Appeals Court Orders Flynn case thrown out
ASPartOfMe
Veteran

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,085
Location: Long Island, New York
Appeals Court Orders Lower Judge To Throw Out Michael Flynn Case
That ruling followed earlier arguments by Flynn's attorneys that the matter had become moot after both they and the Justice Department asked for the case to be dropped.
Judge Emmet Sullivan had paused resolving Flynn's case and began a process to find out more about the Justice Department's decision to withdraw its charges, even after Flynn's admissions and pleas of guilt.
By a vote of 2-1, the three-judge panel on the appeals court ruled Wednesday that the lower-court judge, Sullivan, had intruded on the Justice Department's "charging authority" by seeking further investigation after the department moved to dismiss Flynn's case.
An attorney appointed by Sullivan to counsel him about the government's decision in the case called the move to dismiss an abuse of power by the Justice Department because it was interceding in the case of a friend of President Trump.
Outside critics also have faulted Attorney General William Barr and the Justice Department. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., blasted Barr on Wednesday in a hearing that had been scheduled before the court's ruling.
The attorney general, Nadler said, "has engaged in a clear and dangerous pattern of conduct that began when Mr. Barr took office and continues to this day."
But Trump, Barr and Republicans have cited what they call the importance of newly surfaced evidence in Flynn's case.
The latest example was a page of handwritten notes from the FBI special agent at the center of the case — and much of the controversy — over Flynn and the Russia investigation.
The appeals court also said Wednesday that the executive branch enjoys the privilege to keep confidential the decisions it makes about charging and other aspects of a criminal case.
"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 judges wrote. "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."
Trump hailed the ruling on Twitter.
Next steps unclear in unusual matter
It wasn't immediately clear what next steps Sullivan might pursue or whether the appeals court decision finally ends Flynn's years-long legal odyssey, which has cut a slow and serpentine path for almost the entire Trump administration.
Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School and former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, said on Wednesday that it was hard to overstate just how unusual Flynn's case has been at every stage, including now.
It's not typical for an appeals court to short-circuit a lower court's ongoing proceedings, Roth said, in the way this ruling has.
"Judge Sullivan might well have decided to grant the motion to dismiss, but now the court of appeals has preemptively directed him to do that," Roth said. "To justify this extraordinary intervention, the court of appeals in effect said Judge Sullivan's plan to scrutinize the Department of Justice's reasoning and motives amounted to an irreparable harm such that appellate review could not wait."
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
Looking forward to seeing the written decision, either online (if anyone knows how to access it), or via a couple of different lawyer's analysis on Youtube. I believe one of them will have something up tomorrow, all going well.
Of course, there's still the possibility of this being appealed further, depending on the wording of the decision.
On a side note, it was surprising to see a judge, who is expected to know the law and how it applied with regards to his own actions, needing to have a lawyer arguing on his behalf.
Found one interesting (and relatively unbiased) review of the written decision (not one of the lawyers I normally watch, but still as informative as they are, going through and explaining the decision and the dissenting opinion):
I also came across an article that suggests it may have been Joe Biden who first suggested the "Logan Act" with respect to Mr Flynn's investigation:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-raised-logan-act-in-oval-office-discussion-about-flynn-peter-strzok-notes-show
It's not fully clear what Biden said about the 1799 law, but Flynn's legal team said "it appears" he "personally raised the idea" during a meeting between former President Barack Obama, then-FBI Director James Comey, national security adviser Susan Rice, and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the days leading up to President Trump's inauguration. Biden is now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and leading in national polling.
Also in the article:
Although this won't affect the decision of the partisans on either side, I wonder how this information will affect "swing voters"\"undecided voters" (no doubt it will find its way into advertisments closer to the election).
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Doctors orders |
04 May 2025, 3:14 pm |
Trump orders investigation of Biden |
05 Jun 2025, 6:52 pm |
Trump orders travel ban to 12 countries |
09 Jun 2025, 5:43 pm |
Hegseth Orders The Name Of Harvey Milk Scrubbed From Navy |
09 Jun 2025, 4:12 pm |