U.S. Appeals Court Orders Judge to Dismiss Michael Flynn Case
Source: Bloomberg
A federal appeals court ordered a judge to immediately dismiss the criminal case against President Donald Trumps former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, Bloomberg News reports.
A three-judge appellate panel on Wednesday denied U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan the authority to examine whether the governments surprise motion to dismiss the case, in which Flynn pleaded guilty twice to lying to the FBI, was part of a corrupt effort to aid one of Trumps political allies.
Developing...
Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-24/u-s-appeals-court-orders-judge-to-dismiss-michael-flynn-case
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,280 posts)theaocp
(4,223 posts)NCjack
(10,279 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Ain't cool for the Appeals court, shows favoritism and blocks justice.
still_one
(91,963 posts)between republicans or Democrats
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Senate republicans on the verge of losing the majority.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)Wilkins' dissenting opinion is mostly that Judge Sullivan hadn't made a ruling yet. It closes by recognizing that the government may very well be entitled to the "leave of the court" to dismiss the case, but that it's only appropriate for the appeals court to consider that question after he declines to give that leave.
BidenMyTime
(6 posts)Neomi Rao is probably the single worst Trump appointee that he's put on the bench. Much worse than Kavanaugh, though Kavanaugh sits on a higher court.
Dems will need to seriously consider reforming the entire judiciary given the number of completely unqualified political hacks that Trump has put on the bench.
The Magistrate
(95,237 posts)The judge ought to appeal en banc....
SunSeeker
(51,372 posts)Todays 2-1 opinion was authored by Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, and joined by Karen LeCraft Henderson. In February 2020, Henderson joined the opinion of Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith when the majority held that the United States House Committee on the Judiciary could not enforce a subpoena upon President Trump's former White House Counsel, Don McGahn.[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_L._Henderson
The Magistrate
(95,237 posts)A political decision, not a legal one.
ewagner
(18,964 posts)Trump replaced a number of judges in the DC district but I don't think he replace a majority/.
riversedge
(69,726 posts)FBaggins
(26,697 posts)If not... the next administration could elect to review and possibly renew the prosecution. Trump might decide to pardon to avoid that...
... but now it will be on his way out the door instead of earlier when it could impact the election.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Maybe he just won't care and won't bother to help anyone else.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)He's definitely a vindictive person. If/when he loses, I'm sure that his final two months in office will be "give me a list of everything I can do to stick it to Biden & Co." It may take years to adjudicate all of the reaches in his final actions.
Igel
(35,197 posts)Judiciary hears cases brought by the executive. That's part of the rule. The executive withdraws, there is no constitutional authority for the judiciary to keep the case--it cannot bring a case or bring charges.
That said, there's nothing preventing the executive from bringing charges. Then, about to lose, it withdraws them. Digs a bit more. Brings them again. About to lose, it drops them. Digs a bit more, tries something else. New lawyer, new theory, better coached witnesses. Or maybe just waits a few years until memories fade. Or the defendant can't afford a good defense. Then the executive brings charges.
You see how that's unjust? And why a judge might not want to dismiss the charges? Because then it's one constitutional issue opposed to another constitutional claim--due process. The punishment levied at that point is not against the defendant, it being assumed that the prosecutor's dropping charges because its in a bad position in the trial, but against the prosecution--it has to continue the case in hopes of winning, or just bail and lose by default.
Dismissing the charges with prejudice--that's the motion before the court--makes that argument moot.
All that's left is the executive-branch claim of bringing charges for a criminal violation of the laws.
The perjury thing I consider bogus.
vlyons
(10,252 posts)nt
ScratchCat
(1,957 posts)It makes no sense because he plead guilty twice already. The DOJ doesn't really have the authority to drop a case once its in the sentencing phase unless the judge in charge of the case says so. An appeals court does not have the authority here to dismiss a case if the judge says no.
BComplex
(7,982 posts)I wonder how the supremes would handle this.
KPN
(15,587 posts)Even if that is possible and it ultimately goes to the SC, do you think this SC would find against DOJ/Barr?
DeminPennswoods
(15,246 posts)not just this 2 judge panel.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)It would be Judge Sullivan who would be making the appeal. That seems unlikely.
soothsayer
(38,601 posts)kozar
(2,036 posts)nothing to do with DU. This is simply a pardon without having to pardon. Expect more now that it works.
Koz
ScratchCat
(1,957 posts)Are you effing kidding me? The judge says that if they allowed this, then it would have to be revealed that Trump was calling the shots. Un-effing-real!!! Its right there, in black and white.
Will be appealed.
murielm99
(30,656 posts)Can it be appealed, especially in this corrupt atmosphere? I am not a lawyer.
Ligyron
(7,592 posts)To the consternation of the ruling class who installed them. Maybe some like Gorsuck won't suck so bad after all.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)is flimsy for denial.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)If the case ever made it to the Supreme Court the liberals on the court would not side against the accused
in a case where the prosecution has abandoned the charges.
ScratchCat
(1,957 posts)In almost any case where the prosecution abandons the charges, they do so because of either gross misconduct or because it was proven the accused was not actually guilty. This is jot the case here. It would be virtually the only case in the history of American jurisprudence where charges were "abandoned" after a guilty plea with no legitimate explanation as to why.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)DOJ motion to dismiss Flynn case (.pdf):
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.198.0_4.pdf
Solomon
(12,305 posts)Ponietz
(2,905 posts)BComplex
(7,982 posts)are all that's holding. They're all crooked.
Joe Nation
(961 posts)CousinIT
(9,151 posts)THIS is how the Trump Crime Syndicate has gotten away with its criminal enterprises for DECADES:
Buy off law enforcement, judges, DAs, gov't officials. Now that Trump is POTUS, just appoint the judges and courts he wants to protect HIM.
If buying them off won't work, then bribe them. Think Ukraine. Quid Pro Quo.
If bribing them won't work, threaten them - blackmail, harassment, whatever it takes.
BComplex
(7,982 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)once the switch is made and they will be out for blood. He will be sorry.
KPN
(15,587 posts)to have success in doing that?
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)The problem is we have an utterly corrupt prosecution (Bill Barr) dropping the case... can't be a crime if i refuse to prosecute it. The judge can't be both arbiter and prosecution. Again who has standing to appeal it?
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)Which would be an interesting dynamic considering the DC Circuit reviews every other appealed decision that he makes.
PRETZEL
(3,245 posts)but I've read on another site I frequent that Judge Garland as head of the DC Circuit can also order an en banc hearing?
I sure hope either he or Sullivan request one.
It's correct that the circuit could decide on their own to review the case... but the question was who would have standing to sue.
PRETZEL
(3,245 posts)if Judge Garland calls for a full review, is the issue of standing relevant?
Not a lawyer nor am I totally familiar with how federal courts work.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)What you're missing here is that this ruling isn't about the underlying case... it was about whether or not Judge Sullivan had the power to take certain action in that underlying case (e.g., hold a hearing to review a specific motion). He is, therefore, the one who is affected by the ruling and would have standing for an appeal (he can either hold that hearing or he can't).
The concept of "standing" is that it isn't enough to just disagree with an action. You can only sue over it (in federal cases anyway) if you have been "injured in fact" by the action that you're suing over and it's likely that a ruling in your favor would remedy the situation.
Since he's the only one affected adversely by the ruling, he's the only one with standing to appeal it. Though... as noted... other judges on the court of appeals have the ability to consider whether a panel of that full court should have their ruling reviewed.
ancianita
(35,813 posts)a lot of tricky trappy law going on as this country turns toward "rule of men."
Since this case proved harm to the people of the U.S., according to the original prosecution, how can the decision stand without challenge, since only Judge Sullivan is the focus instead of the original case of "harm" to the people of the U.S.?
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)He certainly has a right to an appeal if he wants one (though I don't expect it).
Since this case proved harm to the people of the U.S., according to the original prosecution
Whether to prosecute criminal harm to the people of the U.S. is the responsibility of the executive branch. The solution to a failure to do so is to get a new executive.
Botany
(70,291 posts)Flynn was on the phone with the Russian ambassador selling out America and our elections
end of story.
Look for Trump and Barr to try to find a reason to cancel the elections. We are in really
deep shit.
So now Cohen, Manifort, Flynn walk free, and don't expect Stone to do any jail time.
BComplex
(7,982 posts)a long long time.
Botany
(70,291 posts)OH's Rob Portman come on down.
OMGWTF
(3,900 posts)He's getting his daily "to do" list on how to destroy America from Putin.
DENVERPOPS
(8,679 posts)For at least four years....If we spoke ebonics, we would all be saying: "We Be Fucked".......
onecaliberal
(32,489 posts)ResistantAmerican17
(3,777 posts)Have stripped off the thin veneer of equal justice under the law and no man is above the law. The rule of law is perhaps mortally wounded in America.
SunSeeker
(51,372 posts)turbinetree
(24,632 posts)November 3, 2020 cannot get here fast enough.................
elleng
(130,154 posts)*"A third judge on the panel, Judge Robert L. Wilkins, a 2014 appointee of President Barack Obama, dissented. He said Judge Sullivan should be permitted to complete his review of the prosecutors actions and whether they are impermissible before deciding whether to grant the governments motion to dismiss, citing the unusual circumstances of the Justice Departments abrupt reversal on the facts and the law and the opacity of what happened.
In a dissenting opinion, he said his colleagues had made a series of mistakes that rendered a dead letter the portion of the rule of criminal procedure that said cases may only be dismissed with a judges approval, or leave of the court at least in cases where the defense and prosecution agrees that a case should be dropped.
Instead, he argued, the law requires that Judge Sullivan be permitted to rule and if Mr. Flynn and the Justice Department do not like what he decides, they can then file an appeal.
'The district court must be given a reasonable opportunity to consider and hold a hearing on the governments request to ensure that it is not clearly contrary to the public interest, he wrote. I therefore dissent.
The ruling could effectively end the case, if Judge Sullivan acquiesces. But even if he instead asks the full appeals court to vacate the order and rehear the matter or the full court decides to intervene on its own the ruling seemed likely at a minimum to disrupt his plan to hold a hearing on July 16 on whether to dismiss the case.
The outsider whom Judge Sullivan had appointed to critique the Justice Department motion John Gleeson, a former federal judge had argued that its arguments for dropping the case were baseless and a pretext for an illegitimate political intervention on behalf of a presidential favorite, and urged Judge Sullivan to instead sentence Mr. Flynn.">>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/us/politics/michael-flynn-appeals-court.html?
nuxvomica
(12,364 posts)https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/courts/reports/2018/12/20/464554/13-troubling-judicial-nominees-missed-year/
Response to Mrs. Overall (Original post)
Pepsidog This message was self-deleted by its author.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,106 posts)cstanleytech
(26,080 posts)stopwastingmymoney
(2,027 posts)Because Flynn has not been acquitted
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)It isn't "double jeopardy" (for the reason you mentioned)... but the motion the judge is directed to grant was to dismiss the charges with prejudice.
Essentially the same effect.
Firestorm49
(4,004 posts)Im fuming right now.
Crime and resulting punishment are relegated to the huddled masses while the f_____ing privileged continue to get away with whatever it is they choose - Epstein, Stone, Flynn, and on and on. Its not even obscure any more, its blatant screw you right in our faces.
Protect the bourgeoisie. Jail the common man.
Bill Barr is the modern day Goebels and were all but helpless in stopping him. I fear for us all.
This must stop. This is NOT representative government. Why are we so complacent when Republican thieves vomit on the Constitution? Fair and equal justice? My ass!
Were watching as we go down in flames. Republicans will now do anything and everything to win in November, and already have sown the seeds of revolution whether they win or not.
This is sickening!
totodeinhere
(13,037 posts)judge panel.
PaulRevere08
(449 posts)has done. For each department build a list of who has to go, what rules need to be over-turned and who can immediately jump in to fix things. He won't have time to do a normal transition and I am sure that all tRump loyalists will do everything they can to ensure a rocky one.
BComplex
(7,982 posts)It's already a long list in my head.
SWBTATTReg
(21,859 posts)iluvtennis
(19,758 posts)BarbD
(1,191 posts)The damage that can be done to all of us is mind-blowing.
GET OUT THE VOTE!!!!!
Evolve Dammit
(16,632 posts)Corrupt bastards. To the core.
Alpeduez21
(1,739 posts)Fuck your straight to hell
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)SpankMe
(2,937 posts)totodeinhere
(13,037 posts)The judge would have to have some sort of personal involvement with the issue and Im not sure if that is the case in this case.
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)It's not just the police that are a problem.
ck4829
(34,977 posts)bluestarone
(16,722 posts)Is this normal procedure? I hope he appeals to FULL court!
pfitz59
(10,198 posts)Her "career" was administrative, not judicial. Theoretical and speculative rather than practical and experiential. She stinks.