Connect with us

Courts

15 Attorneys General Unite to File Brief in Support of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn

A group of 15 state attorneys general have signed onto a letter supporting the Department of Justice dropping its case against Michael Flynn.

Published

on

A group of 15 state attorneys general have signed onto a letter Monday supporting the decision by the Department of Justice to drop its case against Lt. Gen Michael Flynn.

The Amicus Brief filed to Judge Emmet Sullivan’s court is supportive of the DOJ’s move and insists that Flynn should be immediately released from under the cloud of doubt about his innocence.

The letter says that court must dismiss the case against Flynn “because such punditry disrobes the judiciary of its cloak of impartiality.” The brief also said the court created unlawful problems by “inserting itself into the Justice Department’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”

Per Fox News:

Trending: BREAKING: Minneapolis Suspect George Floyd Appeared in Porn Videos

On the recommendation of U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen, who served as an FBI agent for more than a decade, the Justice Department earlier this month moved to drop its case against Flynn. The stunning development came after internal memos were released raising serious questions about the nature of the investigation that led to Flynn’s late 2017 guilty plea of lying to the FBI as his legal fees mounted.

One of the documents — apparently concealed for more than two years in defiance of a court order — was a top official’s handwritten memo debating whether the FBI’s “goal” was “to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired.” Other materials showed efforts by anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok to pursue Flynn on increasingly flimsy legal grounds.

But after the DOJ announced it was dropping its case, the Clinton-appointed judge in Flynn’s case outrageously invited leftists to submit briefs he could use to justify his continued and illicit attack on Flynn.

“There was no reason to issue these orders because this Court has no say in the federal government’s decision not to prosecute,” the state attorneys general argued in their brief. “Simply put, the decision not to pursue a criminal conviction is vested in the executive branch alone — and neither the legislature nor the judiciary has any role in the executive’s making of that decision.”

The letter was signed by Ohio AG Dave Yost, as well as the AGs from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.

President Trump also slammed Judge Sullivan’s obscene, nakedly political move.

“It is a disgrace what’s happened,” Trump told Maria Bartiromo. “This is the greatest political scam, hoax in the history of our country.”

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Advertisement

Courts

Michael Flynn Case Closer to Ending as District Appeals Court Announces Next Step

The trumped-up charges against Lt. Gen Michael Flynn appears to be one step closer to being dropped.

Published

on

The trumped-up charges against Lt. Gen Michael Flynn appears to be one step closer to being dropped as the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has announced that it is preparing for oral arguments as soon as next week.

This travesty of justice has dragged on for years, now, even though the U.S. government demanded that the case be dropped and told Federal District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan end these farcical proceedings.

But for political reasons as part of a general left-wing attack on Donald Trump, this Clinton-appointed judge has worked to keep the case alive despite having no legal role to do so.

Sullivan’s illicit actions have been so outrageous that last month the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals took the very unusual step of demanding that Sullivan explain to them in writing why he thinks he has the legal right to keep the case alive even when the prosecutors have dropped the case.

The court gave Sullivan ten days to respond on writing to their demand that he explain himself. He waited until the very last day to submit his filing. And he had the paper written by attorney Beth Wilkinson, a high profile, Obama-connected lawyer

Now, in another blow to Sullivan’s position on prolonging the case, the court is preparing to hear oral arguments to take Sullivan off the case.

The Department of Justice also filed a motion on the day Sullivan handed in his explanation to the court. The DOJ filed a motion saying that Sullivan “has no authority” to continue the case.

At last the DOJ is fighting FOR Flynn instead of against him.

Indeed, the D.C. Court plainly did not even give much consideration to Sullivan’s filing because the day after he filed his response, the court announced it will hold oral arguments over Sullivan’s refusal to dismiss the case as he should.

So, this case is likely one step closer to being over. Sullivan has no business setting himself up as the judge, jury, and executioner.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

Michael Flynn Attny Sidney Powell Blasts FBI Corruption After Release of Transcripts Prove Innocence

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s attorney excoriated the FBI’s corruption after the release of the transcripts that prove Flynn’s innocence.

Published

on

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, excoriated the FBI’s corruption after the release of the transcripts that prove Flynn’s innocence.

On Friday afternoon, DNI John Ratcliffe declassified and released the transcripts of the calls made by Michael Flynn to Russian diplomat Sergey Kislyak as Flynn was preparing to take over as President Trump’s national security adviser.

In a statement, Ratcliffe said:

“As I stated throughout the confirmation process, transparency is vital to allowing the American people to have confidence in the Intelligence Community.

“As the Director of National Intelligence, it is my obligation to review declassification requests with the overarching priority of protecting sources and methods, while also providing transparency whenever possible. Accordingly, today the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declassified transcripts concerning Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.”

Democrats have claimed that the calls Flynn made to Kislyak is the evidence proving his guilt of lying and acting as a “Russian agent” and traitor.

But now that the full transcripts are public, it is clear that the Democrat’s case is built on lies. The transcripts do not prove any of the charges against Flynn. And Powell want on a tear, ripping the corrupt claims against her client.

Powell posted statement to her social media:

The transcripts of General Flynn’s calls with Ambassador Kislyak released today by Senator Grassley prove there was no conceivable “Logan Act” violation—nothing wrong at all with General Flynn’s conversations with the Ambassador.

In fact, General Flynn should be applauded for asking for “cooler heads to prevail” and trying to keep things on “an even keel”—encouraging the mutual interest of Russia and the United States in stability in the Middle East and fighting radical Islam.

The conduct of the FBI, certain members of the DOJ, the Special Counsel Operation, and those in the House, Senate and elsewhere who have obstructed the release of the truth have all obstructed justice and put this man, his family, and the entire country through three years of hell—for their LIES and deceit.

There are no words sufficient to convey our disgust and disdain for all those responsible in any way for this baseless and purely evil persecution.

If you would like to read them for yourself, PBS has posted the full set of transcript papers.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

Who Are the Three Judges Set to Decide Slap Down of Flynn Judge Emmet Sullivan?

So, just who are the D.C. Circuit Court judges who last week delivered the unusual order to force Judge Emmet Sullivan to explain himself.

Published

on

So, just who are the D.C. Circuit Court judges who last week delivered the unusual order to force Judge Emmet Sullivan to explain himself over his continued attack on Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn?

Last week we reported that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit gave Clinton-appointed judge Emmet Sullivan ten days to reply to a demand that he explain why he has kept the case against Flynn open and invited amicus briefs instead of dropping it like he should have when the Department of Justice dropped the case against the general.

The D.C. Circuit Court ordered Sullivan to respond to the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Michael Flynn’s legal team. In doing so, the court also cited United States v. Fokker Services B.V., which is a 2016 case where the court slapped down a judge who refused to end a case after prosecutors dropped the case.

Clearly the D.C. Circuit was warning Sullivan that he is in the wrong and he better get back in line.

So, just who is on the three-judge panel that delivered this order to Sullivan?

The panel includes Judge Karen L. Henderson (a G.H.W. Bush appointee), Judge Robert L. Wilkins (an Obama appointee), and Judge Naomi Rao (a Trump appointee).

Judge Karen L. Henderson

Henderson assumed her seat on the bench in 1990 when she was appointed by George H.W. Bush. But she was a Reagan appointee before that when she was appointed to the U.S. District Court for South Carolina.

Her decisions and opinions show that she is a strong voice for individual freedom.

Some of her past opinions include a 2008 case where she ruled that terrorists in Guantanamo Bay have no right to sue the United States government, and in February she joined the majority opinion to deny the Democrat’s effort to force former White House Council Don McGhan to testify before a House Democrat kangaroo committee hearing. Also, in a 2014 case, the judge stood up for a small game company that found its postage rates come in far higher than Netflix mailings for comparable sized items and said that her ruling was meant to level the playing field for smaller businesses. In 2007, Henderson also penned an opinion that was seen as friendly to the Second Amendment. Finally, in 2018, Henderson quickly dismissed a large number of the fake ethics complaints that Democrats flooded the courts with to try and get Brett Kavanaugh eliminated as a Supreme Court Justice nominee.

Henderson graduated from Duke University with her B.A. in 1966, and later earned her J.D. from the University of North Carolina School of Law in 1969

Judge Robert L. Wilkins

Wilkins does not have a lot of very consequential decisions under his belt yet on the D.C. Circuit, having only sat on the court for just over five years. But he does have a history as a liberal activist.

Wilkins earned his B.S. in 1986 from the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology and his J.D. in 1989 from Harvard Law School. He later worked for the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia from 1990 to 2002.

Just after completing law school, Wilkins filed a lawsuit against the Maryland State Police for violating his rights with a purportedly illegal search during a traffic stop. His case popularized the phrase “driving while black.”

As far as his work on the D.C. Circuit, he did opine in favor of slapping down an action by the Trump administration after the Federal Trade Commission reversed an Obama rule in 2018. In 2014, Wilkins ruled that a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Postal Service against athlete Lance Armstrong could continue after Armstrong asked for the case to be dropped.

Judge Naomi Rao

Rao has the shortest tenure on the court having only taken her seat last year after being appointed by Donald Trump and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in March of 2019.

Rao took her seat on the court against all odds as she is a conservative-minded judge that the Democrats worked hard to torpedo.

Rao earned a B.A. from Yale University in 1995 and a J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School in 1999. But she had an excellent opportunity to learn at the side of a master when she clerked for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas from 2001 to 2002. After that, she was a special assistant and associate counsel to former President George W. Bush (R) from March 2005 to July 2006.

Rao is a strong advocate for the legislature to maintain its prerogatives and not to keep handing over its powers to the executive. She maintains that it is the duty of Congress to write and maintain laws, not the duty of a president to keep creating defacto law with a constant stream of regulations.

She is also a proponent of allowing the president to remove independent agency heads any time he wants for cause.

Finally, last year Rao wrote a minority opinion that said Congress had no right to subpoena President Trump’s records from accounting firm Mazars USA LLP. In her opinion she wrote that, “allegations of illegal conduct against the president cannot be investigated by Congress except through impeachment.”

These are the judges who will decide if Judge Emmet Sullivan did the right thing in his actions against Michael Flynn.

But it must also be noted that it appears that these three judges agreed that Sullivan must explain himself in his continued attack on Michael Flynn and it appears they think his actions are wrong.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

Is the Jig Up? D.C. Circuit Orders Judge Sullivan to Explain His Actions Against Michael Flynn

The judge in Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s case may about to be called on the carpet after the D.C. Circuit Court ordered him to explain his actions against Flynn.

Published

on

The judge in Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s case may about to be called on the carpet after the D.C. Circuit Court ordered him to explain his justification to keep the case against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn alive despite that the Department of Justice has dropped the case.

The D.C. Circuit has given Clinton-appointed Judge Emmet Sullivan ten days to respond to the Flynn legal team’s writ of mandamus.

Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, filed the petition for that writ, asking the appellate court to force Sullivan to grant the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against Flynn.

Andrew C. McCarthy added:

That was after Judge Sullivan not only declined to grant the prosecution’s motion, but (a) invited non-parties to intervene in the case by filing amicus briefs (transparently, to make arguments that he somehow has authority to deny DOJ’s motion); and (b) appointed one amicus, former federal judge John Gleeson, as a quasi-prosecutor to make arguments that prosecutors are declining to make in favor of entering a judgment of conviction and sentencing Flynn.

Sullivan’s actions have been both outrageous and illicit. As McCarthy has noted, Sullivan’s solicitation of amicus beliefs are not allowed in criminal cases, and he really has no power to continue cases that have been dropped.

Indeed, Sullivan’s appointment of John Gleeson is an amazing case of bias. After all, Gleeson is a virulent anti-Trumper and a Biden fundraiser. And he has also written an op-ed attacking the DOJ for dropping the case against Flynn.

How could anyone imagine that Sullivan could trust Gleeson to be unbiased?

The Circuit judges even cited a case where the judge was slapped down for refusing to drop a case when the DOJ asked for that action.

McCarthy explains:

It is apt to get Judge Sullivan’s attention that the only case the panel cited is United States v. Fokker Services B.V. In that 2016 ruling, the D.C. Circuit granted a writ of mandamus against a district judge who refused to dismiss a case (on a deferred prosecution arrangement) because the judge thought the Justice Department was letting the defendant off too easily. The Fokker Court explained that, under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a judge has no power to deny a motion to dismiss charges. The D.C. Circuit there elaborated that decisions to dismiss pending charges “lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion,” and that judges may not substitute their view that a defendant should be prosecuted in place of the Justice Department’s determination that a case should be dropped.

The Circuit judges are essentially telling Sullivan that he is in the wrong and he better change course.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

The Facts of FBI’s Corruption in Flynn Case in One Important Twitter Thread

We have learned much about how corrupt the FBI’s care against Michal Flynn was, but one Twitter user put it all down step-by-step.

Published

on

We have learned much about how corrupt the FBI’s care against Michal Flynn was, but one Twitter user did an expert job laying it all out step-by-step.

If you are still confused — or if you just want the whole timeline — on the FBI’s corruption with Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s case, you can do no better than the Twitter thread penned by John W. Huber.

This is an important Twitter thread:

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

Cleveland: Constitution Requires Judge Sullivan’s Lawless Order Against Micheal Flynn be Overturned

Margot Cleveland points out that the lawless orders coming from Judge Emmet Sullivan against Michael Flynn are entirely unconstitutional.

Published

on

Margot Cleveland of The Federalist points out that the lawless orders coming from Judge Emmet Sullivan against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn are entirely unconstitutional.

This week, Sullivan, the Clinton-appointed judge hearing the case against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn in the case that was dropped this week by the Department of Justice, inexplicably called for Amicus Briefs to flood his court in the case.

With the prosecutors dropping the case, Sullivan should have dismissed the case against the general. But instead of doing that, Sullivan shockingly opened the case for Amicus Brief to be filed. An Amicus Brief — or the so-called “friend of the court” brief — is a filing that allows outside groups to file recommendations of complaints to a court on a case they actually have no part in.

The only reason Sullivan would have done this is to get some outside activist to write up a reason that Sullivan can use as cover to bury Flynn even with the case against him being dropped. Sullivan is fishing not for a legal outcome, but for a political attack on Flynn.

But as Margot Cleveland noted, this whole thing is unconstitutional.

This order was jaw-dropping for two reasons. First, the U.S. Constitution makes clear that the judiciary has no business second-guessing prosecutorial decisions. In fact, the very case Judge Sullivan cited for the proposition that he had the inherent authority to appoint an amicus curiae—United States v. Fokker—made clear Sullivan’s order was lawless.

In that case, the government had criminally charged Fokker Services with violations of export control laws. The government and defendant entered a deferred prosecution agreement, under which the government would dismiss the charges in exchange for Fokker Services agreeing to several compliance provisions. But when the parties went before a federal district court judge to formalize the arrangement and a waiver of the Speedy Trial Act, the presiding judge refused to accept the waiver—which in essence doomed the agreement—because he believed the agreement was too lenient on the business owners.

The government filed a “writ of mandamus” with the D.C. Circuit Court. A writ of mandamus is a procedural machination that allows a party to seek to force a lower court to act as required by law. The Fokker court explained that while mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, it is appropriate where the petitioner: (i) has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires”; (ii) “show[s] that his right to the writ is ‘clear and indisputable’”; and then “(iii) the court ‘in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.’”

In analyzing the propriety of the district court’s refusal to approve the agreement, the appellate court summarized controlling principles of constitutional law: “The Executive’s primacy in criminal charging decisions is long settled. That authority stems from the Constitution’s delegation of ‘take Care’ duties, U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, and the pardon power, id. § 2, to the Executive Branch. Decisions to initiate charges, or to dismiss charges once brought, ‘lie[] at the core of the Executive’s duty to see to the faithful execution of the laws.’”

Indeed, “[f]ew subjects are less adapted to judicial review than the exercise by the Executive of his discretion in deciding when and whether to institute criminal proceedings, or what precise charge shall be made, or whether to dismiss a proceeding once brought.’”

Sullivan goes into much greater detail, but the upshot is that Sullivan’s order to invite Amicus Briefs is simply illegal and cases like it have already been ruled unconstitutional.

Sullivan is a political actor, NOT a judge. And what he is doing is illegal.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

Clinton-Appointed Judge Turns Flynn Sentencing Into Political Circus, Invites Outsiders to File Briefs

The Clinton-appointed judge in Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s sentencing has just turned the case into a political Circus.

Published

on

The Clinton-appointed judge in Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s sentencing has just turned the case into a political Circus by suddenly inviting outsiders to file statements to the court.

Judge Emmet Sullivan, who was ensconced on the D.C. District Court by Bill Clinton in 1994, has suddenly opened up the case to accept Amicus Briefs, the so-called “friend of the court” statements that can be submitted by anyone whether they are actually connected to the case or not.

This means Sullivan is looking for cover the destroy Flynn despite the mountain of evidence of prosecutorial misconduct staring him square in the face.

What Sullivan wants is some left-wing advocacy group to craft an argument to destroy Flynn that he can use to cover his tracks.

Coming out of the blue like this means that Judge Sullivan is purposefully turning this case into a left-wing political cause. He is doing this on purpose to excuse his desire to destroy Flynn regardless of the facts.

Any logical judge would be preparing to wrap the case up and throw it out of court because the Department of Justice decided to drop its case.

In the end, this means that Sullivan is continuing the case even though there isn’t any case!

This is outrageous, inexcusable behavior.

But oh, so typical of the deep state.

Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, blasted the biased judge’s move saying the “amicus brief has no place in this Court.”

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider


Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend