In further proof of the transformation of the federal judiciary into a political animal (not that we needed further proof), the Flynn/Sullivan case will be heard en banc
Terrible news – the Flynn/Sullivan case will now be heard by the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals en banc:
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated the prior order of a panel directing Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn. Sullivan requested the full Circuit court consider the case (“en banc”).
The Court’s focus on “whether there are ‘no other adequate means to attain the relief’ desired” seems to be a clear sign that Sullivan’s argument that the panel order was premature, and that he should have been allowed to rule on the government’s motion to dismiss, is viewed as a problem by many if not most of the appeals court judges.
There are certain times I hate to be right, and this is one of them. On July 10 I wrote, in a post entitled “Judge ‘Ahab’ Sullivan keeps aiming his harpoon at General ‘Moby Dick’ Flynn”:
It is no surprise that Judge Sullivan filed for a full en banc hearing by the DC Circuit Court on the Flynn case rather than comply with the order of the three-judge panel to get off Flynn’s back.
No, no surprise at all. In several previous posts, I’ve compared Sullivan to Captain Ahab, and yesterday’s announcement is further indication that the analogy is pretty apropos. That doesn’t mean that Sullivan is acting on his own; I believe there are plenty of leftists/Democrats supporting him and guiding him in this noble endeavor. His crew, as it were: “To the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.”
My prediction now? I think the court will grant the hearing, and I think there’s a good chance – because of the political makeup of the court, which is heavy with Democrats – that they will side with Sullivan. That’s a travesty of justice, but we see a great deal of that these days, don’t we?
I hope I’m wrong. I’d like to feel a little less cynicism.
As it is, I doubt I could feel more cynicism about the way this case has gone.
Flynn is turning into the American Dreyfus.
Is this just law school graduates arguing over technical minutia? I mean, is Sullivan’s actual argument that he can ignore the prosecution’s dismissal of charges and just appoint his own prosecutor instead to proceed to trial? ‘Cause that is plainly judicial tyranny and a subversion of the entire Western legal tradition.
Mike
I wonder if there is a mechanism by which Flynn’s Attorneys could bypass the Appeals Court and go directly to the SCOTUS? Not confident that would be worthwhile in judicial terms; except that it would save some time. It looks like Trump will have to act sooner or later. He may want to wait until after the election, however.
Mitch Strand:
That already happened quite some time ago.
The Supreme Court is not about to change the procedure. However once the Circuit Court rules, then the next step is the Supreme Court.
The objective is to inflict misery on Flynn and if possible, collateral misery on Trump, by prolonging the process until any and all legal means to delay have been exhausted. This chapter seems to be mostly confined to whether or not Flynn should have filed for Mandamus relief, because Sullivan just hadn’t gotten around to making the dismissal official, yet.
As the en banc announcement was short and without any incidental information, I would imagine that the behind the scenes politicking this past few weeks to bring this about has been furious and not appreciated by some.
It’s been interesting seeing the experts evaluate and interpret the delay. Seasoned Appeals Court lawyers all seemed to be concluding that the delay boded well for Flynn. But I’m like Neo, this is not about justice, it’s about retribution.
One commenter, can’t remember where I saw it, said a couple of weeks ago “Yeah if this were a court case it would be straight forward – but this is a political trial, not a legal one.” or words to that effect. He’s dead right.
It’s all in keeping with the general theme of things this past 6 months, since Mueller came up empty-handed: If something comes up that suggests a predictable outcome based on the customary institutional norms, and Trump is involved, and Democrats are in power within the institution: Then there will be no such thing as an outcome based on the customary institutional norms.
I guess the Democrat’s strategy is to completely demoralize the voters, disorient them, wear them out.
It’s going to be a fun election, speaking of institutions.
Sidney Powell said weeks ago that she is prepared to take the case to SCOTUS.
That may the best option.
Let all the eyes of history stare John Roberts straight in the face.
The Obama/Biden campaign has come full circle, (even as it is circling the wagons as “best” they can). From Lee Smith (and relevant, among many other things, to Flynn’s predicament):
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/joe-biden-susan-rice
…with some background sleuthing by Smith from two and a half years ago(!):
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-cia-director-john-brennan-targeted-james-comey
…which together with:
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2020/07/30/dems-fear-release-of-durhams-findings-before-the-election-n732680
…is clearly a further reason to expect more rioting and chaos….
…along with the obligatory, necessary, desperate lying, redirection and covering up by the MSCM.
On Amazon Prime there is a series called Declassified, each episode of which is a standalone feature. #3 deals with the hunt for Zarqawi, who was the head of Al Quaeda in Iraq and behind all kinds of bombings and terror, targeting both Americans and his Shia countrymen. In any case, this episode, 40-some minutes long, has then-Colonel Michael Flynn and Special Forces General Stanley McChrystal as virtually its only talking heads. So we bounce back and forth from Flynn to McChrystal, and both of them seem relaxed as they describe what went on as they pursued Zarqawi for well over a year.
My point is, if you want to get a real sense of who Michael Flynn is, his intelligence and some of his personality, this is invaluable.
It’s struck me as both interesting and ominous that those military commanders who engineered the very successful Surge, in 2007-2008, Petraeus, McChrystal and Flynn, have run into great difficulty since, difficulty having nothing to do with their acclaimed performance as military leaders. McChrystal was forced to resign after a Rolling Stone hit-piece based on things some of his staff allegedly said while drunk at a party after McChrystal had departed — disparaging remarks about Joe Biden in particular.
And Biden is known to be unforgiving about such things.
Regardless, if you want to see Flynn in better days, I strongly recommend Episode 3 of Declassified on Amazon Prime.
If you remember, the Michael Mann vs Mark Steyn case has been in the Washington DC court system for almost 9 years. Mann claimed Steyn defamed him. Steyn refers to the Washington court system as the cesspool, when he is being polite.
Obama/Biden 2020!
Biden may be “social distancing” (or maybe he’s just locked in—for his own good, of course) but the real campaigning is fast and furious. And about as honest as one might expect…
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/07/obama-uses-eulogy-to-john-lewis-to-take-jabs-at-trump-admin/#more-324825
And settling comfortably into overdrive:
https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1288933227273609217
Plus (a diabolical bonus from an old hand…):
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fitton-fumes-after-adam-schiff-gets-away-doxing-high-profile-conservatives
(Though to be fair to that creature, we haven’t really heard from him in a while…)
Steyn refers to the Washington court system as the cesspool, when he is being polite.
Ray: Steyn also says, “The process is the punishment.”
It doesn’t matter if they get Flynn or not. His life has been turned into a nightmare pour encourager les autres.
Yes or no, merely as a single question of fact, did Flynn lie under oath to Sullivan’s face?
Is there anyone brave enough to answer that FACTUAL question honestly?
No one knows question two (except for me), but it is a doozy.
LeClerc @ 5:04 PM
Not sure if the SC is required to take the case (I doubt it, but don’t know).
If they hear the case they will affirm the denial of the writ 9-0, not because they are corrupt, but because the law is unmistakable.
People cannot extract the legal from the political in this case.
Tonawanda said,
“People cannot extract the legal from the political in this case.”
I see a lot of people who can’t extract the political from the legal.
“Yes or no, merely as a single question of fact, did Flynn lie under oath to Sullivan’s face?”
Yes, he did. Obviously he should have let them destroy his son’s life. That you clearly dismiss that motivation, alongside the far more serious manufactured vendetta against Flynn reveals just how little character you possess.
Geoffrey Britain @ 9:20 PM
TY! Gratz!
So Flynn lied under oath (at least once and, IMO, probably multiple times).
Question two, if you are brave enough and honest enough:
Is there ANY basis for asserting that Sullivan should not have relied upon Flynn’s lies under oath? IOW, should a sitting judge accept statements under oath? What is the purpose of an oath?
(And question three is also a doozy!)
“Yes or no, merely as a single question of fact, did Flynn lie under oath to Sullivan’s face?”
I don’t know the state of Federal law in this matter but I doubt it differs from state law that I’m familiar with vis a vis statements admitting to guilt in the context of guilty pleas. Courts recognize that people plead guilty for many reasons other than that they are actually guilty. As a result, courts don’t come after defendants who later contest their guilty plea by ruling that the plea colloquy admissions now constitute perjury.
FR @ 8:42 PM
“I see a lot of people who can’t extract the political from the legal.”
Agree 100% That describes Powell perfectly. And that is the most charitable case in her defense, that she is grossly incompetent, unable to extract the political from the legal.
Just as an aside, for all the adulation Powell gets, you will NEVER see anyone anywhere at anytime making a coherent legal defense of her.
She is defended merely by persons asserting she is making the right political argument, or by nitpicking the arguments of the opposition.
Tonawanda:
I don’t know what game you’re playing here, but no one sees your questions so far as “doozies.” Yes, Flynn lied, and of course Sullivan was relying on his lies initially when he accepted his guilty plea.
But the case should be dismissed for reasons that have been discussed over and over. Just as an example of a few of the discussions, see this, this, this, this, this, and this.
RigelDog @ 9:53 PM
Boykin v Alabama is the SC case which controls in ALL jurisdictions, including all states. VERY interesting case, highly recommend.
The significance and consequence of a guilty plea is not just one thing, it is many things. But a guilty plea is a HIGHLY important thing, whatever the significance or consequence.
People think of a guilty plea as perfunctory, and they could not be further from the truth. AAMOF guilty pleas are on the level as trials by imposing high, high standards on a judge who presides. Truth is essential.
Your implicit assertion that lies under oath during a plea colloquy are irrelevant is wrong. Lies under oath during guilty pleas are, as a category, more significant than lies under oath during a trial.
Just as an aside, it is somewhat distressing that lawyers come forward to make pronouncements based on their status rather than their knowledge.
neo @ 9:57 PM
No games. Law. If law is relevant.
“Doozy” was meant to be ironic, meaning basic. It was the wrong word under the circumstances. I am sorry for being light.
If a person lies under oath to a judge, and the judge relies on the lies to implement a consequential judicial act, does the judge have the right to inquire into the circumstances regarding the lie(s) when he finds out by the liar that the lies were lies?
Regardless of what other parties might conclude about the validity of the proceedings, does a judge have the right to inquire into admitted lies told to him under oath in the course of the proceedings?
Trial judges do not have plenary power, but do they have the power to formally inquire into the abuse of proceedings which took place in front of them? IOW, to find out the circumstances of the abuse?
If this is Dreyfus, isn’t it important to rule out legitimate inquiry?
The troll from New York returns to dazzle us with his legal certitude. Seen it before, it was tedious then too, aren’t there any ambulances to chase? Cheap shots on Sidney Powell don’t inflate your esteem here. NLG always needs more shills.
So remind us, how does one lie exactly in a trial where the ENTIRE trial is a lie, based on lies, brought on by lying, strong-arming thugs (who successfully leveraged Flynn’s first defense “team”) and which has a liar for a judge?—oh, right, Sullivan did apologize, didn’t he…”WOOPOSIE! SORRY ABOUT, UM, THAT. RIGHT, NOW WERE WE…”?
(The assumption here is that we’re not talking about “the law” within the framework of a Communist or Fascist dictatorship…but that assumption appears increasingly to be farcically assumption.)
Maybe the question is, how does one even begin to tell the truth?
Tonawanda:
No, he doesn’t have the right if the DOJ – the prosecution – says to drop the case. Separation of powers.
The DOJ did the investigating already. We know what happened. I gave links on this in my comment above, the most relevant one to your question being this:
“…does a judge have the right to inquire into admitted lies…”
Are you absolutely certain that this is what Sullivan is trying to do? To really “get to the bottom” of Flynn’s lie (made as a result of threats and duress)?
For some strange reason, Sullivan sure doesn’t seem to be in much of a hurry, though.
Wonder why that is… Ah, perhaps he’s the methodical type. Leaves no stone unturned. A jurist’s jurist?
As for Sidney Powell being “unable to extract the political from the legal”, how exactly does can one do that in a trial that is clearly entirely political? (And if one had any doubts about the matter—let’s call them “legitimate” doubts, even—then all one has to do is look at the person whom Sullivan decided was a legitimate “friend of the court”…. And if one were still to be unconvinced, then all one would have to do, then, is reread the shamelessly politically-inspired tripe (along with the tendentious non-sequiturs) spewed by that particular “friend of the court”.)
As for “[the importance of ruling] out legitimate inquiry”, there are in fact certain groups that do make similar claims about certain topics that they would wish to deny ever having taken place. Congratulations!
“Is there ANY basis for asserting that Sullivan should not have relied upon Flynn’s lies under oath? IOW, should a sitting judge accept statements under oath? What is the purpose of an oath?” Tonawanda
Too clever by half. Were Sullivan an honest, unbiased judge then of course he would have accepted Flynn’s guilty plea as honest and sincere. But once he learned of the prosecution’s criminal machinations such as the threat to Flynn’s son and the prosecution knowingly manufacturing charges out of thin air, Flynn’s guilty plea became irrelevant, indeed it confirmed the success of the rogue DOJ elements in suborning Flynn’s guilty plea.
You would convict the starving man of stealing a loaf of bread, while giving a free pass to the murderer’s of Flynn’s reputation, livelihood and the modest assets he’d accumulated over a lifetime of service protecting your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Your ingratitude reveals yourself to be utterly unworthy of the sacrifices of far better men than yourself. Which makes you a loathsome creature, fit only to slither through the dust.
“AAMOF guilty pleas are on the level as trials by imposing high, high standards on a judge who presides. Truth is essential.”
Lol, ah the irony. Clearly you can’t recognize truth when it bites you on the nose. Or is it that you do recognize the truth of the matter? Which if so makes you not a fool but a traitorous knave.
According to wiki, Tonawanda means “confluent stream” in Tuscarora:
Tuscarora is an Iroquoian language of the Tuscarora people, spoken in southern Ontario, Canada, North Carolina and northwestern New York around Niagara Falls, in the United States.
Furthermore:
The name Tuscarora means “hemp people,” after the Indian hemp or milkweed which they use in many aspects of their society.
Quite a lot packed into that pseud. Throw in a chimpanzee avatar and you’re cookin’!
Rhetorical question; If Sidney Powell is so incompetent… then how did she ever get the DOJ to fold like a cheap suit? That alone demonstrates that the Deep State was trying to railroad Flynn, an innocent patriot.
“Though the cause of evil prosper, yet ’tis truth alone is strong.
Truth forever on the scaffold. Wrong forever on the throne. James Russell Lowell
neo, I was about to write to criticize you for being insistently foolish, re “further proof.” But, I should really criticize myself for the same fault. Following “this stuff” is helpful only to the extent that it helps me stay away from it. Any more that that is a waste of time. I wish Gen. Flynn the very best, but there’s stuff I’ve got to do for myself.
I recommend Flynn’s book “Field of Fight”.
Far more impressive than “Dreams from my Father”.
Can one lie about a non-fact? Guilt is a legal word describing a legal outcome, not an empirical state that can be observed. You can refer to a court record to determine guilt, but you can’t see it “in the world.” Colloquially it refers also to a state of mind, a report by a person that he or she is (or isn’t) “guilty,” that is, bearing that status as found by a legal process.
So if Michael Flynn said under oath that he was “guilty,” he was really saying “I am not going to contest further the legal process which has sought to assign that status to me, with all its legal and social sequelae.” That is a very different “lie” than if he had said, “I am 12 feet tall” or “I invented space travel.” Those are empirical truth claims; not dependent on “magic words.”
I keep thinking of that Lily Tomlin line: No matter how cynical I get, I can’t keep up.
To belabor my point above about lying when the statement is about a weak fact like guilt/innocence, is it just or wise to bring the hammer down on a man whose “perjury” is nothing more than declaring he isn’t going to contest a claim by the State that he has a new red “G” next to his name? How was the justice system hurt? How was the majestic integrity of Sullivan’s court injured? If it’s perjury, it is a routine and harmless one, forced upon defendants every damned day.
Tonawanda’s questions are rhetorically dishonest: he has his prepared points, his schtick if you will, and he’s only asking so he can bludgeon our honest host and her honest regulars with them.
As Joshua/WOPR might say: “The only way to win is not to play.”
I see the sorosphere has rotated out manju
You’re learning, Neo: Every time you think you’re too cynical something like this pops up to make you realize you’re not cynical enough. Cynicism has reached nuclear level in 2020 but there’s still enough time for good reason to plunge deeper in to the terminal cynicism phase. I’m taking precautions.
Owen:
As far as I know, right up till the Sullivan/Gleeson collaboration, no one has ever seriously contended that a plea could be subject to a perjury charge.
Owen on July 31, 2020 at 7:38 am said:
Can one lie about a non-fact? Guilt is a legal word describing a legal outcome, not an empirical state that can be observed.
* * *
Excellent point, and states succinctly what I’ve seen argued by lawyers, who all know that plea bargains are only distantly related to the actual offense at issue.
Second example, from the opposite point of view, is Hillary Clinton, whose blatantly illegal behavior was described in detail by FBI Director Comey, but the lack of an indictment is cited by the Left as a lack of guilt.
The corollary (“Innocence is a legal outcome”) is endlessly hyped by the Left when they say, “We couldn’t find any evidence against Trump, but he isn’t exonerated.”
And, of course, Bill Ayers demonstrated that legal outcomes don’t have to bear a truth-relationship to facts: “Guilty as sin, free as a bird.”
FWIW, the charges against him, which were patently true, were dismissed because of misconduct by the investigators and prosecutors.*
Hmmmm. Wonder what Judge Sullivan would say about that. However, I don’t think Ayers had a plea deal.
*Wikipedia: “Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972, as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days. … In 1973, new information came to light about FBI operations targeted against Weather Underground and the New Left, all part of a series of covert and often illegal FBI projects called COINTEL.[23] Due to the illegal tactics of FBI agents involved with the program, including conducting wiretaps and property searches without warrants, government attorneys requested all weapons-related and bomb-related charges be dropped against the Weather Underground, including charges against Ayers.”
I keep thinking of that Lily Tomlin line: No matter how cynical I get, I can’t keep up.
Sarah Rolph: I often remember the Lily Tomlin line from the early 70s:
I worry that drugs are making us more creative then we really are.
It was a legitimate concern. Happily, we moved on from drugs which posed that threat.
I feel myself reduced to being this blog’s Court jester, the fool who must state the bleeding obvious yet tragic Truth. John Casteel faithfully observes where we are at: “Cynicism has reached nuclear level in 2020 but there’s still enough time for good reason to plunge deeper in to the terminal cynicism phase. I’m taking precautions.”
My! What could those “precautions” be? Tonawanda is so tone-deaf, let me paint the bleeding obvious facts for this little Robespierre: guns, ammo, and time at the firing range to aim small, miss little, and execute pretty.
For what, pay tell? sayeth thy lords, oh King, oh Master? For blood filled popular vengeance against the failed, corrupt, Evil Ruling Class.
May the guillotine find the Heads of the 95% of the billionaire class who supported the obviously guilty Hillary to become the Philippines Dictator of 2016, in Barry’s Banana Republic.
But a Patriots Revolt for Justice won’t stop at the Ruling Class’ Heads, but will continue to wreak blood-letting down through the Lawyer-Left pawns and the entire Educrat-Marxist indoctrinator class.
The People are Armed, and Dangerously pitched to exact blood from these Evil vermin. And Righteously so! Mock them at your hideous peril, oh Lord.
History shows what Rivers of Blood May yet soon flow, may yet soon flow….
Tonawanda may want and expect a French style Revolution. But we shall yet deliver a mass Neo-English style Civil War result. That remains fully within our grasp to impose.
We no longer wonder why old people have the attitude they have before they go…
So it occurs to me that this would be an excellent opportunity for DOD to say to the new court, “we think that Gen. Flynn should not be prosecuted because our guys broke the law in this trial.” I wonder where that would leave Judge S.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2020/08/01/co-founder-of-federalist-society-calls-for-fascistic-trump-to-be-impeached-for-election-delay-tweet-n739145
Did you catch this? The law professor having this witless meltdown co-founded the Federalist Society.
I checked Gallup to make sure. The disposition of self-identified Republicans toward the president is unchanged: fewer than 10% are antagonistic to the president on balance, much less antagonistic to this madcap degree. It’s another indication, in case we needed one, that the word merchant sector of the Republican Party has no rapport with (and likely despises) ordinary Republicans.