Is General Flynn’s long nightmare over?
Perhaps. At least, he’s certainly gotten closer to that goal:
The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has ordered Judge Emmet Sullivan to grand the government’s motion to dismiss the criminal charges against Michael Flynn.
You can read the decision here.
Shipwreckedcrew at Red State points out something that has concerned me for quite a while, which is that the Appeals Court may end up hearing the case en banc – that is, the full court rather than the 3-judge panel. The composition of the court is heavily Democrat-appointed.
Since judges now seem to be almost utterly political in their rulings – particularly on the liberal side – it is possible that if the case somehow goes to the full court, this could continue to be strung out and the ruling could go for Sullivan. There certainly are strong political motives on the left for doing so, and I retain no illusions about the ability of such judges to find a reason for doing whatever it takes to get to the desired result.
Predictably, the “legal experts” on the left are up in arms, and clamoring for an en banc hearing. Their partisan “reasoning” is astounding; they ignore the fact that what Sullivan has tried to do is not only exceedingly partisan (somethihg of which they almost undoubtedly approve) but would up-end our entire criminal justice system as well as the balance of powers. No biggee, I guess, in order to get the nefarious Flynn.
By the way, these “experts” all profess to be “stunned” by the ruling against Sullivan, because they all made the error (a common one, I might add) of putting too much stock in the judge’s questions during the hearing. The fact that such questions and comments are often misleading is one reason I tend not to make predictions based on such information.
One of these lawyers states the method by which the case could be heard en banc, and since I have no reason to think it’s incorrect, I’ll assume it would be this way: it only takes one judge to request a vote on whether to hear it, and then six judges must vote “yes” in order to actually have such a hearing. The basis for the hearing en banc would be the legal importance of the case.
I believe it would not be difficult to get six judges to vote “yes,” considering the predominance of liberals on the full court. And then, all bets would be off.
But for the moment, today’s ruling is a cause for celebration.
As they say in “The Mikado,” modified rapture.
It is now clear that Obama directed the campaign against Flynn purely from spite and animus, just as Amy Berman Jackson conducted a personal vendetta against Roger Stone. When the president and a powerful judge (among many others, including members of the FBI and the DOJ) can subvert our legal norms with impunity (as have the looters and the statue-topplers), the state of our republic is precarious indeed.
Oh, not only spite and animus, j e. Fear. Flynn knows things which would be embarrassing or worse for Obama, Biden, and the gang, and he probably knows where the evidence may be found.
je:
No, not spite and animus. More than that.
As you say, ” When the president and a powerful judge (among many others, including members of the FBI and the DOJ) can subvert our legal norms with impunity ” we are in lawless land, and they intend to crush all who stand in their way.
> would up-end our entire criminal justice system as well as the balance of powers
This is not very different from what happened in UK when the case relating to proroguing the UK parliament reached the Supreme Court. That court led by Brenda Hale did not hesitate to intrude upon the balance of powers. The praise that was showered upon her would make Kim Jong Un proud. See…
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/meet-lady-hale-brooch-wearing-justice-who-delivered-blow-boris-n1058066
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7566887/Baroness-Hale-unlikely-star-new-childrens-book.html
Finally the UK electorate took the matters into their own hands. Maybe it is best if Flynn, like a good soldier, takes the hit so that the US electorate becomes aware what they are really up against.
The DC circuit has five Republican appointees and seven Democratic appointees. The question at hand will be the willingness of the Democratic appointees to carry water for nefarious elements in the Democratic Party and the permanent government. Note, two of the seven Democratic appointees were in law school more than 50 years ago. We also get to suss out just what sort of judge Merrick Garland is when the rubber hits the road.
Too, I’ve heard the Court’s current chief Judge Srinivasan (Obama appointee) wrote the Fokker Services decision Judge Rao leans on as the governing holding of the Circuit, whereas Wilkins’ dissent wants to claim Fokker Services is mere dicta here. It’s an interesting stew of varying pushes and pulls.
Nothing political in our judicial system, is there?
Don’t we already know what sort of judge Garland is?
It boils down to this:
Will Democratic Party operatives in positions of influence and power (such as the liberal judges spoken of in this post) decide that it is imperative to protect the criminal mafia that is the Democratic Party—and more specifically Obama and his crooked administration—at all cost.
It seems obvious that they would do everything in their power to do so, especially since they will be able to rationalize such an abominable and legally indefensible decision by the more pressing imperative of “saving the country from Trump”.
Which, after almost four years of constant and demonization and defamation of the president provides carte blanche to anyone looking for an excuse for their perversity and depravity. And intellectual bankruptcy.
This is, of course, how the Democrats rationalize their embrace of destruction and the nihilists of Antifa and BLM—though they would undoubtedly perfume this particular pig by spewing terms like “human rights”, “justice”, “righting historical wrongs”, “we have a responsibility toward….”, etc.
Beware of Democrats spouting “values”. (Or just laugh—if it’s still possible—at the utter absurdity.)
I’m not a drinking woman, but I may have to rethink that.
This is all beyond disheartening.
There is a good analysis (excellent in my neophytic view) of the decision on John Reeve’s twitter blog: https://twitter.com/reeveslawstl/status/1275936223861882881
It would appear that the Flynn case is finally moving toward justice for the defendant. Sydney Powell deserves consideration for medal.
As I understand the en banc process, a majority of the judges must vote to hear it.
Does anyone here know, if such a vote has a deadline, after which today’s ruling would be final (unless the judges vote for the hearing)?
I note the news, out today, that Judge Sullivan has not just disbanded his little Star chamber, but rather merely suspended action in it, which I assume means that Sullivan has reason to believe that the torture of General Flynn will continue on.
“…torture…”
Yes, I noticed that as well, and it’s the grim impression I have though I’m far from being a lawyer.
That Sullivan will drag this thing on for as long as he’s able.
I wonder if the DC court can simply order that the political lynching stop.
I hope so. Someone has to be the adult in the room.
Sullivan (and perhaps Wilkins and others) will attack the courts, the DOJ and anyone who dare defend it (Turley, Dershowitz) while declaring the Trump/Barr-tainted court is a cesspit of corruption and political meddling. They may even hint at racism—or declare it outright—while the MSCM avidly joins the Dionysian festivities with massive tantrums and wild accusations as they outdo even themselves in peddling falsehoods and character assassination.
So the questions are: do the judicial authorities have the ability to say “enough, wrap it up NOW”? And if they can say this, will they have the integrity and courage to do it….
Related:
https://twitter.com/reeveslawstl/status/1275936223861882881
Wilkins is coming out of this looking like more of a shameless hack than even Sullivan. (This should not really surprise, alas…. Quite likely, “Serve and Protect” should be the motto of those two.)
Taken to the cleaners…but will it be enough….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjOvWYcpRaU
The Deep State is in sight of check mate. Flynn is the checking piece.
Enjoy the show.
Ymar, your link opens with a Mr. Dyer claiming “the genius which resides in every one of us”. He also asserts we must avoid pessimism at all cost.
Beyond that I could not go.
Thanks very much Mr. Dyer, but you do not persuade me.
The evidence is immediately visible: the Deep State and the Democrats intend totalitarian rule, and we shall have it in 2021. All Trump’s EOs will be canceled, and all US Attorneys will be fired, on Jan. 21, within a few hours of brain-dead puppet Biden’s inauguration.
2020 has been a perfect storm for evil in America. We have responded to the virus exactly the same way as the Chinese, with state-by-state oppression of entire populations.
Of course I could be wrong. Democrats could have a mass conversion to humility and love of neighbor.
His nightmare may be over, but the castle of his life lies in ruins.
I don’t see any way of rebuilding that other than suing the FBI and its hierarchy for all they’re worth, and leaving them in the same position.
Evil hides by pretending to be good. “We are for free speech.” (as long as it benefits us). “We are for the rule of law.” (as long as it benefits us). “We came to do good”. (and did well).
The damocratic coalition is comprised of true believers, corrupt users, power addicts, the dead, those paid by the CCP, and those who believe MSNBC.
Greed, Hatred and Revenge sum up the party. They are sure they will win if they keep pushing. So they will not stop. So either they win, and we descend into Cambodia. Or we are blessed with the horrors of a “civil” war that smashes civilization and leaves the world with two billion dead with no way to stop. I can’t decide which is worse. I hate to root for a civil war, but it at least doesn’t lock in a thousand year tyranny.
Churchill’s comments about when to fight seem to apply.
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed;
if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may
come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
I don’t think Barry and Ol’ Unca Joe originated the plot against Flynn. Apparently, Susan Rice was furious to find out that LTG Flynn thought Russia was not the major threat, but China was. (Not that any gas station armed with nuclear weapons isn’t a threat, but China is the Big One.) Undoubtedly, Rice got Barry on her side (isn’t she living with them now?) but she’s the hater zero.