Tag Archives: Flynn Case

Judge Sets Date for Hearing in Flynn Case on Motion to Dismiss

September 5, 2020

The federal judge presiding over the case of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, a former national security adviser, has set a hearing date to resolve the Justice Department’s (DOJ) request to dismiss the case.

In a late-night order, U.S. District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan granted a motion to set an earlier deadline for the case and set a teleconference hearing for oral arguments on the DOJ’s motion to dismiss on Sept. 29.

As part of the order, former federal Judge John Gleeson, who was appointed by Sullivan as an amicus curiae (friend of the court) to argue against the dismissal, is to submit his arguments by Sept. 11.

This comes after the full court of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied a request to intervene in the case and sent the case back to Sullivan to consider whether to accept the DOJ’s request to dismiss Flynn’s prosecution.

Flynn’s case is central in shaping the unsubstantiated allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to sway the 2016 election. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in December 2017 about his calls with then-Russian ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak. He later withdrew his plea prior to sentencing.

The case received national attention in recent months after the DOJ released documents, including, handwritten notes that revealed top officials in the agency had questioned whether the goal of questioning Flynn during an interview was to “get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

Records also disclosed as part of the case showed that President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were directly involved in discussions about the investigation during the transition period in early January 2017.

The DOJ later determined that the calls between Flynn and Kislyak were legitimate and that the FBI had no legitimate purpose question him about them, other than trying to catch him in a lie, which isn’t a proper investigative purpose.

Federal prosecutors then moved to dismiss the case but Sullivan refused to accept the dismissal and has instead pushed for further proceedings, including appointing Gleeson to determine whether Flynn should be charged with contempt of court for withdrawing his plea.

Flynn’s legal team then asked the appeals court to step in and demand that Sullivan accept that dismissal. The three-judge panel ruled in favor of Flynn but upon appeal to the full court, the court reversed and remanded the case back to Sullivan.

Petr Svab and Ivan Pentchoukov contributed to this report.
Follow Janita on Twitter: @janitakan

Lawlessness: Judge Sullivan Appeals Order to Dismiss Flynn Case

Kristinn Taylor,
July 9th, 2020

Judge Emmet Sullivan filed an appeal Thursday of the 2-1 writ of mandamus ruling last month by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to dismiss the Justice Department criminal case against former Trump National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (US Army Ret.) Sullivan is asking for an en banc hearing by the entire eleven judges on the appeals court.

The main argument by Sullivan and Wilkinson seems to be, “Get off my lawn!”:

“The panel’s decision threatens to turn ordinary judicial process upside down. It is the district court’s job to consider and rule on pending motions, even ones that seem straightforward. This Court, if called upon, reviews those decisions—it does not preempt them.”

The appeal concludes with more swipes at the appeals court ruling and an ‘I was just doing my job’ justification.

“Judicial decisions are supposed to be based on the record before the court, not speculation about what the future may hold. All the district court has done is ensure adversarial briefing and an opportunity to ask questions about a pending motion. Outside the panel opinion, those actions have not been considered inappropriate—much less an extreme separation-of-powers violation justifying mandamus.

“Considering both sides of an issue before ruling is not ultra vires—it is sound judicial practice. The petition for rehearing en banc should be granted.”

Fox News reporter Kevin Corke notes that if the appeal is accepted the case could drag on through the fall or if rejected Judge Sullivan could appeal to the Supreme Court.

Trump attorney and campaign legal advisor Jenna Ellis says Sullivan has no standing to appeal, “Not surprising but totally ridiculous. Sullivan is NOT a party. He actually has no standing to petition for en banc. He should be removed from the bench entirely after his egregious conduct.”