"The umpire cannot force the teams to play extra innings after the game is over. He, the players, and the spectators need to go home and turn off the floodlights," they write.Also noting the baseball metaphore, Sara Carter writes ‘Game Over’: Flynn’s Defense Sends Forceful Message To Judge Sullivan
The brief also notes previous comments Sullivan has made about the Flynn case.
"Judge Sullivan’s extraordinary actions arise solely from his disagreement with the Government’s decision to dismiss the case against General Flynn," it says. "Not only did he wrongfully tar General Flynn with a baseless assertion of treason, but he has been vocal that General Flynn should be punished severely. Disagreement over a charging decision provides no basis to deny the government’s motion."
“Sullivan has no standing to file the petition…and he is supposed to be neutral,” stated Powell. “No federal circuit has ever countenanced such a filing.”Joseph Weber at JTN, Flynn attorneys file to oppose Judge Sullivan request for full judge panel to review case dismissal
“Judge Sullivan completely ignores the massive motion to dismiss and knew evidence filed by the government- and all Flynn’s filings. The evidence shows there was NO CRIME,” stated Powell.
Moreover, Sullivan cannot “appoint amicus here, and the motion to dismiss must be granted instanter. Game over.”
“The case is over. It must be dismissed,” she added.
“No federal circuit has countenanced rehearing of a mandamus on petition by a district judge,” Flynn’s legal team argued in the 29-page request filed in the same federal appeals court. “Judge Sullivan has no cognizable interest in the case. Rehearing should be denied because the panel properly applied the longstanding use of mandamus to which General Flynn is clearly entitled.”Margot Cleveland at Da Fed, What’s In The Legal Briefs Over Whether Judge Sullivan Can Keep Harassing Michael Flynn
Judge Emmett Sullivan has no business seeking a rehearing by the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals of the panel decision granting Michael Flynn’s petition for mandamus. Both Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, and the U.S. government hammered that point yesterday in their answers to Sullivan’s petition for rehearing en banc.James Casey on Da Hill, Flynn's prosecution: The more we learn, the worse it seems for all the usual reasons. Sundance at CTH features Sidney Powell Discusses Latest Developments in Flynn Case…
. . .
The briefs hit three main points. First, the answers focused on the propriety of en banc review, stressing that the full court should only reconsider cases under very narrow circumstances. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an en banc “rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless: (1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions; or (2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.”
. . .
Next, the briefs analyzed the merits of the various arguments presented by both Judge Sullivan and dissenting Judge Wilkins. This discussion rehashed many of the points previously made concerning mandamus, Rule 48, which governs dismissal of charges, and separation of powers principles.
Finally, and the most interesting point raised, was the general impropriety of Sullivan’s attempt to seek a rehearing. The government devoted an entirely separate section of its argument to stress this point, writing: “The parties, and now a panel of this Court, agree that this case should come to an end. Yet the district judge, first through his contemplation of extended and intrusive proceedings on the government’s motion to dismiss and now through his petition for rehearing en banc, insists on keeping the litigation going.”
The government then highlighted the many problems presented by a federal judge attempting to “keeping the litigation going.” For one, the government noted, Judge Sullivan doesn’t have legal standing to seek rehearing because standing requires a “personal stake” in the case. “But a judge does not have — and under the Due Process Clause — cannot have — such a stake,” the government’s answer stressed.
Next, the government stressed that under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure “only a ‘party’ may petition for rehearing en banc,” and Sullivan is not a party — not even a nominal one. And then there was a lack of court authorization: Since a district court can only address the petition for mandamus if invited or ordered by the court, how then could Judge Sullivan seek a petition for rehearing without an invitation or order by the court?
Sullivan also did not have permission from the solicitor general to file a petition for rehearing. Such permission is required, according to the government, by federal statute and Supreme Court precedent. On behalf of Flynn, Powell hit these same points: Sullivan does not have standing because he has not been injured! The judge is supposed to be the umpire, Powell wrote; he has no place at the plate. With the government and Flynn in agreement, it’s time to finally turn the lights out. But will the D.C. Circuit agree?
And onto the long awaited Durham report/prosecutions. Dan Chaitin at WaEx, Justice Department gives update on when to expect 'pivotal' report from John Durham
U.S. Attorney John Durham's criminal inquiry into the Russia investigation is on track to release a report by the end of the summer, according to the Justice Department.Fox, KT McFarland says she expects indictments from Durham probe by end of summer
Kerri Kupec, a top spokeswoman for the agency, told Fox News this week that a report is not "the goal" of the criminal investigation, but it will nevertheless "be really pivotal to the restoration of that one tiered system of justice."
There is “no disputing the fact that there is cold hard evidence” of a “violation of law” that will lead to indictments from the Durham probe into the FBI's Russia investigation, former deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland said on Monday.Da Blaze repeats the story of how Declassified notes by Peter Strzok refute Russian collusion claim in 2017 New York Times report.
“Now there is cold hard evidence. It turns out that these senior officials in the intelligence community and the FBI, they all took notes, they all tested each other, they all had handwritten notes of meetings” McFarland told “America’s Newsroom.” “The Durham probe is getting to the point where I think we can expect some indictments coming into the end of the summer."
Eric Felten at RCI has The 'Primary Subsource's' Guide to Russiagate, as Told to the FBI. Vodka fueled rumors and innuendo.
Steele’s operation didn’t rely on great expertise, to judge from the Primary Subsource’s account. He described to the FBI the instructions Steele had given him sometime in the spring of 2016 regarding Paul Manafort: “Do you know [about] Manafort? Find out about Manafort’s dealings with Ukraine, his dealings with other countries, and any corrupt schemes.” The Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI “that he was ‘clueless’ about who Manafort was, and that this was a ‘strange task’ to have been given.”A thread from Drew Holden Remember the Steele dossier? It went to hell today, barely making news. And what follows is pages of examples.
The Primary Subsource said at first that maybe he had asked some of his friends in Russia – he didn’t have a network of sources, according to his lawyer, but instead just a “social circle.” And a boozy one at that: When the Primary Subsource would get together with his old friend Source 4, the two would drink heavily. But his social circle was no help with the Manafort question and so the Primary Subsource scrounged up a few old news clippings about Manafort and fed them back to Steele.
Also in his “social circle” was Primary Subsource’s friend “Source 2,” a character who was always on the make. “He often tries to monetize his relationship with [the Primary Subsource], suggesting that the two of them should try and do projects together for money,” the Primary Subsource told the FBI (a caution that the Primary Subsource would repeat again and again). It was Source 2 who “told [the Primary Subsource] that there was compromising material on Trump.”
And then there was Source 3, a very special friend. Over a redacted number of years, the Primary Subsource has "helped out [Source 3] financially." She stayed with him when visiting the United States. The Primary Subsource told the FBI that in the midst of their conversations about Trump, they would also talk about “a private subject.” (The FBI agents, for all their hardnosed reputation, were too delicate to intrude by asking what that “private subject” was).
One day Steele told his lead contractor to get dirt on five individuals. By the time he got around to it, the Primary Subsource had forgotten two of the names, but seemed to recall Carter Page, Paul Manafort and Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. The Primary Subsource said he asked his special friend Source 3 if she knew any of them. At first she didn’t. But within minutes she seemed to recall having heard of Cohen, according to the FBI notes. Indeed, before long it came back to her that she had heard Cohen and three henchmen had gone to Prague to meet with Russians.
Source 3 kept spinning yarns about Michael Cohen in Prague. For example, she claimed Cohen was delivering “deniable cash payments” to hackers. But come to think of it, the Primary Subsource was “not sure if Source 3 was brainstorming here,” the FBI notes say.
Now that its been thoroughly discredited, anyone care for a trip down memory lane about how folks on the left & in the media hyped it up because it made Trump look bad?WaEx, Michael Cohen sues William Barr over reimprisonment and from CNN's Unreliable Sources, ACLU is backing Michael Cohen and suing the DOJ. At one time the ACLU was a legitimate voice for civil liberties. Now it's just another arm of the DNC mafia. Like violating his parole by going out to a fancy restaurant wasn't enough?
Tyler O'Neil at PJ Media has a BOMBSHELL: FBI Investigated Joe Biden's Campaign for Corruption
On Tuesday, Politico published an in-depth interview with Christopher Tigani, a wealthy beer distributor who bundled cash for former Senator Joe Biden’s 2008 presidential campaign. Tigani later confessed to violating campaign-finance laws during that campaign by reimbursing employees for contributions made in their names. Before his confession and sentencing, however, Tigani helped the FBI investigate the inner circle of Biden’s campaign. The story raises questions about the former vice president’s corruption — questions that accentuate the Hunter Biden scandals with Ukraine and China."Beyond the statue of limitations." Old age.
Ultimately, only Tigani faced charges for corruption. He was sentenced to two years in federal prison in March 2012. However, the U.S. attorney’s office in Delaware sent a letter detailing the extent of the FBI investigation into Biden’s campaign and the “soft corruption” in Delaware politics, Politico reported.
According to the letter, Tigani’s cooperation with the FBI lasted close to a year, involved 12 meetings with FBI agents, and included recorded telephone and in-person conversations on 17 occasions with six people, including “a high-level official of the Biden for President campaign,” “a former Biden staffer now working as a lobbyist,” and “a prominent Wilmington businessman.”
Tigani’s cooperation did not lead to charges against others because some of the information he provided pertained to activities that were outside the statute of limitations, some of it related to conduct that was not a federal crime, and some of it could not be corroborated, the letter states.