Posted on 07/30/2020 10:01:08 AM PDT by Pete from Shawnee Mission
More for the courts than Flynn. If the DOJ decides that there was no basis for prosecution, as they have, then there is no case at this point for Sullivan to rule on. Ultimately that judicial principle has to be sustained or the Executive Branch no longer has its constitutional role.
Judge Sullivan at this point is going after the DOJ, not Flynn, and that is the real issue at this point.
Should Judge Sullivan, in direct opposition to the government, attempt to sentence Flynn anyway the DOJ can simply refuse to imprison him. That will create a bigger problem for the courts than Flynn.
This is just downright sad.
Trump cannot issue a pardon, because Flynn hasn’t been sentenced.
It’s too bad that Trump can’t issue a edict that the case should be dropped.
Proof positive that the Left knows how to abuse the courts and the Laws to their advantage.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that the court’s order filed June 24, 2020, be vacated.
See post 19.
The governor of New Jersey explicitly said, “I wasn’t thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this,” referring to the cornonavirus lockdowns that obviously violated the Bill of Rights if it were effective. That the governor didn’t think of the Bill of Rights and violated it so explicitly and brazenly implies that the Bill of Rights no longer applies. Only a Constitutional amendment can overturn a provision of or amendment to the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Other governors, including those of New York, Michigan, Virginia, Washington, and California maintain drastic restrictions on basic freedoms that the Constitution previously guaranteed. These and many more governors severely curtained or even outright prohibited “the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” especially for “the free exercise” of “religion.” The Constitution also once read, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” which suggests that the laws come from the legislature, not a dictatorial governor.
Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution says, “Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.”
Because we have not public journal or other indication of such a Constitutional amendment, we must presume that such amendments in the judgement of the members of Congress required secrecy. Nevertheless, the legislatures of the several states secretly ratified such an amendment, making it part of our Constitution now. No previous amendment was proposed and ratified in secret, but we live in unprecedented times, and enough members of both parties in both Congress and the state legislatures kept the secret, probably because they all found maintaining the secret in their interest, whether on account of political, legal, or ethical considerations, however misguided. The Constitutional amendment process does not require the participation of the President, so Trump may proceed completely unawares.
Presented with an obvious infringement of the right of the people peaceably to assemble to worship a God other than the Government, the Supreme Court twice denied a hearing without a word. We cannot know for certain what prompted this denial, but John Roberts as chief justice quite possibly received the text of the newly ratified amendment and shared it with four other justices, who agreed not to halt the abuse of the former Constitutional rights.
Given that we do not know how the Constitution changed yet, but assuredly, freedom of speech has diminished severely and that of free exercise of religion stands conditional upon the will of governors, mayors, and other politicians and perhaps bureaucrats and that of peaceable assembly stands largely negated. We clearly know that the Constitution as universally understood as recently as Christmastime no longer exists unaltered. What else in the Constitution changed? Could the pardon power of the President now be altered, negated, or subject to proceedings and approvals? We know not.
“Trump cannot issue a pardon, because Flynn hasn’t been sentenced.”
Nixon was pardoned.
“I knew it. Those C#########s are gonna drag this out past the election.”
Does this comment have anything to do with chickens? /s
Too many years allowing the RATS to get away with their cheating and lying. Now everything is a lie. Our country is run by the black robes.
I think Flynn's option is to allow Sullivan to rule on DOJ's request to drop charges. If he doesn't like the outcome he can then appeal.
His team tried to bypass Sullivan by filing the writ with the circuit court.
My guess is Sullivan will prevail in the hearing and then allow the case to be dismissed. He want's to rub DOJ's nose it it first.
Flynn and Sidney Powell do not want a pardon, they want the case thrown out.
“After Ford left the White House in 1977, he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision that suggested that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that its acceptance carries a confession of guilt.”
Ultimately, Sidney Powell’s legal maneuverings have had a deleterious effect. She has inadvertently afforded the Left the opportunity to delay resolution of this case.
Of course, she had no idea how low the Left would go to get what they want.
Ok. Thanks. (smiling nervously and quickly backing out of the room)
I disagree regarding the timing of a decision. If they rule against Flynn he will immediately appeal to the Supreme Court, and they can’t control the timing there. Goal is to get past the election.
A rational Supreme Court would rule in favor of Flynn. While we worry that Roberts would be the deciding vote, some of the lefties have showed a little common sense lately recognizing the long term effect of their decisions. The fact that there is an en banc hearing at all is indicative that their ruling will be against Flynn.
“Can anything be done to address this problem?”
Yeah, find these judges drag them out of their houses and hang them from the tree in their front yard.
Except this very court decided in the Fokker case that the District Court judge did not have the authority to act against the wishes of the Executive Branch (the prosecution). Not only that, the prosecution in Fokker asked this very court for a writ of mandamus and it was granted. I don't see how the court can rule in favor of Sullivan and not be in direct conflict with its decision in Fokker both as to Sullivan's lack of power to refuse to dismiss and the court's obligation to issue a writ of mandamus.
The Fokker decision is well worth reading by anybody who is closely following the Flynn case.
LSD and Marijuana
“ That probably seems extreme but I’m afraid they’re not going to let us have justice any other way...”
We have let socialism and elite/professional government class rule get too deeply entrenched. As the saying goes, now we are going to have to shoot our way out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.