According to Daniel Payne at JTN, Lawyer for Flynn judge says 'no reason' to think the court won't eventually dismiss the case
A lawyer representing the judge overseeing the Michael Flynn trial suggested Friday that the court will eventually dismiss the case against the former Trump national security adviser, arguing that the judge's decision to call in outside opinions on the matter was merely an issue of seeking advice before the probable dismissal.But some of us don't trust David Gregory's wife. Adam Mill at AmGreat thinks the Judge Wants Flynn Case in Limbo Until Political Pressure Can Intervene. Could he be holding out for Preznit Biden's DOJ to reinstate the case? Justice delayed is justice denied.
The lawyer, Beth Wilkinson, made the acknowledgement during a roughly two-hour federal appeals court hearing on whether the court should order a lower court to immediately dismiss the case, as was requested last month by the Justice Department, or allow the case to proceed through at least July.
"There's no reason at this point to fear that the District Court is going to deny the government's motion to dismiss," she told the three-judge panel Friday morning, stating that the lower court is simply "getting advice" from third parties before likely doing so.
It was unclear at the end of hearing, at about noon, when the panel of judges—Neomi Rao, Robert Wilkins and Karen Henderson—would make a decision. A ruling could come before the weekend but is expected to likely happen no sooner than Monday.
Judge Wilkins argued, “If the government can’t make the case go away and the case is in limbo, then while it is in limbo, pressure could be brought to bear on the government to reconsider the decision (to dismiss)” To understand how shocking and unfair is this approach to a criminal case, we need to place it in context.Catherine Herridge notices an interesting coinkydink.
. . .
Sydney Powell, Flynn’s attorney, clearly was surprised and shell-shocked by the utter lack of interest by the court in her client’s factual innocence. The oral arguments and questions from the judges are mired in archaic procedural points. But in the end, all three judges seemed reluctant to end Judge Sullivan’s detour and frolic. What could be the harm in allowing Judge Sullivan to have a hearing before sustaining the motion?
Powell was audibly exasperated. “Everybody else in this case is being paid by the government except my client’s team. The toll it takes on a defendant to go through this is enormous and not justified in this case,” Powell answered. The government added that Judge Sullivan’s hearing will force the government to put out evidence regarding how it reached the decision to stop prosecuting Flynn. “That is the kind of judgment that is at the core of Article 2 power.” Outside of running the military, it’s difficult to imagine a more core Article 2 function.
Dan Chaitin at WaEx, Trey Gowdy: Peter Strzok likely in John Durham's sights. One would hope so, at this point. "No he won't; We'll stop it", and sundance at CTH passes along Sunday Talks: Senator Ron Johnson Discusses Obamagate Subpoenas and Committee Investigation…ANALYSIS: Key timeline August 10, 2016 Dossier specifically mentions #Flynn. August 11, 2016 IG Horowitz found (p. 314-315) FBI team met Confidential Human Source 2 (CHS) who raises @carterwpage @GenFlynn. 5 days later, August 16, FBI opens Flynn case “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” @CBSNews pic.twitter.com/quv1dj1FKG— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) June 15, 2020
Da Blaze, Senate committee authorizes subpoena power in 'Obamagate' probe — and it could be used against Jim Comey and Susan Rice. Oh, goody! Sundance's spidey sense is tingling, Obama-Era Political Surveillance – Were Black Files Created?…
I’m reposting a prior research outline below because something odd is happening in the background of this story. I’m not sure what it is, but there are small -seemingly disconnected- issues surfacing, that might tie back to this much bigger and purposefully avoided story. I have learned to trust my instincts on this. . . .also, Sunday Talks: Richard Grenell Discusses The Declassification of Documents…
As Grenell notes the prior administration was politically focused on targeting Donald Trump and weaponizing the intelligence apparatus to disrupt the Trump administration. Grenell discusses the over-classification of documents as a tool to hide intentional wrongdoing and corrupt intent.
It’s worth noting the interview is heavily edited; which, given Ms. Bartiromo’s granular insight on the issues, may indicate some of the conversation extended beyond what would be comfortable for the current investigation to be seen in public. (Just a hunch).
From Veronika Kyrylenko at AmThink, Hillary Clinton lost her appeal, order stands to testify on private server and Benghazi emails. Bummer, dude. Better late than never.
Da Mail, Ukraine seizes $6million cash bribe 'intended to stop corruption probe into founder of gas company that hired Hunter Biden'. But there's no corruption here, right?