Michael Flynn’s case took center stage again Tuesday, as his attorney Sidney Powell argued to the D.C. Circuit Court that dismissing the case against her client is the judicial and appropriate legal action to take since Justice Department prosecutors had asked for the case to be dismissed.
Stunningly, it appears that there is more evidence that has not been made public in the case of Flynn that led the Department of Justice and Attorney General William Barr to request that the charges be dropped. For Powell and Flynn the news of new evidence supporting his innocence is significant.
It has been a tumultuous battle over the past year against Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who has been fighting against the DOJ’s decision to drop the charges against the three-star general, who once served under President Obama as his director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Powell has been arguing all year that Sullivan’s actions teeter on extreme bias against her client and she has also stated that his actions, which have prolonged the case against Flynn, are unjustified.
The Justice Department attorney Jeffery Wall, along with Powell argued and answered questions of the panel that was grilling them on all the details of the case. It was during the trial that Wall hinted at the new evidence in support of Flynn.
He told the judges that Barr’s decision to drop the charges against Flynn, were in part, due to information that the DOJ hasn’t yet shared with the public. Wall said “the Attorney General sees this in the context of nonpublic information from other investigations.”
“It may be possible that the attorney general had before him information that he was not able to share with the court and so what we put in front of the court were the reasons that we could, but it may not be the whole picture available to the executive branch,” he added. “The attorney general made that decision or that judgment on the basis of lots of information. Some of it is public and fleshed out in the motion. Some of it is not.”
The hint at more evidence and information obtained by Barr in Flynn’s case is not surprising as the Justice Department has its own ongoing investigation into the FBI’s alleged malfeasance in the handling of Flynn’s case and that of its investigation into President Donald Trump’s campaign.
Wall did not reveal what the information might be but it may have something to do with the ongoing investigations at the Justice Department.
These Justice Department investigations are separate but concurrent with the current trial against Flynn that was instigated by the same culprits in the FBI. Sullivan’s handling of the case before his court has been consistently criticized by Flynn’s supporters, who view the charges against him as concocted.
Powell, who has been fighting for Flynn’s freedom since taking over his case last year, told the 10 panel judge court that her client is guaranteed by the Constitution a fair and speedy trial. His trial has been nothing of the sort, she argued, as Sullivan, who is overseeing his case has failed to adhere to the Justice Department’s request to dismiss the case against her client.
“Gen. Flynn is a defendant without a prosecutor,” Powell told the court. She stressed to the judges that it’s the DOJ that determines whether or not to prosecute a case, not the judge that is supposed to be ‘by law’ impartial.
She also argued that Sullivan’s “court can’t continue a prosecution on its own.”
The arguments, both by Powell and by the Justice Department, cited the case of U.S. v. Fokker as D.C. Circuit Court precedent for Flynn’s case. Powell noted that the case used a mandamus and the situation in the Fokker case was similar Flynns.
The panel of judges, however, was tough and they pushed Powell on both the historical context of the Fokker trial and the arguments made by Sullivan’s amicus curiae.
For example, Judge Judith Rogers pointed out that in the case of Fokker the judge had already ruled making the situation different than that of Flynns.
Powell, however, argued that it was not up to Sullivan to appoint himself as a pseudo prosecutor in Flynn’s case based on the actions he has taken to ensure that the case is not dismissed against her client. For example, she noted that the process of dragging out the case is unconstitutional to his right to a speedy and fair trial, as well as Sullivan’s actions because the process he created in the case is “way beyond the pale.”
Powell reiterated that the process installed by Sullivan into Flynn’s case shows extraordinary bias on the part of Sullivan who went out of his way to appoint his friend and retired judge, John Gleeson, as his amicus curiae in the case. Gleeson’s arguments on behalf of the court in a case where the executive branch had dropped charges is extraordinarily unusual. Why? Because a mountain of evidence has surfaced revealing that Flynn is not guilty of a crime. There was never any precedent, what-so-ever, to charge him or investigate him as a conspirator of the Russian government and further, the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn never believed he was lying.
Moreover, days before the FBI special agents interviewed Flynn at the White House in January, 2017 an FBI memo of the counterintelligence investigation into Flynn revealed that “no derogatory information” was found on Flynn, nor anyone associated with Flynn.
The memo literally asked that the investigation into the three-star general be dropped but former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok refused to drop the case and continued the investigation into Flynn. Strzok has since been fired from the FBI for his actions during the now debunked Russia Trump campaign investigation.
You may like
Historic House Vote Expels Rep. George Santos Amidst Scandal
In a turn of events, the House of Representatives made history on Friday with a vote to expel Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.), marking the first such expulsion in over two decades. A moment fraught with gravity unfolded as Speaker Mike Johnson wielded his gavel to formalize Santos’ removal, setting a precedent in congressional annals.
Santos, indicted on 23 counts related to wire fraud, identity theft, and other charges, has not faced conviction but stands accused of misusing campaign funds for opulent purchases. The bipartisan vote, tallying 311 to 114, signaled robust support for expulsion, with a marginally higher number of Republicans opting to retain Santos.
Questions loomed as Speaker Johnson left the chamber, his silence leaving the fate of the ongoing government spending battle uncertain. According to reports from Fox News, Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer emphasized the non-partisan nature of the decision, asserting that members concluded Santos had tarnished the House’s reputation and was unfit for representation.
Within the GOP, conflicting opinions emerged, with Rep. Darrell Issa arguing against expulsion, citing the presumption of innocence. The tight-lipped stance of the House Ethics Committee played a pivotal role in the deliberations.
Conversely, members of the New York Republican delegation, led by Rep. Marc Molinaro, asserted Santos’ commission of crimes, justifying expulsion based on a comprehensive investigation.
Santos himself predicted the outcome in an exclusive morning interview on “FOX & Friends.” This vote not only underlines the House’s rare use of expulsion powers but also sets a critical precedent in handling members facing severe legal challenges.
You may like
Media6 days ago
Robert De Niro anti-Trump speech mysteriously replaced in teleprompter at Awards Show
Nation6 days ago
Political Gambit or Defense Strategy? Hunter Biden’s Aggressive Testimony Plans Stir Democratic Intrigue
education4 days ago
Department of Education Office of Civil Rights opens investigation into Harvard University
Israel5 days ago
Israeli Military says Hamas violated ceasefire agreement by firing at IDF troops