Sidney Powell, Esq., Attorney for General Michael Flynn Reacts to Appeals Court Order to Dismiss His Case – 6/24/2020

FLYNN OPINION — United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued June 12, 2020 Decided June 24, 2020—No. 20-5143
IN RE: MICHAEL T. FLYNN,
PETITIONER

 

According to attorney Sidney Powell, PRESIDENTIAL POWER, ANDREW MCCABE were used to take down General Flynn as a way to end up taking down the President of the United States.

 

 

HEAR THIS:  GENERAL FLYNN CALLS THE MARK LEVIN SHOW (Click Here) for Audio

 

Federalist says:  In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted Michael Flynn’s petition for a writ of mandamus and ordered federal district court Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss the criminal charge against Flynn. The court also vacated Sullivan’s appointment of John Gleeson as amicus curiae. The federal appellate court, however, refused to reassign the case to another judge, concluding Sullivan’s conduct was not “so extreme as to display clear inability to render fair judgment.”

In not re-assigning the Flynn case, the majority in In re Flynn handed Sullivan a face-saving out, but will the longtime federal judge accept defeat or escalate matters, firmly proving his judicial bias and own intemperance?

At this point, Sullivan need only grant the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss and enter an order dismissing the criminal charge against Flynn with prejudice. That would end the matter. But as the respondent to Flynn’s petition for mandamus, Sullivan has the same options a normal litigant would have, including seeking review of the panel decision by the entire D.C. Circuit or requesting review by the United States Supreme Court.

Given that Judge Robert Wilkins dissented from the majority opinion, authored by Judge Neomi Rao and joined by Judge Karen Henderson, Sullivan might just opt for open defiance. Such a course of action would be a mistake, though, as Rao penned a cautious opinion, focused on separation-of-powers concerns, that has an extremely limited reach. The majority opinion eviscerated every argument presented in Wilkins’ dissent.

Rarely do federal appellate courts go en banc to rehear a case with narrow reach, and it would be even rarer for the Supreme Court to intervene in a case unlikely ever to arise again.

CONTINUED ………….

What do you think? let me know. Thank you.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.