Judge Sullivan’s outstanding refusal to dismiss General Michael Flynn charges
The DOJ made a decision to end the Flynn case. Judge Sullivan wants to continue it and is attempting to proceed with possible prosecution. Judge Sullivan is biased against General Michael Flynn and must recuse himself. Sullivan is out of control and has abandoned any pretense of being an impartial judge. Flynn’s lawyer filed a Writ of Mandamus to dismiss this case. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, one of the 15 state AGs pushing to get the Flynn charges dropped, weighs in.
New evidence came to light on the case, including evidence withheld from Flynn’s attorney. The charges should never have been brought.
Michael Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell on Tuesday filed an emergency writ of mandamus to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking the immediate removal of Judge Emmet Sullivan from the case — and saying that under appellate precedent set by the “Fokker Services” case, Sullivan or his replacement must dismiss the prosecution, as the Justice Department has requested.
Writs of mandamus are extraordinary remedies, which are appropriate when there has been a “usurpation of judicial power” that is “clear and indisputable” — and, Powell argued, Sullivan’s behavior fits the bill. Powell pointed in particular to Sullivan’s bizarre suggestion in December 2018 that Flynn had “sold out his country” and could have been prosecuted for “treason,” as well as Sullivan’s misstatements on the facts of the case.
Powell also demanded the appellate court vacate Sullivan’s order appointing an “amicus curiae,” or “friend of the court,” to argue in favor of preserving Flynn’s guilty plea on one count of making false statements to the FBI during an unusual January 24, 2017 White House interview. Oral arguments are set for July 16.
The amicus appointed by Sullivan, retired federal judge John Gleeson, has openly criticized the Trump administration’s handling of Flynn’s case, raising concerns that he was selected to improperly bolster Sullivan’s efforts to keep the Flynn case alive even though both the government and defendant want it dismissed. (In 2013, Gleeson himself held that “the government has near-absolute power under [the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] to extinguish a case that it has brought” — but he has since apparently changed his opinion.)
“Neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the district court’s local rules authorize amicus participation in criminal cases,” Powell wrote in Tuesday’s filing. “Prior to issuance of its extraordinary May 12, 2020, order, the district judge adhered scrupulously to the district court’s rules, denying some two dozen attempts by third parties to intervene or file amicus briefs in this very case.”
Further, Powell cited the 2016 D.C. Circuit court case United States v. Fokker Services for the proposition that a “district court cannot deny the Government’s motion to dismiss because the judge has ‘a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority,’ such as ‘a view that the defendant should stand trial’ or ‘that more serious charges should be brought.'”
Powell also said trial courts cannot second-guess the government’s “conclusion that additional prosecution or punishment would not serve the public interest.” (“We are unaware … of any appellate decision that actually upholds a denial of a motion to dismiss a charge” on grounds that dismissal would not serve the “public interest,” the D.C. Circuit stated in the Fokker case.).
Sullivan, Powell argued, has not met the Fokker standard. However, Ryan Fayhee, an attorney at Hughes Hubbard & Reed who previously served as a top prosecutor and national security official at the DOJ, told Fox News the Fokker case was distinguishable. (SOURCE: FOX NEWS).
The DOJ, Powell said, had ample reason to seek the dismissal of Flynn’s case, in the light of newly released exculpatory information. “Now additional facts have established he was not interviewed for a legitimate purpose, and therefore any statements he made were not ‘material’ under 18 U.S.C. §1001, the Government justly believes that he is not guilty of any crime,” Powell wrote.
For example, explosive handwritten notes that surfaced earlier this month — written by Priestap after a meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Fox News is told — suggested that agents planned to interview Flynn at the White House on January 24, 2017 “to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired.” SOUCE: FOX NEWS.
Unsealed Documents in the ENRON CASE, at which time Weissman was Mueller’s pitfull. By Margot Cleveland
Van Grack told Judge Sullivan that the Flynn “lies” "impeded" and "had a material impact on" the Trump/Russia investigation. pic.twitter.com/a2226AQhRC
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 8, 2020
General Flynn was threatened, railroaded and terrorized. His rights were non-existent, his son was threatened. General Flynn was terrorized for a long period of time, in a room, in his mind, in his country that he served. These are Marxist, Communist, Socialist (Hitlerian) tactics aimed to terrorize a human being who thinks his family was being harmed. Those who did this violated General Flynn’s rights to due Process under the U.S. Constitution and still continue to do so. What does General Flynn know that the deep state is so scared? Could it mean that their treason will get them executed? Think about it. Think if you were there, in his place, full well knowing that you never commited a crime but you second guessing yourself. What would you have done? Is this the type of people you want left in charge for your children to face? President Trump’s and General Flynn’s rights have been abused. Who would do such a thing and think they could get away with it and not be held accountable? would you want people who do this to go on doing this? to be free in an agency that has full power over you? or, would you want them held accountable?