in ,

DC Circuit Court plays along with Obama Judge circus trial of Michael Flynn (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 571.

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the latest developments in the Michael Flynn case.


Support Free Speech:

Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.

The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.


Via New York Post…

A federal appeals court judge repeatedly asked Friday whether dropping the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn would mean police can escape accountability for brutalizing black people.

DC Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins raised the possibility as Flynn’s attorneys and the Justice Department pleaded with a skeptical three-judge panel to order US District Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss Flynn’s case and his 2017 guilty plea for lying to the FBI.

Wilkins, an African American Harvard Law School graduate, asked whether dismissing Flynn’s case would mean that judges must also dismiss cases against police if prosecutors offer racist reasons.

“Even if the prosecutor was dismissing the case because it did not believe that a white police officer should have to answer for using excessive force on a black defendant, and they say that in their pleading, under Rule 48(a) the district court still has to grant the motion?” Wilkins asked Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall.

Wall agreed, “I don’t think that the court can force the executive to keep that case alive in the absence of a case or controversy.” He added, however, that the “unconstitutional motive” distinguishes the scenarios.

The judge, nominated by President Barack Obama, presented the hypothetical in the wake of national unrest this week over the killing of George Floyd by Minnesota policeman Derek Chauvin, who kneeled on his neck for nearly nine minutes. Chauvin, since fired, faces second-degree murder charges and three colleagues, also fired, are charged with aiding and abetting murder.

The Justice Department sought last month to drop its case against Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying about calls with Russia’s ambassador. But Sullivan instead appointed ex-Judge John Gleeson to oppose the motion. In a filing this week, Gleeson argued the Flynn case would be dropped “based solely on the fact that Flynn is a political ally of President Trump” and that Flynn, who faces up to five years in prison, should be sentenced.

The Justice Department says it wants to drop the case because of investigative misconduct, including the lack of a valid basis for FBI agents including Peter Strzok to interview Flynn when he allegedly lied.

Wilkins persisted with his police-misconduct hypothetical Friday, asking the Justice Department rep why a judge couldn’t appoint an amicus adviser  — as Sullivan did — to create room for reconsideration.

“Why isn’t it the case that if the government makes a considered racist decision that it just does not want to have a white officer stand trial for excessive force on a black victim that the district court can deny the motion — and then the political chips can fall where they may. And perhaps under pressure from the public or Congress, or whatever, the district court may not be able itself to force the government to prosecute the case, but maybe through the operation of the legislative branch or other pressures from the public and the media a new prosecutor is appointed?” Wilkins asked.

The Justice Department lawyer replied: “Your question, I think, recognizes the answer, which is as you say, there’s no power to make the executive move forward to trial.”

The judge insisted: “But if the government can’t make the case go away and the case is in limbo, then while it’s in limbo, pressure could be brought to bear on the government to reconsider its decision, right?”

Wilkins found a warmer reception with attorney Beth Wilkinson, who represented Sullivan.

“The government says … even if [a prosecutor] in a motion says we’re moving to dismiss because we don’t want to prosecute this white defendant for beating and using excessive force against a black victim, that the court would still be compelled … to grant the motion to dismiss,” Wilkins said.

“I strongly disagree with that,” Wilkinson said. “The case law … give examples of where a court can move and deny a motion, which include bribery. … If that police officer had pled guilty … could the court sentence that defendant? I don’t know the answer to that question, but there’s certainly a basis for the judge to deny the motion to dismiss.”

Circuit Judge Karen Henderson, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, made clear she leans toward allowing Sullivan to make a decision on Flynn after a July 16 hearing.

“I don’t see why we don’t observe regular order and allow him to rule. For all we know, he will say this amicus brief is over the top, the dismissal motion is granted,” she said.

In pleading guilty to lying to the FBI, Flynn avoided charges for admittedly working as an unregistered agent of Turkey and making false statements to the Justice Department about that work. Flynn business partner Bijan Rafiekian was convicted last year on those charges and faced up to 15 years in prison before his conviction was overturned. The Justice Department is moving to retry Rafiekian.

When he pleaded guilty, Flynn agreed to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation in exchange for a lighter sentence. Mueller ultimately found no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia during the 2016 campaign.

5 2 votes
Article Rating
Help us grow. Support The Duran on Patreon!

Report

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.

What do you think?

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Victor
June 14, 2020

The Duran does a superb job of explaining the goings on in the world, making them very clear and very interesting. My one tiny criticism is that it tends and tilts toward statism rather than libertarianism. The Duran is something of a repository of evidence of the ubiquitous failure of the state, its courts, its police, its saturation in corruption, the criminal nature of those who comprise it. And yet it cannot seem to tear itself away from its commitment to it. For instance in the wake of the George Floyd Rebellion, an obvious answer would seem to be to… Read more »

Terry R
Terry R
Reply to  Victor
June 15, 2020

So those who CAN pay get the protection…. Why would people want to pay tax if that was the case?

Victor
Reply to  Terry R
June 15, 2020

Take home insurance. People pay ‘premiums’ to insurers to mitigate the risk of damage to their home. Its not difficult to imagine the extension of this model to cover one’s person: You give us an extra $50 / month. We will safeguard your person against assault, theft, etc. If you are injured we will cover your expenses plus $50,000 for your troubles. Now by virtue of being a profit making, as opposed to a de facto socialist organization, insurers are incentivized to innovate, to develop high tech solutions such as phone apps allowing a multilayered, multifaceted security. By freeing security… Read more »

Toof Ta
Toof Ta
June 15, 2020

Frankly, why should Russia care one way or the other what happens with Flynn?
 
As soon as the Dems & MSM let up on Russiagate and prestodigitated other hammers to nail Trump, Trump started doubling down on Nord Stream 2 and the Repubs on their nonsensical ‘more sanctions, state sponsor of terror, enemy no. 1’, yada yada yada.
 
Best Russia keep a ten light year pole between it and the dysfunctional US.

Hawaiiguy
Hawaiiguy
June 15, 2020

Don’t know who the judge is, but being black and making that argument in General Flynns case makes him an uppity uncle tom in my book. And no, I am not racist, he is, so I’m calling him some words that he earned through his tow the line, outside law and reason uppity Obama Era bs!

Warin West
June 15, 2020

Sydney Powell is well-meaning however she failed Gen Flynn when she argued before the three judge panel. Listen to the complete audio of the hearing and on several occasions you’ll hear Powell argue that Sullivan “does not have the authority” to (fill in the blank). This is rookie argumentation at best.   While those statements may be true, they do not take the venue into consideration. Powell was asking three sitting judges to deem that another judge lacked “authority”. No judge is going to do that. It would have been infinitely better to posit a set of legal presumptions upon… Read more »

pogohere
pogohere
June 16, 2020

All rather Kafkaesque.

Greece counters Turkey in EASTMED with Italy & Egypt alliance. Part 2 (Video)

4 best TV series on Netflix