Judge Emmet G. Sullivan’s decision to argue against the Justice Department’s recommendation to drop charges against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn is being met with enormous resistance. Top Senators, eleven GOP House members, Department of Justice officials and prosecutors, along with many of the nation’s top legal analysts have all called Sullivan’s decision both partisan and unconstitutional.
On Monday, in a rare filing, Sullivan stuck to his guns. He told the federal appeals court that he will not ‘rubber stamp’ the government’s request to drop charges. It wasn’t minutes later, when the Justice Department, which was invited by the appellate court to respond, shot back against Sullivan stating that not under any circumstances in Flynn’s case “may the district court assume the role of prosecutor and initiate criminal charges of its own. Instead of inviting further proceedings, the court should have granted the government’s motion to dismiss.”
The opposition to Sullivan and his brief was expected but by Monday it took on historical significance with numerous amicus briefs being filed on behalf of Flynn, who was targeted by former senior Obama Administration during their now-debunked investigation against President Donald Trump. It wasn’t only the Justice Department but seven top Senators as well who filed their own amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals saying Sullivan’s actions 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.
Then, shortly after, 11 GOP House members did the same. 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.”
Attorney Beth Wilkinson argued on behalf of Sullivan’s position to not abide with the DOJ on the Flynn case. Wilkinson filed the motion with the court saying it “is unusual for a criminal defendant to claim innocence and move to withdraw his guilty plea after repeatedly swearing under oath that he committed the crime. It is unprecedented for an Acting U.S. Attorney to contradict the solemn representations that career prosecutors made time and again, and undermine the district court’s legal and factual findings, in moving on his own to dismiss the charge years after two different federal judges accepted the defendant’s plea.”
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley wrote that it’s not Sullivan’s place to contradict the decision by the DOJ prosecutors to drop the charges.
“The Flynn case is fast becoming a case of gross judicial overreach as the court appears to assume both judicial and executive powers,” stated Turley. “Sullivan can disagree with the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, but he cannot substitute his own judgment for it.”
The DOJ, which included top officials and three prosecutors, was clear in its motion and made a similar argument as Turley saying, “Instead of inviting further proceedings, the court should have granted the government’s motion to dismiss.”
The Justice Department officials wrote in their 45-page filing to the three-judge appeals court panel that “this Court should issue a writ of mandamus compelling dismissal. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48 provides that ‘[t]he government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment.’ That language does not authorize a court to stand in the way of a dismissal the defendant does not oppose, and any other reading of the Rule would violate both Article II and Article III.”
Flynn’s Defense attorney Sidney Powell spoke on Monday in an interview with Fox Business host Lou Dobbs and pointed out that Wilkinson did not mention in her 46-page motion that Flynn’s previous counsel Covington and Burling had ill-advised him into pleading guilty and that they were aware that they had a serious ‘conflict of interest’ in representing Flynn after November 1, 2017.
Powell criticized Sullivan’s brief, telling Dobbs it was “beyond the pale.”
“The brief obviously doesn’t cite real law,” she said. “They completely ignore our motions to withdraw the plea. The fact that General Flynn was represented by counsel that had a non-consentable conflict of interest, that was so bad he was effectively not represented by counsel at all.”
“I mean everything is wrong with this brief,” Powell said.
In January, Flynn denounced his admission of guilt in a declaration, “I am innocent of this crime, and I request to withdraw my guilty plea. After I signed the plea, the attorneys returned to the room and confirmed that the [special counsel’s office] would no longer be pursuing my son.”
Powell has told this news site on multiple occasions that the conflict of interest Flynn had with his previous counsel was so severe that it required her to advise Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea that he entered in 2017. By the time Flynn withdrew his guilty plea, he had become financially depleted and his plea deal with the government came after continuing threats to drag his son, Michael Flynn Jr. into the Special Counsel’s investigation.
Powell also noted in previous filings that Covington & Burling ill-advised Flynn regarding his case and that he should have never been charged by DOJ prosecutors from special counsel Robert Mueller’s office in the first place based on the evidence recently discovered by the Department of Justice.
In fact, Covington and Burgling turned over thousands of pages of documents to Powell’s team this year that should have been submitted more than a year ago when she requested the Brady material. Moreover, the FBI also turned over a slew of exculpatory evidence recently that Powell says reveals her client’s innocence.
That batch of documentation – which includes emails, texts, voice messages, notebooks, handwritten notes and legal documents – amounted to approximately 6,800 additional documents bringing the total amount of documents to roughly 669,800, along with attachments that were turned over to Powell in Flynn’s case.
You may like
Trump: Tanks to Ukraine could escalate to use of ‘NUKES’
Former President Donald Trump stated bluntly on Truth Social, “FIRST COME THE TANKS, THEN COME THE NUKES. Get this crazy war ended, NOW. So easy to do!”
Trump was referring to the escalation of war in Ukraine. He, like many other commentators and lawmakers, are warning that the decision to continue sending weapons – and now tanks – could potentially lead to the use of “nuclear weapons.”
It’s mission creep and it’s dangerous, they say.
Why? Because Russian President Valdimir Putin has indicated in two different speeches that he would use nuclear weapons to defend Russia, if needed. Those warnings are not just bluster but a very real possibility.
And the escalation of war is visible.
Russia launched 55 missiles strikes across Ukraine Thursday, leaving 11 dead. The strikes come one day after the United States and Germany agreed to send tanks to Ukraine in an effort to aide the country. 47 of the 55 missiles were shot down according to Ukraine’s Air Force command.
Eleven lives were lost and another 11 were injured additionally leaving 35 buildings damaged in the wake of the attacks. According to The New York Times, Denys Shmyhal, said in a post on Telegram. “The main goal is energy facilities, providing Ukrainians with light and heat,” he said.
Ukraine is now demanding that they need F-16 fighter jets. In a post on twitter Ukrainian lawmaker, Oleksiy Goncharenko said, “Missiles again over Ukraine. We need F16.”
Morning. Missiles again over Ukraine. We need F16.
— Oleksiy Goncharenko (@GoncharenkoUa) January 26, 2023
The US has abstained from sending advanced jets in the chances that a volatile decision could foster more dangerous attacks like former President Trump’s post on Truth referred to. If the US did authorize the decision to lend Ukraine the F-16 jets Netherlands’ foreign minister, Wopke Hoekstra, would be willing to supply them. According to The New York Times, Hoekstra told Dutch lawmakers, “We are open-minded… There are no taboos.”
F-16 fighter jets are complex to work on, they are not the average aircraft that can be learned in a matter of weeks. It can take months for pilots to learn how to fly these birds. European and US officials have the concern that Ukrainian forces could potentially use the jets to fly into Russian airspace and launch attacks on Russian soil.
Western allies are trying to avoid such a provocation, because that could lead to nuclear warfare in reference to what Putin has said he would do to defend his country.
You may like
Politics4 days ago
‘Coordinated effort’ to hide Hunter Biden information: Treasury denies request for reports
Elections4 days ago
Judge orders Biden’s DHS to release files on agents accused of censoring election ‘misinformation’
Immigration21 hours ago
Migrants refuse to go to Brooklyn cruise terminal shelter, return to Manhattan hotel
Immigration7 days ago
NYC Mayor turning cruise ship terminal into migrant shelter, ‘our city is at its breaking point’