The DOJ is Dropping the Case Against Mike Flynn

[Dancing Fire]

Rosenstein Says He Wouldn't Have Approved FISA Warrant Knowing What He Knows Now | RealClearPolitics

WASHINGTON (AP) Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told lawmakers Wednesday that he would not have approved an FBI surveillance application for...

www.realclearpolitics.com

 

[AGBF]

This is from "Esquire".

Judge Gleeson Told Bill Barr He's a Hopeless Hack Serving a Hopeless Crook

"The facts surrounding the filing of the Government's motion constitute clear evidence of gross prosecutorial abuse."

By Charles P. Pierce
Jun 10, 2020


"Just as ancient tales were being revived about what a classic bully Attorney General Bill Barr was in his younger days, a revival premised on his apparent lust for some Antietam Creek cosplay in Lafayette Park, a retired federal judge popped up on Wednesday and let Barr have one right in the chops. The retired judge was named John Gleeson, and he had been tasked by Judge Emmett Sullivan to submit an amicus brief on the attempt by the Department of Justice to give Michael Flynn a belated walk on the charges to which Flynn already had pleaded guilty. Gleeson proceeded to stomp a mudhole in the DOJ. The highlights:

"The Government’s ostensible grounds for seeking dismissal are conclusively disproven by its own briefs filed earlier in this very proceeding. They contradict and ignore this Court’s prior orders, which constitute law of the case. They are riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact. And they depart from positions that the Government has taken in other cases."

"The facts surrounding the filing of the Government's motion constitute clear evidence of gross prosecutorial abuse. They reveal an unconvincing effort to disguise as legitimate a decision to dismiss that is based solely on the fact that Flynn is a political ally of President Trump.”

"The Court should deny leave because there is clear evidence of a gross abuse of prosecutorial power...The Government has engaged in highly irregular conduct to benefit a political ally of the President. The facts of this case overcome the presumption of regularity. The Court should therefore deny the Government’s motion to dismiss, adjudicate any remaining motions, and then sentence the Defendant."

"That is about as straightforward a case of materiality as a prosecutor, court, or jury will ever see. In asserting otherwise, the Government struggles mightily to argue that Flynn's false statements neither affected nor could have affected the FBI's investigation of his and his colleagues' potential ties to the Russian government.”

In other words, Judge Gleeson told Barr and the DOJ that they are hopeless hacks doing the bidding of a hopeless crook, and that their transparent attempt to get Flynn off the hook should shame the profession of law all the way back to Hammurabi. There simply is no aspect of the government into which the black mold of this administration* has not infiltrated itself. Long ago, John Gleeson was the federal prosecutor who sent John Gotti away. He must yearn for those innocent times in which gangsters were not proceeded everywhere by the Marine Band."

Judge Gleeson Told Bill Barr He's a Hopeless Hack Serving a Hopeless Crook

"The facts surrounding the filing of the Government's motion constitute clear evidence of gross prosecutorial abuse."

www.esquire.com

 

[AGBF]

Here is an excerpt showing the latest development in the Flynn case.


"Last month, on the same day that Judge Sullivan appointed Mr. Gleeson to critique the Justice Department’s new position about the case, Mr. Flynn’s defense lawyer, Sidney Powell, asked the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to issue a so-called writ of mandamus that would order Judge Sullivan to immediately end the case.
But Beth Wilkinson, a lawyer representing Judge Sullivan, told the appeals court that short-circuiting the trial court’s review of the motion would be premature. And on Friday, all three judges asked questions that suggested they may agree.
Judge Robert L. Wilkins, a 2014 appointee of President Barack Obama, stressed that the federal rule of criminal procedure under which the Justice Department asked Judge Sullivan to dismiss the case says prosecutors may make such a request 'with leave of the court,' meaning the judge’s approval. He asked how those words could mean anything if judges had to rubber-stamp requests without review.
Judge Karen L. Henderson, a 1990 appointee of President George Bush, repeatedly said Judge Sullivan might disagree with Mr. Gleeson’s view and dismiss the case. She suggested that 'regular order' would be to let that process play out, noting that Ms. Powell and the Justice Department could come back to the appeals court if Judge Sullivan decided instead to sentence Mr. Flynn.
And Judge Neomi Rao, a 2019 appointee of Mr. Trump, pointed out that one of Ms. Powell’s arguments conflicted with Supreme Court precedent. She also asked a Justice Department lawyer whether he could come up with a more concrete reason for why letting Judge Sullivan’s review play out would harm the executive branch — noting that mandamus orders are supposed to be extraordinary and abstract notions of harms are most likely insufficient.

The skepticism of Judges Henderson and Rao was particularly notable because both have been more willing than most colleagues to interpret the law in ways more favorable to the Trump administration in other politically charged cases like fights over congressional access to information the executive branch wants to keep secret.

Their random assignment to the panel had seemed to increase the possibility that Mr. Flynn might prevail even though many legal experts agreed that Ms. Powell’s request for immediate intervention by the appeals court at this stage was questionable. But all three judges on Friday seemed to share the view that Judge Sullivan had the power to hold a hearing.

If so, that will be bad news for the Justice Department, argued the deputy solicitor general, Jeffrey Wall. He called Mr. Gleeson’s brief attacking Mr. Barr’s decision to end the case a 'polemic,' but said it would harm the executive branch to have to defend itself against it.

The department is likely to have to provide information about its internal deliberations — including why no career prosecutor signed the motion to dismiss the charge against Mr. Flynn — in the spectacle of a 'politicized' atmosphere, Mr. Wall said.
'“There are real harms here and if we know what has to happen at the end of the day, with all respect, district court should be directed to do it now rather than have some unnecessary and very harmful proceedings,' he said.

The arguments on Friday left unanswered what would happen if Judge Sullivan were to reject the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case. Ms. Wilkinson took no position on whether a judge could sentence a defendant who had pleaded guilty even though the executive branch no longer wanted to pursue the case.

But Judge Henderson suggested that she took a skeptical view of Mr. Gleeson’s brief, saying that Judge Sullivan may have chosen an 'intemperate' person to critique the Justice Department’s move. For all anyone knows, she added, the judge may say next month that Mr. Gleeson’s brief is 'over the top' and grant the dismissal motion."

 

[Demon]

Not over yet. Sullivan has issued a stay.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1275923029579595776

 

[AGBF]

Not over yet. Sullivan has issued a stay.

Yes. Here are the details.I saw some legal experts (two former federal prosecutors and an MSNBC legal analyst) discuss this earlier this evening. Pre-empting Judge Sullivan was apparently extremely irregular.

"WASHINGTON — A divided federal appeals court panel ordered an immediate end on Wednesday to the case against Michael T. Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser — delivering a major victory to Mr. Flynn and to the Justice Department, which had sought to drop the case.

In the ruling, two of three judges on a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered the trial judge overseeing the matter, Emmet G. Sullivan, to immediately dismiss the case without further review. The third accused his colleagues of “grievously” overstepping their powers.

But the full appeals court has the option of reviewing the matter, and Judge Sullivan did not immediately dismiss the case in response to the ruling. Instead, he suspended deadlines for further briefs and a July 16 hearing in his review, suggesting he was studying his options or waiting to see what the broader group of judges might do"

Appeals Court Panel Orders End to Michael Flynn Case (Published 2020)

Two appellate judges ordered a lower-court judge to dismiss a charge against President Trump’s former national security adviser. A third judge accused them of overstepping their powers.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Demon]

Here's a little from rawstory. Looks like the thinking is he's going to ask for an en banc review.

Judge in Flynn case delays all proceedings after Circuit court order to dismiss charges

On Wednesday, according to Politico reporter Kyle Cheney, District Judge Emmet Sullivan, the judge presiding over the case of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, has issued an order delaying all proceedings in the matter.This comes after a three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of...

www.rawstory.com

 

[AGBF]

A peek behind the scenes:

"A lawyer for the former national security adviser turned to the attorney general for help, and he delivered, months before a pair of appellate judges handed Mr. Flynn another legal victory."

How Michael Flynn’s Defense Team Found Powerful Allies (Published 2020)

A lawyer for the former national security adviser turned to the attorney general for help, and he delivered, months before a pair of appellate judges handed Mr. Flynn another legal victory.

www.nytimes.com