Connect with us

Nation

‘Game Over’: Flynn’s Defense Sends Forceful Message To Judge Sullivan

Published

on

michael flynn case

Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s defense team slammed U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan’s request Monday asking the federal appeals court to reevaluate whether his court will be forced to drop the case against Flynn. It has been a months long battle for Flynn’s defense team against Sullivan, who has refused to drop charges against the three star general, even after the Justice Department made the request and mounting evidence has revealed Flynn’s innocence.

Flynn’s defense lawyer Sidney Powell entered the motion on Monday, stating that Sullivan’s “court exceeded its constitutional authority by appointing amicus to work against General Flynn after the parties agreed to dismissal. The Constitution and all precedent applying or analyzing Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a) mandate dismissal on the robust substantive motion of the government—every case. Even if this were an issue of first impression, this Court has held that “mandamus is appropriate” where there is “a substantial allegation of usurpation of power.” 

Powell, who has been noted for her extraordinary work in exposing corruption at the highest level of government in Flynn’s case, pointed to a number of mistakes and false statements made in Sullivan’s request to the appeals court to keep Flynn’s case ongoing.

“Sullivan has no standing to file the petition…and he is supposed to be neutral,” stated Powell. “No federal circuit has ever countenanced such a filing.”

“Judge Sullivan completely ignores the massive motion to dismiss and knew evidence filed by the government- and all Flynn’s filings. The evidence shows there was NO CRIME,” stated Powell.

Moreover, Sullivan cannot “appoint amicus here, and the motion to dismiss must be granted instanter. Game over.”

“The case is over. It must be dismissed,” she added.

She isn’t the only one critical of Sullivan. Sullivan’s refusal to drop the case against Flynn is beyond bizarre and reveals the lengths to which his actions appear to be motivated by politics.

As stated in a recent column by Fox News legal analyst and author Gregg Jarrett: “Sullivan had no authority under the Constitution to usurp the power of a separate branch of government. In simple terms, when the executive branch determines that the case is dropped, a judge cannot suddenly abdicate the bench, shed his robe, and appropriate by fiat the role of a prosecutor. The D.C. Circuit Court could have issued their ruling in five simple words: ‘Stay in your lane, Sullivan.’”

Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered Sullivan to follow the law by dismissing the false statements case brought by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s prosecutors against Flynn. The move came after mountains of evidence discovered by Powell, along with DOJ appointed U.S. Attorney Jeffery Jensen, revealed that the FBI did not believe Flynn had committed any crimes. The evidence also exposed what appears to be extraordinary political motivations by former senior Obama Administration officials in targeting Flynn and the Trump campaign in 2016.

Fired former FBI Director James Comey, along with assistant Director Andrew McCabe, fired counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, former General Counsel James Baker, FBI assistant deputy of counterintelligence Bill Priestap were all involved in the targeting of Flynn.

Despite all the evidence mounting against government officials, Powell stated that Sullivan’s request to continue the case against Flynn is mired in false accusations in his motion to the appellate court. For example, “Sullivan did not have adequate time to consider and decide the Government’s motion. That is false. Sullivan denied two Flynn motions opposing allowing ANY amicus and requesting the Motion to Dismiss be granted. The well-founded dismissal should have been granted immediately as a matter of law.”

She noted that, “Sullivan even has the date wrong for Flynn’s mandamus petition. Sullivan entered his scheduling order after Flynn had filed for mandamus on May 19, 2020.:

Sullivan was also extremely wrong in his assertion “that Flynn was ‘convicted twice.’ Flynn was never convicted—no judgment was ever entered. Plea proceedings are void under D.C. Cir. law, and Flynn moved to withdraw his plea & dismiss his case—pending since January 2020.”

“Dismissal is required by every single Rule 48(a) case,” Powell wrote. “Every decision ever to address the issue has compelled granting dismissal on the government’s motion. Separation of powers demands it. No hearing is needed when the Government’s Motion is so documented.”

In early June seven senior Senators filed their own amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals saying Sullivan’s actions against Flynn are a “recipe for tyranny.”

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., Sens. Mike Braun, R-Indiana, Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Kevin Cramer, R-North Dakota, Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Rick Scott, R-Florida, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, also signed the brief.

Shortly after, another 11 GOP House members did the same as the Senators. They filed their own amicus brief with the appellate court against Sullivan’s decision.

The House lawmakers were Representatives Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, Andy Biggs, R-Az, Mike Johnson, R-La, Bill Flores, R-Tx, Jody Hice, R-Georgia, Paul Gosar, R-Az, Ted Budd, R-NC, Andy Harris, R-MD, Ron Wright, R-Tx, Ralph Norman, R-SC, and W. Gregory Steube, R-Fl.

“[T]he powers of the Executive Branch are at their zenith when the Constitution’s grant of authority in Article II is seconded by statutes explicitly vesting power and authority in the Executive,” the lengthy filing submitted by the House reads. “That is emphatically the case here with respect to the power of the Executive Branch in general, and the Justice Department in particular under the direction of the Attorney General, to have the exclusive right and duty to exercise prosecutorial discretion and to control the prosecution of the case against this defendant.”

You may like

Continue Reading

Nation

Biden Administration Proposes Rule to Fortify Federal Bureaucracy Against Republican Presidency

Published

on

Joe Biden

In a strategic move, the Biden administration has unveiled a proposed rule aimed at reinforcing the left-leaning federal bureaucracy, potentially hindering future conservative policy implementations by Republican presidents. This move has raised concerns about the efficacy of democratic elections when a deep-seated bureaucracy remains largely unchanged, regardless of electoral outcomes.

Key points of the situation include:

Presidential Appointees vs. Career Bureaucrats: Of the 2.2 million federal civil workers, only 4,000 are presidential appointees. The vast majority, made up of career bureaucrats, continue in their roles from one administration to the next. This continuity is facilitated by rules that make it exceedingly difficult to discipline or replace them, resulting in a bureaucracy that tends to lean left politically.

Union Political Affiliation: A striking 95% of unionized federal employees who donate to political candidates support Democrats, according to Open Secrets, with only 5% favoring Republicans. This significant political skew among federal workers raises questions about the potential for political bias in the execution of government policies.

Obstructionism and Challenges for GOP Presidents: Some career bureaucrats have been accused of obstructing Republican presidents’ agendas, leading to policy delays and challenges. For example, during the Trump administration, career lawyers in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division declined to challenge Yale University’s discrimination against Asian American applicants, prompting Trump to seek legal counsel from other divisions. The case was subsequently dropped when Joe Biden took office.

Biden’s Countermeasures: President Biden has taken steps to protect the bureaucracy’s status quo. In October 2020, Trump issued an executive order aiming to reclassify federal workers who make policy as at-will employees, but Biden canceled it upon taking office.

Proposed Rule and Congressional Actions: The rule unveiled by the Biden administration seeks to further impede a president’s ability to reinstate Trump’s order. Additionally, some Democrats in Congress are pushing to eliminate the president’s authority to reclassify jobs entirely. This has been referred to as an attempt to “Trump-proof the federal workforce.”

Republican Candidates’ Pledge: GOP candidates such as President Donald J Trump, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Ron DeSantis have pledged to address this issue. According to reports from Fox News, Ramaswamy has gone further, advocating for the elimination of half or more of civil service positions, emphasizing the need for accountability.

Debate on the Merit of the Civil Service: While Democrats and their media allies argue that civil service protects merit over patronage, critics contend that the system has evolved into a form of job security for federal workers with minimal accountability. Federal employees often receive higher salaries and more substantial benefits than their private-sector counterparts.

In summary, the Biden administration’s proposed rule and broader actions to protect the federal bureaucracy have sparked a debate over the role of career bureaucrats in shaping government policy.

Republican candidates are vowing to address these concerns, highlighting the need for accountability and ensuring that government agencies work in alignment with the elected president’s agenda. This ongoing debate raises important questions about the relationship between the bureaucracy and the democratic process in the United States.

Information in this article was retrieved from Fox News.

You may like

Continue Reading

Trending