Unfortunately, the WaPoo is pretty happy with the proceedings, as many of the questions suggest that several of the judges were reluctant to take the case away from Judge Sullivan yet, Appeals court seems unlikely to order judge to immediately dismiss Michael Flynn’s case
Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard said Sullivan did not appoint the former judge to decide the case, but to represent one side in an adversarial system that is designed to ensure courts “get the law right.”Margot Cleveland has much the same take, though she sits on the other side, Your Rundown Of What Happened In The Latest Court Hearing On Michael Flynn’s Case
Sullivan did so after prosecutors asked the judge to reverse his acceptance of Flynn’s sworn guilty plea.
“The integrity and independence of the court is also at play here,” Pillard told acting solicitor general Jeffrey B. Wall, who represented the government.
“What self-respecting judge would jump and enter an order without doing what he could do to understand both sides?”
Judge Thomas B. Griffith also disagreed with Flynn’s lawyer Sidney Powell that a trial judge’s role in considering a dismissal motion is merely “ministerial.”
“That means the judge has to do some thinking about it. The judge is not simply a rubber stamp,” Griffith said during the nearly four-hour argument carried via live stream because of the coronavirus pandemic.AD
One reason federal rules require prosecutors to get permission — or “leave of court” — from a judge to dismiss charges, Griffith said, is to allow the judge “to examine favoritism for politically powerful defendants.”
The questions posed focused mainly on the propriety of mandamus in the Flynn case given that Sullivan has not yet ruled on the government’s motion to dismiss. Mandamus is an extremely rare remedy, appropriate only when there is a clear and indisputable right to relief. Counsel for Sullivan argued there is no need for mandamus because a hearing has not even been held and there is no reason to believe Sullivan will not follow the law. But what exactly the law is, the court pushed the parties to explain.One of the widely overlooked moments came when Acting Solicitor General Wall suggested that their may still be some exculpatory material yet to fall. Via Wombat's In The Mailbox: 08.11.20 Hogewash: On Mars, also, Heard At The In Re Flynn Hearing
Was Sullivan required to grant the motion? If so, what purpose is there for allowing further proceedings? Or does Sullivan have the authority to call witnesses and take evidence to challenge the Department of Justice’s decision to dismiss the case? If so, where does that authority end?
Other than Rao and Henderson, the two judges in the panel decision’s majority, the other judges all expressed some concern over granting mandamus at this point. Several of the judges also expressed concern that requiring the government to respond to questions posed by Sullivan violated separation of powers and the executive’s Article II authority to decide whether to prosecute a case.
While Sullivan’s attorney suggested there was no reason to believe he would seek to question the government’s reasoning or to call witnesses, as Wall noted, Sullivan made clear in his petition for rehearing that he intended to question the government’s motives. As Powell stressed, Sullivan already intruded on the executive’s decision to terminate a prosecution by appointing an outside amicus curiae.
While Sullivan’s attorney suggested he had no intention of crossing any lines, and while a majority of the appellate court judges seemed to wish to allow Sullivan the benefit of the doubt, Henderson said it best when she quoted Henry David Thoreau: “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.” Unsaid was that everything Sullivan has done since the government filed its motion to dismiss the criminal charge against Flynn tells of his intent to intrude on the executive branch’s prosecutorial decisions.
Here’s what may be the money quote from the en banc rehearing of the In Re Michael Flynn mandamus petition at the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit today. In explaining why the list of reasons for dismissal given to the trial court were sufficient but not necessarily exhaustive, Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall said—Sundance also has an after action report from Sidney Powell, Flynn's attorney: Lou Dobbs Interviews Sidney Powell on Today’s Oral Arguments….
The AG sees this in context of non-public information. It may be possible that the AG had before him information that he was not able to share with the Court.Hmmmmm.
And WuFlu strikes the proceedings.
Fox has Why KT McFarland who says FBI Director Christopher Wray, James Comey are in 'big trouble' "The former deputy national security adviser says the current and former FBI director need to give the American people answers" One can only hope, but the swamp protects its own very well.As if the Flynn Dismissal Rehearing wasn't enough of a circus, this just happened... pic.twitter.com/gGhr1ZJhlu— TheSharpEdge (@TheSharpEdge1) August 11, 2020
From Alex Nitzberg at JTN, Lindsey 2.0, Graham demands info about 2018 FBI Russia briefing, says bureau misled Congress "Graham said the briefing outline purveyed inaccurate information which the federal law enforcement agency knew to be false" It's been said before, but it deserves saying again. Now do something about it. Chuck Ross at Da Caller, GOP Senators Press FBI Director Christopher Wray To Produce Trump-Russia Documents
Sundance (again), Igor Danchenko and a 34 Month Long DOJ/FBI Cover-Up Operation….
In this video John walks us through the internal evidence showing how the FBI intentionally hid the statements by Christopher Steele’s primary sub-source Igor Danchenko. The result…. a 34 month cover-up operation.
and has some Simple Questions With Massive Ramifications….
When Main Justice DOJ (think special counsel) released the FISA application, under the auspices of a FOIA fulfillment, on July 21, 2018, why did they release FBI Agent Brian Dugan’s copy?And finally, according to YaHoo! Biden Aides Will Stiff-Arm GOP’s Burisma Probe, Sources Say. Proof he has something to hide!
Why didn’t the DOJ release their clean copy of the FISA application?
Why did the DOJ find it necessary to release WFO FBI agent Brian Dugan’s equity?
Additionally, how did Main Justice get SSA Brian Dugan’s copy of the FISA?…. But more importantly, when the DOJ decided to release the FISA application to the public, why did they release FBI Agent Dugan’s copy?
The answers to these questions tell a big story.
Post a Comment