Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Signal Victory for Gen. Flynn and Richly Deserved Defeat for “Judge” Sullivan
In what I am sure many of us fervently pray is the end of the detestable, disgraceful persecution of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, USA, Ret’d, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has granted the Motion for a Writ of Mandamus filed on his behalf — from what I can determine an almost unheard of action by a Federal Court of Appeal — and ordered the bizarrely out of control District Judge to dismiss the case.
Here is a good short summary of the action from Powerline’s Scott Johnson:
In a 2-1 opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has granted Michael Flynn’s petition for a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss the case against General Flynn. I commented on the oral argument before the court here on June 12. I have embedded the panel opinion below along with the dissent.
Judge Rao’s opinion for the panel responds in detail to Judge Wilkins’s dissent. I think Judge Rao seeks to dissuade the D.C. Circuit from finding a way to rehear the case en banc under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The Flynn case constitutes a sidebar to the biggest political scandal in American history by far. One can only hope that this is, as it should be, the end of the road for this utterly disgraceful case.
As pleased as I am for the General and his family and his astonishingly talented lawyer, Sidney Powell and her team, I fear that since this “Judge” (sorry, he relinquished the right to that honorific the day he called Gen. Flynn a traitor to his country) has the right to appeal for a rehearing to the Full Court, En Banc, and then to apply for Writ of Certiori to the Supreme Court. There is little reason to expect him to start acting like a reasonable member of the Federal Judiciary at this late date.
Whatever happens on that front, this is a great day for Gen. Flynn and his family, and I salute him once again for his remarkable service to his Nation.
Published in General
Awesome! Finally, sweet justice for General Flynn! Now we need some justice for his attackers.
Amen. Thank you General Flynn.
Jim: Thanks for your posts on this topic.
The next question that I would like answered is whether the Administration will consider Gen. Flynn for a national security position. I understand that returning him to his former position would require moving Robert O’Brien aside–which I wouldn’t necessarily endorse at this time–but there has to be a role for Flynn. I nominate him for Secretary of Homeland Security.
This is good news. Thanks for the report.
For those keeping track, the opinion was written by a Trump appointee, and joined by a GHW Bush appointee. The dissent was an Obama appointee.
FBI Director.
You have a taste for irony.
A good day for Flynn, but there is not yet justice. The truth needs to be told and some people need to go to prison.
This is great news! It was feared this case might have been sent back to Flynn. I am not sure this is justice for Flynn though. Much of his life has been ruined and it will be tough to get it all back. Trump should definitely put Flynn back into a high level position in his cabinet or Administration. I would dare any of the RINO Senators to try to vote against him in the wake of this horrendous court case.
From what I can tell, O’Brien has been great in this post.
But, but, but John Roberts said there weren’t “Obama” judges or “Bush/Trump” judges.
I am not certain that you have this part right.
I think that the Parties ( Flynn or the DOJ) can ask for an En Banc hearing. The Appeals Court then decides whether or not to grant this. In this case the parties both agree with the ruling so they would not be appealing.
The other option is for the Judges on the Appeals Court for DC Circuit to move for an En Banc hearing.
Judge Sullivan as the Judge being over ruled by the Appeals Court does not have an independent right to appeal the ruling of the higher court.
Good point and this may well be the way it turns out; however, I got the idea for the above statement from Prof. Cleveland who does excellent work in legal matters for The Federalist and who has 25 years experience as a permanent law clerk to Federal Court of Appeal Judges, who noted in a tweet this morning:
As to what “Judge” Sullivan has a “right” to do, who, with any experience whatsoever in the legal profession, would have dreamed he could have attempted any one of a number of actions he has taken in this case. It was widely assumed, at least here in the erstwhile Law Firm of George and George, that he had no, or close to it, right to deny a Joint Motion to Dismiss, by both parties to the litigation, thereby ending his role that moment as that ended the “Case or Controversy” before his Court.
We are taught from our first days in Law School never to voice public criticisms of a Judge and I think I can say, in good faith, that I have tried hard to stick to that rule my entire career at the Bar. However, the damage this “Judge” has done to the entire Judiciary, both State and Federal, is incalculable and my best hope is that he will leave the Bench he has ineradicably stained immediately.
Thanks again for the note, Jim.
I was only noticing a coincidence. The Chief Justice’s recent decisions demonstrate that he is not a “Bush” judge.
I do think that many judges do not consider themselves to be partisan, and do not make explicitly partisan decisions. I think it’s more likely that a particular judge will have a certain judicial outlook, which will make him more likely to rule in a particular direction, and make him more likely to be selected by a particular President.
The best way to smoke out the corrupt sitting in positions of authority is to see how they respond to General Flynn’s case dismissal.
The (D)’s and the MSM revealed themselves early on in Spygate and all its iterations, the entire Mueller team is now seen as a given.
Then to every ones surprise there was Judge Sullivan, and today we learn of new member of the Resistance# …. DC Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Robert Wilkins who dissented …. I’m sure Judge Wilkins dissent has all the legal jag offery language to effectively persuade exactly no one that Judge Wilkins is not a corrupt douche pretending to impart justice.
He should relinquish his seat on the bench as well. Too bad the Republicans wouldn’t have the stomach to do it, even if they held every seat in Congress . . .
FBI Director, sweet revenge.
I just heard that Sullivan put a stay on the July hearing. We’ll see if he still goes forward.
Could the General sue him for defamation?
Question for the attorneys: An associate was put through a not – dissimilar experience after he was found guilty at trial. Cutting to the end, the appeals court returned a directed verdict of Not Guilty, and ordered a finding of factual innocence. Is that possible here? To be sure, it wasn’t the judge who was crooked in my friend’s case.
First, congrats to your associate. The problem here would be that Gen. Flynn did not actually come to trial. The issue is the circumstances under which he was “induced” to enter a guilty plea, so IMO the bottom line is setting aside the plea.
Yep. And this is what happened to my friend. It cost him everything. All his savings, he cashed in all his retirement, and more. He was financially well – off. No more. He has written a blockbuster book, but so far no publisher will take it on because he refuses to use pseudonyms.
That’s my understanding – the only ordinary paths forward are for Sullivan to comply with the writ, or for a judge on the Appeals Court to call for a hearing in front of the whole panel. But Judge Soulpatch has heard his Master’s orders, and ordinary procedures are no obstacle to the wishes of the Shadecaster.
A stay on the July hearing – was that a hearing that Gleeson wanted, or was it scheduled before DoJ decided not to prosecute? Either way, Sullivan hasn’t complied yet. I bet he tries to string it out and wait for the media and a compliant fellow judge or two to force an en banc hearing.
I was really hoping Sullivan would read the riot act to the DOJ lawyers and order they be investigated.
Part of me wonders if this is rest of my life, watching institutional Democrats try and build an infrastructure against anyone on the right.
IMHO, that would have been the one legitimate reason for not immediately granting the motion. Even here, it’s a questionable reason.* But Sullivan did the exact opposite.
* It would be stronger if the general reasons were not already in the record. If the reasons were not in the record, it would seem like the dismissal was made to conceal misconduct and perhaps prejudice other defendants.
This was a 2-1 opinion. I assume that the entire D.C. Circuit will hear it.
Why does a D.C. Circuit even exist? Why did our country go to all the trouble of creating a capitol separate from any of the existing jurisdictions, only to create its own court jurisdiction for the capitol? Conflict of interest to the max.
The most disturbing aspect of the Flynn saga is how the (D) permanent establishment will pervert the legal system for overtly political retribution and we are all suppose to pretend everything is on the up and up as lawyers bill out millions and the (D) Resistance# eff with an innocent man for years at a time as the wheels of injustice barely inch forward as slowly as possible.
The corruption of Sullivan and Wilkins is absurd.
Two of the precedents for not immediately granting dismissal are when the record does not reflect a reason and to prevent a rogue action by a junior prosecutor against the wishes of the US Attorney and Attorney General.
Thus, contrary to Wilkins’s assertions the long length of the motion is a reason to grant it, not a reason to fail to grant it.
Similarly, the signing off by the senior attorney rather than the junior is also a reason to grant it.
If en banc review is granted, it will be war. At least one judge is likely to make it clear how corrupt Sullivan, Gleeson, and Wilkins are. En banc the issue of removing Sullivan for bias is back on the table.
Here is the minute entry:
All we can do at this point is try our best to “read the tea leaves” and guess what Sullivan is up to, but this tells me that he is just going to bide his time a while and wait to see if one of his like-minded Brethren will “get the message” that Obama wants an En Banc hearing.
As to the suggestion above by @garyrobbins that since this was a 2-1 decision it is to be assumed the Court will re-hear it En Banc and while that is certainly within the realm of possibility — in a case in which the most blatant kinds of offenses, prosecutorial, judicial, investigatory, and otherwise have taken place in a blind attempt to destroy everything in their path to get to Pres. Trump– it remains difficult to see how the Obama Judges (sorry, Mr. Chief Justice, but they do exist and they are all around us!) plan to get around their own precedent, the Fokker case, and the recent Supreme Court decision, authored by perhaps the Greatest of All Liberal Judicial Icons, Justice Ginsberg.
That will take some fancy footwork, indeed. As the President likes to say, “we’ll see.”