This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, September 1, 2020:
As expected, the liberal, Democrat-appointed majority of judges populating the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has ignored the Constitution, its separation of powers doctrine, and judicial precedent.
On Monday it ruled that District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan may continue his vendetta against former Trump National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn. Eight of the 10 judges approved of the move, while two, both appointed by Republican presidents, dissented.
Judge Sullivan now has full rein to become the prosecution, the judge, and the jury in continuing a case that both the federal government and Flynn have asked to be dismissed. It’s clear from the testimony given prior to the court’s decision that Sullivan wants to know why the government wanted to drop the case. It’s increasingly clear that the move is entirely political: He and the appeals court are hoping to find a “smoking gun” behind the government’s move to dismiss its case against Flynn.
Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to two federal agents over a conversation he had with a Russian diplomat earlier that year. It turned out later that that “conversation” was planned in advance to entrap Flynn. When the government learned about the entrapment, it sought to dismiss its case against Flynn.
The judge, instead of dismissing the case against Flynn, delayed, forcing Flynn’s lawyer, Sidney Powell, to ask the District Court to intervene and demand that the lower court judge dismiss forthwith. A three-judge panel ordered him to do so.
Instead, the judge, Emmet Sullivan, asked the entire appeals court to consider Powell’s demand and reverse the three-judge panel’s order.
On Monday, the full court agreed with Sullivan and now Flynn’s retrial begins, just in time for the election.
The Wall Street Journal weighed in on the extra-legal nature of the court’s decision:
Latest Comments