Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Appeals Court Orders Judge Emmet Sullivan to Dismiss Michael Flynn Criminal Prosecution

Appeals Court Orders Judge Emmet Sullivan to Dismiss Michael Flynn Criminal Prosecution

“The district court’s orders appointing an amicus … and scheduling the proposed hearing therefore constitute clear legal error….’

The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has ordered Judge Emmet Sullivan to grand the government’s motion to dismiss the criminal charges against Michael Flynn.

The appeals court ruled after Sullivan appointed an “amicus” counsel to argue against the motion.

Background is available in these prior posts.

You can read the Order here. Here are excerpts from the majority (2-1) decision:

The justifications the district court offers in support of further inquiry—for instance, that only the U.S. Attorney signed the motion, without any line prosecutors, and that the motion is longer than most Rule 48(a) motions—are insufficient to rebut the presumption of regularity to which the government is entitled….

A hearing may sometimes be appropriate before granting leave of court under Rule 48; however, a hearing cannot be used as an occasion to superintend the prosecution’s charging decisions, because “authority over criminal charging decisions resides fundamentally with the Executive, without the involvement of—and without oversight power in—the Judiciary.” Fokker Servs., 818 F.3d at 741. The district court’s orders appointing an amicus, see infra 8–10, and scheduling the proposed hearing therefore constitute clear legal error….

In this case, the district court’s actions will result in specific harms to the exercise of the Executive Branch’s exclusive prosecutorial power. The contemplated proceedings would likely require the Executive to reveal the internal deliberative process behind its exercise of prosecutorial discretion, interfering with the Article II charging authority…. Thus, the district court’s appointment of the amicus and demonstrated intent to scrutinize the reasoning and motives of the Department of Justice constitute irreparable harms that cannot be remedied on appeal….

Because this is not the unusual case where a more searching inquiry is justified, and because there is no adequate remedy for the intrusion on “the Executive’s long-settled primacy over charging decisions,” Fokker Servs., 818 F.3d at 743, we grant the petition for mandamus in part and order the district court to grant the government’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss the charges against Flynn. We deny Flynn’s petition to the extent he seeks reassignment of the district judge.


The majority also addressed the claim in the Dissent that appeal court action was premature and should await a ruling by Sullivan (emphasis added).

Fifth, the dissent minimizes the import of the district court’s orders, claiming that we are granting mandamus “before the district court has acted.” Dissenting Op. 2 (quotation marks omitted). Yet the district court has acted here. It has ordered briefing and scheduled a hearing in order to provide a court-appointed amicus the opportunity “to present arguments in opposition to the government’s Motion to Dismiss.” Order Appointing Amicus Curiae, ECF No. 205, at 1. In other words, the court has appointed one private citizen to argue that another citizen should be deprived of his liberty regardless of whether the Executive Branch is willing to pursue the charges. Although no decision has yet been made on the motion to dismiss, the district court’s judicial supervision, detailed supra 7–8, “threatens to chill law enforcement by subjecting the prosecutor’s motives and decisionmaking to outside inquiry.” Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607–08 (1985). As explained above, we have held such “interference with the internal deliberations” of the Executive Branch to be a quintessential irreparable injury giving rise to mandamus. Cobell, 334 F.3d at 1140–43….

Ultimately, the dissent fails to justify the district court’s unprecedented intrusions on individual liberty and the Executive’s charging authority.

It’s unclear what happens to Sullivan’s apparent intention to consider criminal contempt against Flynn, which Sullivan wanted the amicus appointee to opine about. But since the court vacated the appointment of amicus counsel, at least that avenue Sullivan wanted is foreclosed.

For the foregoing reasons, we grant Flynn’s petition for a writ of mandamus in part and direct the district court to grant the government’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss. In light of that grant, we vacate the district court’s order appointing an amicus as moot.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


2smartforlibs | June 24, 2020 at 10:57 am


    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to 2smartforlibs. | June 24, 2020 at 1:00 pm


      I should note Sullivan has yet to comply with the directive of the Court of Appeals. He cancelled the scheduled hearing, but has yet, to my knowledge, dismissed the case.

      So, what do you do if he fails to comply and goes into a passive aggressive mode? He could cynically say the Court of Appeals did not say when he had to dismiss, though the plain understanding is that he was to do so immediately. So the question is, when does Sullivan enter into contempt of court? With each passing hour of each passing day, Sullivan’s lack of compliance becomes more alarming.

      Powell should be ready to prepare an Order to Show Cause for action by the Court of Appeals. When Flynn so moves, I expect Sullivan to request a review of the original order en banc, then appeal. It’s all about delay, which is ultimately futile as, even if not re-elected, Trump can pardon Flynn before he leaves office.

      Hopefully the Court of Appeals would not take kindly to a lower court judge snubbing it so blatantly. My take, however, is that Sullivan wants to force Trump to pardon. He knows he is very unlikely to receive more than a harshly worded letter for his outrageous behavior.

        stevewhitemd in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | June 25, 2020 at 11:25 am

        I do think it’s about delay. Democrats want to be able to flonk this into October. After the election they won’t care; they will of course attack Trump if he pardons Flynn but if Trump loses it won’t matter.

        Look at the battle-space being shaped now for the fall campaign. The Flynn affair is one small part of that, as is working to keep how Flynn was railroaded out of the news.

          henrybowman in reply to stevewhitemd. | June 25, 2020 at 5:22 pm

          It’s about delay all right, but now it’s to protect their own asses. Once Flynn is off the hook, his gag order is dead, and he can start dropping truth bombs.

    Better yet – and more feasible – PDJT should hire Flynn for a very high level job.

    buck61 in reply to 2smartforlibs. | June 24, 2020 at 1:24 pm

    I would be happy to see him retire and just fade away

    Would love to see it but it’s been a while since he did anything on his own, he is strictly a puppet of Obama who is pulling the strings now.

    Pull that hack right out of his chambers and coat him with a liberal dose of tar and feathers. That hack bastard is going to do everything he possibly can to thwart the Circuit’s order, and Flynn should simply flip him the jake and walk out. What is the hack judge going to do about it? Send the marshals? The Circuit should send the marshals after that hack partisan son of a bitch and throw him in jail with a couple of sex starved thugs named “Bubba” and “Thor”.

This was blatant abuse by the judge, blatant enough to justify removing him from the bench, in my opinion.

    irv in reply to Exiliado. | June 24, 2020 at 1:13 pm

    Yes but that would be too much like there being consequences to behavior. Washington doesn’t like consequences. I predict nothing will happen to Sullivan.

    Barry Soetoro in reply to Exiliado. | June 24, 2020 at 1:17 pm

    Won’t, unfortunately, happen as long as the subversive and immoral Democrats control the House or at least one-third of the Senate.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Exiliado. | June 24, 2020 at 5:30 pm

    Not just blatant abuse, but politically-motivated abuse. A judge may get a hair up his butt now and then over a particular case or defendant and act in an unprofessional manner. As objectionable as that may be, they’re only human. But this was motivated by partisan politics and that is inexcusable and intolerable.

      ROTONDARON in reply to DaveGinOly. | June 25, 2020 at 8:45 am

      JUDGES “ON THE BENCH”, are supposed to ‘side step being “human”, & do their job, according to the Constitution!

      This is the problem with the “bench”, today….Too many..{ even the SPOTUSA}…..Find with their political feelings, not the Constitution….OR THE RULE OF LAW!

    Aarradin in reply to Exiliado. | June 25, 2020 at 2:31 am

    I’m sure Adam Schiff will get right on those impeachment hearings.

This is a great day for the rule of law – What the DOJ did to Col. Flynn ranks as one of the most corrupt abuses of a citizen by our government. When our own government goes against someone like this, those in government who perpetuated the fraud must pay.

    Has he been demoted?

      Edward in reply to MTED. | June 24, 2020 at 8:50 pm

      Let’s see, COL = O6, LTG = O9 Guess not. Just a mistake in the post. I guess someone didn’t like the question.

    ConradCA in reply to 94Corvette. | June 24, 2020 at 12:39 pm

    It’s important that the DOJ quickly prosecute those in the DOJ who broke the law in their persecution of General Flynn. Trump should rectify the damage done to Flynn by these criminals and explain what was done to him by Obama et al.

      Barry Soetoro in reply to ConradCA. | June 24, 2020 at 2:09 pm

      What is the likelihood the Stupid Party will do the right thing in an effort to remediate the harm done to Flynn and to We the People? I’m not holding my breath.

Sometimes the bad guys lose. Today is one of those increasingly rare days.

Sullivan should be referred for Bar discipline, as far I’m concerned. His conduct throughout this proceeding demonstrate numerous, brazen and glaring breaches of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct. He has demonstrated that he is a narcissistic partisan ideologue who is incapable of treating defendants fairly, who is indifferent to prosecutorial misconduct and concealment of exculpatory evidence, and, that he is incapable of acting as a dispassionate, neutral arbiter in a proceeding.

    johnny dollar in reply to guyjones. | June 24, 2020 at 11:50 am

    Unfortunately, in this case, the only remedy is impeachment by Congress (Senate and House, that is). There is no “bar association” that has any jurisdiction.

      guyjones in reply to johnny dollar. | June 24, 2020 at 12:12 pm

      I understand what you’re saying, as a practical matter. But, doesn’t Sullivan have a law license? You’re saying that judges are immune to Bar discipline and sanctions for ethical violations? They are still attorneys, are they not?

        Barry in reply to guyjones. | June 24, 2020 at 12:47 pm

        The “Bar” is as corrupt as the rest of the “justice” system.

        Edward in reply to guyjones. | June 24, 2020 at 8:53 pm

        The Constitution does not require a law degree, law license or membership in some Bar Association in order to be appointed and confirmed as a Federal Judge. Of course we don’t nominate or confirm non-lawyers to be judges, perhaps we should – might solve a lot of problems.

          Barry in reply to Edward. | June 24, 2020 at 11:13 pm

          For the most part it has been lawyers doing the nominating and confirming, and the results speak to that.

          There are a lot of good lawyers. Plenty of bad ones as well.

Judge Sullivan is a disgrace and should not be presiding over a parking ticket case, much less anything of any significance. If he doesn’t retire or resign, he should be removed.

Now watch the left melt down hahaha fucking haaaaa!

And to add sugar on top everyone involved with this travesty needs to be held accountable.

    TheOldZombie in reply to mailman. | June 24, 2020 at 12:27 pm

    Trump needs to hire Flynn to make the meltdown even more glorious.

      Would be nice, won’t happen. Flynn has a few years of lawsuits ahead of him, suing the DOJ for their overuse of power and collecting a few million at the end, and he can’t do that while holding a position in the Trump administration. Maybe in the Pence administration coming up in 2025.

Given everything we have been through this year, the win is even sweeter.

    zennyfan in reply to Leslie Eastman. | June 24, 2020 at 11:26 am

    Don’t claim the W yet. Is is possible that Sullivan seeks a rehearing or en banc review?

      Tom Servo in reply to zennyfan. | June 24, 2020 at 3:58 pm

      Yes, it is still a possibility. There are currently 11 active Judges on the DC Court of Appeals; any one of them can request that the Court vote on rehearing the case en banc (all 11 of them), and no reason need be given for such a request. (A perk of being a Judge at that level) if 6 of the 11 agree, then the case would be reheard before all of them.

      For those counting, currently there are 7 Democrats and 4 Republicans on that court.

        faboutlaws in reply to Tom Servo. | June 24, 2020 at 4:23 pm

        A finding of mandamus with direction to dismiss the case is a finding of innocence. The Government can’t appeal a finding of innocence.

          rabidfox in reply to faboutlaws. | June 24, 2020 at 4:58 pm

          Really? At one point I would have said that the Government can’t interfere with atty/client privilege. We all know how long that lasted with the left wanted something from Cohen.

          justaguy in reply to faboutlaws. | June 24, 2020 at 8:15 pm

          Does anyone have standing to request an enbanc hearing apart from the rest of the court? Aren’t there some procedures for enbanc in the DC ckt that make this hard for one not a party tro the case and Sully isn’t a party.

          Tom Servo in reply to faboutlaws. | June 24, 2020 at 11:18 pm

          I believe the only others who could request an En Banc rehearing, besides those 11 Active Judges, are either Flynn or the DOJ, the two parties to the case. Judge Sullivan is NOT a party to the case, even though he is acting like one.

thad_the_man | June 24, 2020 at 11:14 am

Answering a question asked many times on twitter.
Q: Is it over?
A: Mostly. There can still be an en banc review and a SCOTUS review. Someone who has standing has to ask for it, and the only one I can thing of is Judge Sullivan. I’m not even sure he has standing, some legal minds might chime in there.

So the best that I can say is that in this case it’s like the Black Knight in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”. He’s lost two arms, does he want to lose two legs too.

    zennyfan in reply to thad_the_man. | June 24, 2020 at 11:26 am

    Sorry, didn’t see this before posting.

    Joe-dallas in reply to thad_the_man. | June 24, 2020 at 12:28 pm

    En banc review remains a possibility, especially since the DC appeals court is heavily stacked with obuma appointees. Though I dont think that there will be an en banc hearing or even a call for en banc. Rao did a good job pointing out the FBI malfeasence and the political nature of the appointment of Gleason including his editorial calling for continued prosecution along with Sullivans call for amicus briefs in support of continued prosecution by private citizens and the judiciary.

    The ruling is not a new issue nor is it contrary to existing circuit precedence.

    For those reasons, I doubt the DC court would be willing to overturn the order in what would be clearly a political move – even obama appointees are not that corrupt.

      Tom Servo in reply to Joe-dallas. | June 24, 2020 at 1:17 pm

      I agree; it’s possible that the circuit could hold a sua sponte hearing en banc, but I don’t consider it likely. But these days, you never know. As Yogi Berra said, it ain’t over til it’s over.

      gonzotx in reply to Joe-dallas. | June 24, 2020 at 4:08 pm

      Not that corrupt? Obama appointees?

      Have you not been paying attention

      Oh Lord

The AA judge (Obama appointee) on the 3-member panel sided with the AA district court judge.

The left commands, and usually gets, blind obedience.

    EdH in reply to fscarn. | June 24, 2020 at 12:36 pm

    Noting the race of a judge is just plain ignorant. If the dissenting appeals court judge is “AA” (I don’t know) as is Sullivan so what ?

    The woke radical left tries to make everything about race. That’s just wrong and it isn’t countered by following suit.

      pfg in reply to EdH. | June 24, 2020 at 4:01 pm

      Whatsamattayou? AA is just an excuse to give to the unqualified / incompetent something which they have not earned through merit. Putting AA beneficiaries in positions where their incompetence can get people killed or injured in other ways is outrageous. Flynn has been bankrupted at this point (though the coming lawsuits should make him more than whole*).

      What’s more, the entire premise of AA is out-and-out wrong. Giving preferential treatment based solely on skin color. And you’re okay with that!

      *And AA Judge Sullivan should count his lucky stars that he has absolute immunity because Flynn, in a right thinking world, would name him as Defendant #2 after Covington and clean him out.

      gonzotx in reply to EdH. | June 24, 2020 at 4:09 pm

      Oh please, wake up to reality

      Blood is thicker than water

      Black is thicker than blood

      DaveGinOly in reply to EdH. | June 24, 2020 at 5:38 pm

      Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Meaning that if it looks like collusion, it’s collusion. Such can’t be rejected out of hand these days, esp. with Obama appointees. The time when our institutions were beyond such suspicions is long past. And those who are being accused shouldn’t be allowed to use their race to excuse themselves from the accusation. And no one else should be doing it for them, either. The Left has brought this on itself. A jaundiced eye should be cast on everything they do, for there is little they do that’s for the good of the country.

    Barry Soetoro in reply to fscarn. | June 24, 2020 at 4:52 pm

    It’s been over a half century since the ruling elite imposed Black Privilege on the US, which currently costs us about $1 trillion annually. The experiment has been a miserable failure, so much so that Blacks unsatisfied with the unconstitutional privilege they’ve been granted are now demanding Black Supremacy. Despite our investment and patience, Blacks are unable, or unwilling, to assimilate into a culture rooted in the Anglo-American Enlightenment. If we want to salvage what’s left of our culture and restore it, we must terminate the experiment — or continue on the transition to a Sub-Saharan culture.

As a relative legal novice, I wonder if can this clown Sullivan simply ignore this ruling or attempt some other b.s. to subvert justice and stick it to Flynn (don’t know what that might be, though).

What happens to him if he were to do things along those lines? Because I sure wouldn’t put it past this hack of a “judge”, and he clearly gives zero f*cks about doing his job at all, let alone doing it properly.

    rabidfox in reply to UJ. | June 24, 2020 at 5:01 pm

    Good question. I’ll add, can the Court of Appeals cite Sullivan for contempt?

It was a 2 to 1 decision.
The Obama appointed judge disagrees and believes Sullivan should continue prosecuting the case.
This is the same judge who brought up George Floyd in the initial hearing bringing race into it when it had nothing to do with it.
These activist judges have no shame.
How the hell can anyone argue against a rule 48a case where there is clear precedent.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to leeman. | June 24, 2020 at 11:45 am

    Even the dissent was not friendly to Sullivan. It simply said Sullivan should be given a reasonable amount of time to dismiss so that the writ was premature. The majority’s decision was more sound in that it noted the harm continuance of this farce would cause. But ultimately, even the dissent seemed to indicate a duty to dismiss for Sullivan. As for what is next? Who knows what this loose cannon will do, but this is a major slap-down. If this does not end it, you will know there is much more at play… some sort of irrational bias, politicization, or extra-legal agenda.

    I hope the damages claim is sitting hot on Powell’s desk, and will be launched as soon as dismissal is filed.

Now that Flynn is over, Trump should appoint his lawyer as Special Counsel, to do what Barr won’t

    Valerie in reply to MarkS. | June 24, 2020 at 11:42 am

    This is where the lawyers hang out. We want to see due process of law and equal application of the law. This is not about frog-marching or other adolescent fantasies.

      alaskabob in reply to Valerie. | June 24, 2020 at 11:58 am

      But wasn’t frog-marching the goal of the initial investigation and prosecution? The case of Flynn has turned because the new defense went on offense. If it takes frog-marching to purge this form of abuse from the system…so be it.

        We prefer there to be an absence of frogs doing any kind of marching on either ideological end of the spectrum. A simple settling of the case in the way it should go, followed by an appropriate settlement for the judicial overreach and some “Will never hold office again” stamps for several FBI officers and judges should do the trick quite nicely.

        Let this case be a deterrent for any other left-leaning bureaucrat who wants to use the employees of the DOJ as their own police force. Justice will eventually catch them.

      Barry in reply to Valerie. | June 24, 2020 at 11:22 pm

      “This is where the lawyers hang out.”

      The vast majority of commenters on this site are not lawyers.

      A majority of the LI staff are not lawyers I believe.

This case proves the “Great Writ” is not habeas corpus, but mandamus.

One of the first things I noticed as a young attorney was that it can be difficult to even formulate an argument when the other side has well and truly run off the rails.

This case should be terminated in Flynn’s favor, and then he should sue for abuse of process and malicious prosecution.

    iconotastic in reply to Valerie. | June 24, 2020 at 7:17 pm

    That must be a painful skill to develop. I was thinking the same thing from a political perspective as I listened to the Marxist Seattle City Council member rant. There was so much lunacy and dishonesty that I was left with the feeling ‘where does one even begin?’

After listening to the questioning in real time, I did not expect this result.

The appellate court’s order is no surprise. As I said in a previous thread on this issue, the appellate court CLEARLY advised Sullivan to drop the charges against Flynn from the very beginning. A reasonably intelligent jurist would have seen the handwriting on the wall and done just that, without forcing the appellate court to order it. But Sullivan is either too dumb to realize this or feels that he can gain greater benefit from being a Rebel Without A Clue. When the courts lose the appearance of neutrality, the justice system collapses.

    mrtomsr in reply to Mac45. | June 24, 2020 at 12:15 pm

    From everything I have been seeing, certainly this year anyway, “ When the courts lose the appearance of neutrality, the justice system collapses“, THIS seems to be the desired result that many victim groups and the media at large is pushing for.

    Joe-dallas in reply to Mac45. | June 24, 2020 at 3:20 pm

    One observation I had

    If Sullivan had limited his inquiry of the dismissal to whether there was any improper motivation for the DOJ dismissal (ie from WH pressure), then the ruling would likely have gone the other way.

    However because Sullivan was seeking the potential other charges, and hired a retired judge who publicly advocated continuing the prosecution and since sullivan pretended that malfeasance at the FBI did not exist, The DC appeals court overruling Sullivan was preordained.

“appoint one private citizen to argue that another private citizen should be deprived of his liberty.” Well, when you put it that way, and that way is spot on, one cannot disagree. This isn’t ancient Athens; we can’t sue for someone’s exile or death (thank God).

FWIW the hand-wringers at the NY Times seem to be holding out for an en banc hearing.

    alaskabob in reply to John M. | June 24, 2020 at 12:09 pm

    Sullivan’s next decisions rests solely on the telephone call from the DNC’s Central Committee which is weighing the political value of continuing the appeal eventually up to SCOTUS or not. Only question is whether they can count on Roberts or Gorsuch. As for “court neutrality”…sure.

    ROTONDARON in reply to John M. | June 25, 2020 at 8:33 am

    {Judge? Sullivan}……recieved so much “Trump Pressure”….ie: “hundreds of millions of trump supporters”, around the country, & abroad……Sullivan, was ‘forced”, to do the right thing!…:O}}}

    **”&”…we “can’t”, exile anyone?…..{ So sad….America, should be able to “EXILE”, the present “Demoncrat leadership”…..&, Demoncrat Congress, with Bath House Barry…..leading the way!

This should (but won’t) put to rest the lie that there are no “Obama judges”.

    Ulysses in reply to Toad-O. | June 24, 2020 at 12:21 pm

    Roberts more than doubled down on that remark with his Census ruling and his bizarre use of procedural legerdemain in the DACA case.

Any word on whether the ruling will go to the entire court? I assume this is the next step.

    Tom Servo in reply to justaguy. | June 24, 2020 at 1:19 pm

    It’s possible but not certain. We have to wait and see. Without a stay, Sullivan has to comply within 7 days, so that’s the time frame we’re looking at.

    Terence G. Gain in reply to justaguy. | June 24, 2020 at 2:54 pm

    Does Sullivan even have standing to appeal a mandamus order?

And another Obama judge tried to rig justice.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to puhiawa. | June 24, 2020 at 1:10 pm

    Has Judge Sullivan claimed to have found a noose on his garage door yet?

Bruce Hayden | June 24, 2020 at 12:31 pm

“The justifications the district court offers in support of further inquiry—for instance, that only the U.S. Attorney signed the motion, without any line prosecutors, and that the motion is longer than most Rule 48(a) motions—are insufficient to rebut the presumption of regularity to which the government is entitled….“

The absurdity here is that the dissent was essentially buying into the argument that the line prosecutors were the ones whose decisions were authoritative, and not the US Attorney whom they worked for. But that is exactly backwards. The line prosecutors are legally no more than the USA’s hands. He is the one who is Senate confirmed. Their job is to do his bidding, and when they don’t, they can be removed by him, which is what happened here. In other words, they have no legal authority or legitimacy beyond his. But worse here – the government’s brief was also signed by the Solicitor General of the United States, as well as two of his four top deputies, etc. He represents the the DOJ, the Attorney General, as well as the duly elected President. He is the fourth highest ranking official in the DOJ, is a Presidentially nominated, Senate confirmed, principal officer.

Wasn’t one of Obama’s first actions after being elected to dismiss the case against the black panthers at the PA polling place (despite a guilty verdict and video evidence)?

Saw CNN using the dropping of charges against Flynn to attack Barr and Trump. President protecting his friends and Barr being Trump’s personal lawyer. No mention of the facts behind charges being dropped! I hate CNN.

    ConradCA in reply to ConradCA. | June 24, 2020 at 12:52 pm

    Is CNN doing political ads for Biden’s campaign? Can they be prosecuted for illegal donations to Biden?

      Milhouse in reply to ConradCA. | June 25, 2020 at 12:54 am

      No, they’re not doing it for Biden’s campaign. Biden’s campaign did not ask them to do it, and had nothing to do with it. Therefore there is nothing to prosecute.

      CNN is entitled to campaign for Biden, just as Legal Insurrection is entitled to campaign for Trump; the constitution guarantees that right, so Congress cannot put any limits on it. Congress can only regulate help given to the Biden or Trump campaigns. The campaigns are legal entities and heavily regulated. If the Trump campaign were to contact Prof J and ask him to post something on LI, that would be a regulated donation. But anything LI does for Trump without the campaign’s involvement isn’t and can’t be regulated.

        fast182 in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2020 at 8:43 am

        And you “know” that there’s no coordination between CNN and Biden’s campaign? Really? After they gave Hillary the debate questions? After all we’ve learned about the coordinated leaks to the media orgs from CIA, FBI, and DOJ to further the coup?

          Milhouse in reply to fast182. | June 25, 2020 at 11:20 am

          I know that there’s no reason in the world to suppose they consulted the Biden campaign about it, or that they have any interest in what the Biden campaign wants or doesn’t want them to do. I don’t need evidence that there was no such coordination; if you want to allege it you need evidence that there was.

          And CNN didn’t give Clinton the debate questions. One employee did so on her own initiative, and they fired her for it. (Just to be clear, this was during the primary debates, not her debates with Trump.) That a leaker leaks to multiple outlets is not “coordination”; it’s normal and to be expected, just as anyone issuing a press release sends it to multiple outlets.

        Bruce Hayden in reply to Milhouse. | June 26, 2020 at 12:40 am

        Yeh, under Citizens United, they can campaign for Biden. But they are providing in kind assistance, and if they are campaigning for him, they legally are limited in the amount of campaign contributions they can legally make. They have likely crossed that line. There are ways around this, but individuals and PACs have to be careful how they phrase their statements (for example, here in MT, we see ads that say “tell Senator Daines xxx”). That ad is acceptable because it isn’t directly advocating for or against a specific candidate.

        Of course the big bucks in in kind contributions are likely to come from social media companies.

          Milhouse in reply to Bruce Hayden. | June 26, 2020 at 1:12 am

          Yeh, under Citizens United, they can campaign for Biden. But they are providing in kind assistance, and if they are campaigning for him, they legally are limited in the amount of campaign contributions they can legally make.

          You contradict yourself. If they are campaigning for him they are not making any contributions to the Biden Campaign at all. And that is the key point. Congress can regulate the entity known as the “Biden Campaign”; it can NOT regulate what people do to campaign for Biden.

          There is NO LIMIT to how much they can campaign for him. Or to how much they can spend on campaigning for him, whether in cash or forgone revenue.

          There are ways around this, but individuals and PACs have to be careful how they phrase their statements (for example, here in MT, we see ads that say “tell Senator Daines xxx”). That ad is acceptable because it isn’t directly advocating for or against a specific candidate.

          That is not true at all. The only ads you see that say that are NOT placed by individuals but by entities such as tax-exempt charities, churches, etc., which are not allowed to engage in any political campaigning at all. They can educate the public about issues, but they can’t advise people how to vote.

    stevewhitemd in reply to ConradCA. | June 24, 2020 at 1:15 pm

    Yes, but let’s be clear, we all saw that coming with CNN…

    JackinSilverSpring in reply to ConradCA. | June 24, 2020 at 2:20 pm

    Don’t watch CNN, the Counterfeit News Network.

    DaveGinOly in reply to ConradCA. | June 24, 2020 at 5:49 pm

    I was reading the comments before posting a joke. But now I see it’s not a joke (unsurprisingly). Joke follows:

    MSM headline: Flynn appeal to remove Judge Sullivan fails

    Today the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling denying General Flynn’s petition to replace Judge Sullivan.
    (End of story.)

    ROTONDARON in reply to ConradCA. | June 25, 2020 at 8:38 am



Free at Last…

Good day for our side.

We need a lot more days like it.

My understanding is there will be a stepwise revelation of the Obama crimes, with time allowed for the guilty the wriggle and spin, between revelations.

A great victory? No. No one who committed this atrocity is getting brought to justice.

And even if Slow-Walk Barr gets around to it, there just might be no America left. And Barr’s slow-walking will bear ENORMOUS blame. So will Sessions, for his treason.

But then, the maoist victors won’t worry about barr or sessions or whoever. But we’ll be worrying for our lives.


    I’m not seeing anyone call it a “great victory”. It is a victory, plain and simple. It will be a great victory for General Flynn if Sullivan carries out the decision as required. If they make an appeal to drag this out then it is just a battle won in a larger war.

    ROTONDARON in reply to | June 25, 2020 at 11:04 am

    ACTUALLY: One can’t refer to Barr….{ as “slow walk”}! Bath House Barry, left this judicial system, in chaos, & dis-array, to the NTH DEGREE…How can Barr maneuver around all the false obstacles, “legally”, & certainly not :”fast”, as the system calls for!

    Obama, & his motley crew, of Muslims, & Socialist/progressive anti-AMERICAN…..pseudo politicians……Should all be brought up on charges of treason, against this country!

All very interesting legal/judicial discussion, this; too bad it’s not what Sullivan and his puppet masters are focusing on.

The object is TIME, and how it can be spent and wasted to get the technically unfinished trial through the election — with fingers crossed into a hopefully Biden-is-president-now world, with plenty of further sadistic opportunity available judicially against Flynn. The Dem-Lefties want him broiled to death.

On this view, a motion filed by Sullivan attorney Beth Wilkinson to petition the same DCCCA for an en banc decision looks, then, just super.

    stevewhitemd in reply to GatorGuy. | June 24, 2020 at 1:17 pm

    A fair point. An en banc review would take at least a month and more like two. That gets us to August, and nothing happens in August. So September. If the full Circuit requests oral arguments we’re to October. If the full Circuit reverses the panel that’ll be quite the “October surprise”, and one can be sure that the Democrats, CNN and MSNBC (but I repeat myself) will take full advantage of it.

      fast182 in reply to stevewhitemd. | June 24, 2020 at 2:07 pm

      Perhaps that’s why the DOJ yesterday released to Sullivan more evidence to prove that the case was completely corrupted. I believe that they said that more is expected to come.

      I wish it was kinda’ like in The Untouchables…but probably not. Barr is too much of a gentleman for that.

      District Attorney: [when the Judge announces the switch of jury] What did you tell him?
      Ness: I told him his name is in the ledger too.
      [Close-up of the Judge, staring daggers at Ness from the bench]
      District Attorney: His name wasn’t in the ledger…

      lichau in reply to stevewhitemd. | June 25, 2020 at 4:41 pm

      I think that is the plan. Standard Swamp methodology: Deny, Delay, Destroy.
      With respect to Flynn, they are now at the Delay stage.

One could say Judge Sullivan just got spanked.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | June 24, 2020 at 2:55 pm


Focus on the Family
covered Professor Jacobson today
on their daily TV show.

bobinreverse | June 24, 2020 at 3:19 pm

Ain’t over til it’s over- ie- Robby Roberts gives the last word.

Flynn’s former attorneys will be headed over to Sidney Powell’s office with a check for at least $15,000,000 begging her to take it.

    ROTONDARON in reply to faboutlaws. | June 25, 2020 at 11:52 am


The DC Circuit should have given Sullivan 3 days to enter the order of dismissal. Otherwise Sullivan is going to take a month and write up a 90 page brief criticizing the DC Circuit and push to have it published in F Supp. And he still might try the contempt route.

Interesting: In light of that grant, we vacate the district court’s order appointing an amicus as moot.

Mister Moot (the “amicus” counsel) seems to be getting ready to protest his mootness to the appeals court. I think it would be hilarious if they simply refused to recognize his authority to do so.

So we have:

ORDERED that Flynn’s petition for a writ of mandamus be granted in part; the District
Court is directed to grant the government’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss; and the District Court’s
order appointing an amicus is hereby vacated as moot, in accordance with the opinion of the
court filed herein this date.

Case 1:17-cr-00232-EGS Document 233 Filed 06/24/20 Page 1 of 1

MOTION to Clarify / Request for Clarification and Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief by JOHN GLEESON as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gleeson, John) (Entered: 06/24/2020)

So Gleeson is claiming a motion to clarification, but the order that follows says it is moot because “an amicus is hereby vacated”

Am I reading this right? Gleeson has no standing because they said an amicus is hereby vacated?

Here are all the documents:

If this is turn, it is another slap in Sullivan’s face otherwise Flynn will have to suffer another 24 days and then some.

I think this is key:

the court has appointed one private citizen to argue that another citizen should be deprived of his liberty regardless of whether the Executive Branch is willing to pursue the charges.

This is abuse of the court systems and I am glad they called it out.

This is a slap in the face to Gleeson

He relied on news stories, tweets, and other facts outside
the record to contrast the government’s grounds for dismissal
here with its rationales for prosecution in other cases

As I understand the en banc process, a majority of the judges must vote to hear it.
Does anyone here know, if such a vote has a deadline, after which today’s ruling would be final (unless the judges vote for the hearing)?

Prof J, if you’re reading this, do you agree with the appeals court decision? I find it interesting that both Paul Cassell and Michael Luttig think it’s wrong, and ought to be reversed en banc. They are both men very learned in the law and of excellent judgment, so if they’re bothered by it there’s a good chance that they’re right.

And they are both wrong.

Although, who would appeal the appeals decision? Is it the Judges place to appeal to the SCOTUS? Wouldnt this be coming from the prosecution or the defence? And given the Judge is neither of these then on who’s authority would Sully be able to appeal this decision?

    Milhouse in reply to mailman. | June 25, 2020 at 11:23 am

    Sullivan could certainly appeal the order, since it’s directed to him. If he thinks it’s wrong (as Cassell and Luttig do), and if he cares about the law itself (a more dubious proposition), then he should appeal it, even though in the end it won’t make much practical difference.

Make judge Sullivan personally liable for all legal expenses incurred by Flynn since the date the government withdrew its charges. Maybe take a look at punitive damages, too, assessed personally against judge Sullivan.