Flynn Files Emergency Petition With U.S. Court Of Appeals To Replace Judge And Dismiss Case

SaraCarter.com ^ | May 19, 2020 | Sara Carter

[SmokingJoe]

Supremes hardly ever vote the same way as DC Circuit. This is not a dinner party.The Sullivan circus is over.

[Bratch]

Formatted for clarity

---

Flynn prosecutor Brandon Van Grack should be in trouble.

• How Van Grack's misrepresentations about the Flynn investigation and evidence led Judge Sullivan to issue an inaccurate opinion.
• Why a show-cause hearing is appropriate.

Thread.

 

Recall -

• Van Grack told Judge Sullivan that the Flynn “lies” "impeded" and "had a material impact on" the Trump/Russia investigation.

• Van Grack also told Judge Sullivan that he had provided all Brady evidence – and all “information that could reasonably be construed as favorable and material to sentencing.”

• Van Grack to Judge Sullivan:

• The govt has provided all Brady Evidence.
• The government has not "suppressed evidence."

[All this turned out to be false.]

 

Based on these misrepresentations -

Judge Sullivan concluded that the Flynn interview was based on Trump/Russia (it wasn't) and thus his "lies" were material.

New evidence shows Sullivan's conclusion was incorrect.

 

Relying on Van Grack’s claims -

Judge Sullivan wrongly held that FBI and DOJ communications “are not favorable and material to sentencing.”

New evidence shows that the FBI/DOJ conspired to use the Logan Act against Flynn.

The evidence is material and favorable.

 

Judge Sullivan also wrongly found – based on promises from Van Grack – that the govt had already provided Flynn with favorable/material info on "pre-interview discussions"

 

• This was not the case - as discovered when the govt provided the Strzok messages and Priestap notes.

• Van Grack influences Sullivan into another faulty conclusion.

Sullivan: Flynn’s argument that his statements “were not related to the investigation into Russia’s efforts to interfere in the election – is unavailing.”

Compare to DOJ motion to dismiss.

 

Sullivan: “Mr. Flynn’s false statements to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian Ambassador were relevant to the FBI’s [Russian interference] inquiry.”

• Again, evidence now shows this to be false – it was a Logan Act inquiry led by FBI leadership.

 

Sullivan: The evidence proves that this was not a perjury trap.

• New evidence: FBI discussions of a perjury trap.

 

AG Barr explains in greater detail:

• They kept the Flynn investigation open "for the express purpose of trying to catch, lay a perjury trap for General Flynn."

HT @JohnWHuber

 

Van Grack's misrepresentations are serious and should be dealt with.

Not only violate Sullivan's Brady order and deny Flynn what was due...

But he induced Judge Sullivan to reach conclusions now contradicted by the evidence.

 

In 2017, Judge Sullivan wrote in the WSJ that "Judges have a responsibility to take action against unethical prosecutors."

We hope this remains to be true.

/end

[rolling_stone]

petition:

https://www.scribd.com/document/462165786/Flynn-Petition-Filed

[Bshaw]

” I don’t understand why Sullivan allowed the case to continue this long.”

The you have no understanding of this case. Flynn’s silence is paramount. They need him gagged, and gagged for good. The point of their frame-job was to get Flynn out of the White House, he knows WAY TOO MUCH about BHO and his money-moving. Thus the endless delays.

Now that Trump has publicly stated he would be open to Flynn returning to the White House, they will do ANYTHING to drag this past the election.

[Sgt_Schultze]

One has to respect the honor of Emmet Sullivan, a judge who stays bought.

[gogeo]

I like this guy.

[mware]

It’s a gal.

[Salvey]

“Judge” Emmett Sullivan should be getting the same thing Nicolae Caecescu got.

Or Mussolini.

[SmokingJoe]

Agree.

[Jane Long]

He just gave a great, short talk, at the President’s Cabinet meeting, just held.

I saw Hope Hicks in the background giving a slight smile, while Grennel was speaking :-)

[volunbeer]

Please enlighten me how it is not incumbent on a prosecutor to notify the court and move for dismissal if the investigators violated the law.

Last time I checked, a prosecutor is also an officer of the court.

The motion indicated the investigation was never properly predicated, but I think it goes far beyond that. I think they conspired to create a crime and I think DOJ knows it.

If they do know this went further than proper predication, the proper thing would be to notify the court.

[volunbeer]

The entire case is irregular and the defendant always has more to lose.

However, legitimate question -

If the govt (DOJ) knows that the Flynn case was a complete setup by a group of people to achieve a desired result (fired or prosecuted) do they not have the duty to advise the court?

The motion says the case was not adequately predicated and had no valid purpose, but what if the DOJ knows it was far worse than that? I think they expected Sullivan to drop the case as he should have based on their motion.

Obviously, he didn’t do that. Therefore, if they know that the justifications to avoid a trial or any further legal action was wrongdoing by the government that might be revealed shouldn’t they tell the court?

If the governments motion to dismiss was not enough to persuade the court to drop the case and they know there is additional information beneficial to the defendant why not advise the court?

[AndyJackson]

The petition is served on the DOJ who have an opportunity to respond, which they can do by concurring that the writ should issue in furtherance of justice and so as to not to waste limited government resources on court appearances that the government has determined are not in the public interest [I know, but the courts are immune to irony and shame].

[AndyJackson]

do they not have the duty to advise the court?

In their motion to dismiss, they pretty much did.

[volunbeer]

They did, but I have a feeling they did not reveal everything beneficial to Flynn (Brady).

Thanks for the clarification. This thing gets more and more strange and it will be interesting to see what the higher court says.

[volunbeer]

I don’t disagree. There has to be order.

However, now that Sullivan himself has tossed out the rulebook if the government knows far more information beneficial to Flynn they should publicly release it. That would be justice.

Will see how this motion proceeds, but what happened to Flynn was a kind of dirty that must be punished to preserve the rule of law. I can respect what Barr said yesterday even as the partisan in me (and many here) demands equal treatment as that given to Team Trump. However, I cannot respect Barr’s words if he and DOJ do not fully disclose what was done to Flynn and put it all on the public record.

Flynn’s reputation was destroyed throughout this entire process and if the government is holding back additional information beneficial to him to protect the institutions and/or the reputations of those who persecuted the man it would rub salt into the wound this has created for many of us.

[hardspunned]

No, what I’m saying is, as corrupt as Sullivan obviously is he could have hustled through the motions and sentenced Flynn last year. Flynn would be silent and jailed through the election.