensitive’ cases amongst themselves, leaving out even other Democrat-appointed judges.
That goes even beyond the expected leanings that would result in a judicial candidate being appointed by a President with activist views.
Too bad the non-Clinton judges did not threaten and if necessary file judicial misconduct complaints. I know of an instance some years ago in which a state supreme court justice made such a threat when such a faction developed on his court. Within days, the faction stopped their intrigues and manipulations. Of course, the threat worked because the justice who made the threat had the stones to carry it out if he had 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.