Connect with us


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.



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.

Trending: Coroner Saying George Floyd Died of Drug Overdose, Not Police Brutality

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:

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.



U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead at 87 — Trump MUST Fill This Seat

With the death of left-wing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Trump now has his best change to chance the Supreme Court for decades to come.



Only months before a presidential election, left-wing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died of complications from cancer. This gives Trump his best chance to change the Supreme Court for decades to come.

Ginsburg was a hard-charging champion of far-left causes and put her activism into action to remake America through activist court decisions going back since her elevation to the court in 1993 when she was appointed by President Bill Clinton.

But it was only a few years into her tenure on the high court that her health began troubling her when cancer and other issues cropped up as early as 1999. She had several falls breaking bones, suffered five bouts with cancer, and went through surgery to insert a stent to clear a blocked artery, all after she turned 75.

Ginsburg, though, toughed out each health scare and continued to serve on the nation’s highest court delivering leftward decisions, one after another.

Still, her last bout with cancer was her last. In July she announced that she was undergoing chemotherapy treatment for lesions on her liver. Complications from that illness have now taken her from us all. Ginsburg died of complications from metastatic pancreatic cancer on Friday at her home in Washington D.C.

Her death sets up a partisan firefight if President Trump decides to try and fill her position in the last months of his first term and, perhaps, even ahead of the Nov. 3 General Election.

Democrats will bray that it is unseemly that Trump try to fill the position before the nation has a chance to vote on his suitability for a second term. And they will for sure attack him if he continues to try and fill the position if he happens to lose the election to Joe Biden.

On the other hand, conservatives will rightly point out that they now have the power to fill another Supreme Court seat and they must strike now before they lose that power.

It’s also likely that Democrats and the Media will work to forestall any chance that Trump could fill the position — especially before Election Day which is only 45 days away.

One of the things that President Trump has done best for the conservative cause is to fill as many judicial seats as he can with conservative-minded judges. This is a MUST for the conservative cause. Waiting until Trump *maybe* loses the election is a bad deal for the conservative cause and the country.

Trump must forge ahead and fill this seat whether he wins on Nov. 3 or not.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at:

Continue Reading


Judge Orders Police Not to Use Batons, Shields, Gas, Rubber Bullets, Chokeholds, Or Sound Cannons Against BLM Protesters




Judge Orders Police Not to Use Batons, Shields, Gas, Rubber Bullets, Chokeholds, Or Sound Cannons Against BLM Protesters

A federal judge temporarily banned Detroit police from using batons, shields, gas, rubber bullets, chokeholds, or sound cannons against Black Lives Matter protesters.

U.S. District Court Judge Laurie Michelson partially granted a temporary restraining order Detroit Will Breathe sought when it sued the city of Detroit, alleging that police were using excessive force to stop them from exercising their free speech rights. The order will be in effect for at least 14 days and forbids police from using force without probable cause.

If I was a cop I would walk off the job because it’s unsafe. These liberal judges should go out there and fight the rioters without any protection.

A federal judge in Detroit has ordered the city’s police not to use batons, tear gas, shields, chokeholds, rubber bullets, sound cannons, or any other type of non-lethal force against protesters for the next two weeks.

The late Friday ruling granted a temporary restraining order to the activist group Detroit Will Breathe, which sued the city on Monday, claiming that excessive police force infringed upon their protesters’ First Amendment rights, the Detroit Free Press reported.

U.S. District Court Judge Laurie Michelson’s order stops police from using any type of force during protests without “probable cause.”

“For a short period, we know that the police will not be able to use the brutal tactics they have in the past against peaceful protesters without violating a court order,” said Jack Schulz, who filed the order on behalf of the group.

But Detroit Police Chief James Craig said the police have not used force against peaceful protesters.

“We’re going to continue to do our jobs the way we’ve done it,” he said. “We respect peaceful protesters. We understand the judge’s order and we’ll make sure the protesters understand if there’s any aggression or violation of law, they will get ample notice like we’ve done in the past.”

The lawsuit claimed that some of the officers’ use of force had left some protesters hospitalized. More

This is a perfect example of a feckless liberal judge substituting her personal feelings over the law as evidenced by “the order was entered without an evidentiary hearing.” Peaceful protesting is not violating the rights of others by blocking streets and highways, littering by throwing bricks and fireworks, torching city vehicles, and businesses.

Continue Reading


Steve Bannon Charged with Fraud Over ‘We Build The Wall’ Fundraising – Pleads Not Guilty

Steve Bannon was indicted and arrested on Thursday by the left-wing Manhattan District Attorney on charges that he allegedly defrauded border wall investors.



Conservative raconteur Steve Bannon was indicted and arrested on Thursday by the left-wing Manhattan District Attorney on charges that he allegedly defrauded investors looking to build a private border wall in Texas.

Bannon, who has been hosting daily Internet broadcasts he calls the “War Room” covering China and the coronavirus, was arrested on a yacht off the coast of Connecticut on Thursday, NBC reported.

Bannon was a member of a group that had raised $25 million to build a private border wall. Now the Manhattan DA is alleging that the money has been mishandled:

Bannon is among four people indicted for allegedly defrauding hundreds of thousands of donors to the online “We Build the Wall” campaign.

Manhattan federal prosecutors and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service allege that Bannon, campaign leader Brian Kolfage, Andrew Badolato and Timothy Shea “received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donor funds from We Build the Wall, which they each used in a manner inconsistent with the organization’s public representations.”

Trump said he was “very sorry” for Bannon.

“I feel very badly,” Trump told reporters when asked about the news. “I haven’t been dealing with him for a very long period of time.”

But the president added that he was not a fan of the project.

“I thought that was a project that was being done for showboating reasons,” he said.

“I didn’t like it because I didn’t want to be associated with that,” he said, referring to the private project. “We’ve built a very powerful wall. It was a wall that is virtually impossible to get through. It’s very, very tough. It’s very strong.”

“We Build the Wall” began as a GoFundMe campaign in late 2018, designed to raise money directly from the public to build a border wall in the face of congressional opposition. It was started by Kolfage, a military veteran, with support from Shea, the owner of an energy drink company called Winning Energy whose cans feature a cartoon superhero image of Trump and claim to contain “12 oz. of liberal tears.” Bannon and Badolato later allegedly came in and took effective control of the campaign’s daily operations.

The indictment alleges that Kolfage took $350,000 of the funds and used them for personal use without disclosing it to investors.

Later on Thursday afternoon, Bannon pleaded not guilty to the charges.

He was released after posting $1.7 million in assets as bail.

It should be remembered that the DAs in New York are highly political and most all their actions against people like Bannon are calculated for political effect, not to bring lawbreakers to heel, but as weapons to destroy Republicans.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at:

Continue Reading


WATCH: Vice President Pence Slams Supreme Court Chief John Roberts as a ‘Disappointment’

Vice President Mike Pence said what every Republican thinks when he slammed U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.



Vice President Mike Pence said what every Republican thinks when he slammed U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts as a huge disappointment for constitutional law.

Pence joined CBN News Chief Political Analyst David Brody on Thursday when Brody asked, “Are you scratching your head a little bit on John Roberts? We’re not going to call him David Souter at this point, but conservatives have a track record of having some problems with Supreme Court justices that you thought were going to be a reliable vote…”

Pence replied that the Supreme Court is an extremely important institution, but Roberts is clearly not up to the challenge.

“We have great respect for the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States,” Pence said. “But Chief Justice John Roberts has been a disappointment to conservatives, whether it be the Obamacare decision or whether it be a spate of recent decisions all the way through Calvary Chapel. It’s a reminder, and I think several cases out of the Supreme Court are a reminder [of] just how important this election is for the future of the Supreme Court.”

The Veep continued saying:

We remember the issue back in 2016, which I believe loomed large in voters’ decision between Hillary Clinton and the man who would become President of the United States. And some people thought that it wouldn’t be as big an issue these days, but I think that’s all changed. The recent decision — and again a narrow Supreme Court decision — striking down a Louisiana pro-life law that only said that doctors working in abortion clinics would have to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. That’s a very modest restriction on abortion providers, but a narrow majority in the Supreme Court still said it was unacceptable.

And I think it’s been a wake-up call for pro-life voters around the country who understand, in a very real sense, that the destiny of the Supreme Court is on the ballot in 2020. And that’s why President Trump announced that he’s going to publish another list of men and women from which he will draw any future appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States. He did that in 2016; he kept his word. He’s going to do that in the fall of 2020, and [in the] next four years, he’ll keep his word and appoint more principled conservatives to our courts.

Pence specifically pointed to the disastrous ruling by Roberts in the Calvary Chapel case where Roberts ruled that a Nevada casino has more rights than the state’s churches.

“Well look, our nation has been through a very challenging time. And we’re still working our way through the coronavirus pandemic. But you don’t give up your constitutional liberties, even in a pandemic,” Pence said.

Here is the full interview:

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at:

Continue Reading


Massachusetts Now Banning ‘Grandfathering’ Laws Because It’s Racist

The state of Massachusetts is now banning the legal term “grandfathering” a law. Why? Well, raaaacism, of course!



The state of Massachusetts is now banning the legal term “grandfathering” a law. Why? Well, raaaacism, of course!

The court has deemed the term “racist” because some jurisdictions in the old south used the concept of passing a law and “grandfathering” its provisions to previous generations as a way to oppress black people.

I’m not sure if the idiots running Massachusetts know that Massachusetts was not a southern state, but…

As Breitbart News explained:

However, the term has a specific origin in the post-Civil War South, where several states wrote “grandfather clauses” that restricted the right to vote after the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which banned racial discrimination in voting rights. The states required black voters to pass certain tests to determine their eligibility to vote, but exempted those who had held the right to vote before the Civil War, and their descendants. These “grandfather clauses” allowed white Southerners to vote but limited the voting rights of black Southerners until the civil rights era.

Per the Boston Globe:

A three-judge panel of the Massachusetts Appeals Court declared its disdain for the word, which has been used countless number of times by lawyers, judges, local governments to summarily explain why new zoning rules, for example, do not apply to existing buildings or home lots.

“Providing such protection commonly is known — in the case law and otherwise — as ‘grandfathering.’ We decline to use that term, however, because we acknowledge that it has racist origins,’’ Judge James R. Milkey wrote in a footnote for the unanimous court, the state’s second highest.

I guess it doesn’t matter that no state has used grandfathering a law as a tool of racism for 50 years, huh?

Do liberals have any sense of logic at all?

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at:

Continue Reading


The Farce Continues: Federal Court Agrees to Rehear Flynn Case

The D.C. Court of Appeals has bowed to the wishes of a rogue judge in the Michael Flynn case.



The D.C. Court of Appeals has bowed to the wishes of a rogue judge who has demanded that the entire court rehear the case against former Trump advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

Instead of directing Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss the case outright — as the law demands — the court has agreed to rehear the case and allow Sullivan to explain why he has refused to follow the law in the case.

The latest in this farcical assault on justice prolongs a court battle already three years in the making. The case is now being pushed onward even though the Department of Justice dropped the case and said it no longer stands behind the persecution of the former Trump national security adviser.

But instead of following the law, the Clinton-appointed Sullivan decided he has the legal right to become judge, jury, and executioner in the case and wants to keep it going despite his clear duty to dismiss the case.

Sullivan even brought in a hardcore, left-wing, politically active former judge to plead the case that he should be allowed to take the law into his own hands.

The rouge judge brought in his leftist shill as cover several months ago when the D.C. Court ordered him to explain why he thought he had the right to continue the case. Ultimately the court’s three-judge panel told him to dismiss the case. But Sullivan then filed a request to have the case reheard by the whole slate of D.C. Appeals Court judges (called an en banc hearing).

Now the court has agreed to give Sullivan his druthers.

This is an outrageous abuse of power. This case should have been dismissed months ago and moves should be under way to impeach Sullivan.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at:

Continue Reading


D.C. Judge Slams Sullivan’s Choice to Argue His Reasons to Continue Persecuting Michael Flynn

A D.C. Circuit judge slammed Judge Emmet Sullivan’s choice of lawyers to argue why he should be allowed to continue persecuting Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.



A D.C. Circuit judge slammed Judge Emmet Sullivan’s choice of lawyers to argue why he should be allowed to continue persecuting Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, calling Sullivan’s pick of counsel an “intemperate” choice.

D.C Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson clearly feels that Sullivan’s choice of outside counsel John Gleeson is not a suitable person to be Sullivan’s advocate. Henderson’s words are a direct slap at Gleeson who dumped a long-winded, 72-page “explanation” on the D.C. Circuit court to “explain” why Judge Sullivan should be allowed to continue harassing Michael Flynn even though his case has been dropped by the Department of Justice.

However, Henderson’s distaste over Gleeson does not apparently mean that the D.C. Circuit is ready to overrule Sullivan and force him to dismiss the case… at least not at this time.

“Granted, he may have chosen an intemperate amicus, but that doesn’t mean that he is going to deny this motion,” Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee, said of Sullivan. “And considering the drastic remedy that mandamus is, considering there’s no precedent that allows us to move without an order, and considering that there’s been a hearing set for July 16, I don’t see why we don’t observe regular order and allow him to rule.”

In other words, Henderson seems to be in favor of allowing Sullivan to make a move first since the next court date is July 16, only a month away.

Henderson added: “For all we know [Sullivan] will say this amicus brief is over the top, the dismissal motion is granted.”

But Flynn’s attorney disagreed. Attorney Sidney Powell noted that the burden on Flynn is tremendous, not to mention the government resources that Sullivan has already wasted.

“We would simply be delaying the inevitable,” she said. “He just got dumped on a 72-page brief that we have to answer by Wednesday … the toll it takes on a defendant to go through this is absolutely enormous.”

Powell added, “The government’s just wasting resources out the wazoo.”

Government lawyer Jeff Wall also noted that if the D.C. Circuit feels Gleeson is “intemperate,” that is yet another reason to dismiss the case now.

“The reason I think you should go a step further is” if Sullivan eventually approves the dismissal of the Flynn case, “it’s still not the case that the parties haven’t suffered harms,” Wall said. “The harms to Gen. Flynn are obvious from the prosecution… But the harms to the government are really what I’m focused on. You have, as you say, a potentially ‘intemperate’ amicus, you have all these allegations being lobbed at the executive branch. We’re going to have to answer them in a public forum in a politicized environment.”

Wall also offered a good compromise on the whole situation. He suggested that the D.C. Circuit could order Sullivan to only rule on the motion to dismiss. This means, if they drop that order on Sullivan, his options to continue the case for his own political reasons will be blocked.

We still do not know how the D.C. Court will rule, but if Henderson is persuasive with her two fellow judges, they will wait until Sullivan makes his July 16 ruling before they take any further steps.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at:

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