Today — August 11, 2020 — the DC Circuit Court will rehear Michael Flynn’s case en banc (the entire bench, rather than a three-judge panel), after having vacated the DC Appeals court order for the lower court to dismiss his case. Flynn’s legal nightmare continues.
Background: The DC District Court of Appeals ruled that Judge Emmet Sullivan must dismiss Flynn’s case. DOJ had found prosecutorial misconduct including the refusal to hand over exculpatory evidence to the defense, no material basis upon which to conduct the initial investigation, as well as the discovery that the FBI career officials had determined that Flynn had not lied nor committed any crime. Yet the FBI’s 7th Floor (i.e. leadership, read “Comey”), instructed FBI officials, through McCabe, to keep the case open.
Subsequent text messages by Strzok, Page, et al, indicate that the FBI was looking for something to hang him on. Flynn was never notified that he was under investigation and not told to get a lawyer. It was a set up ab initio.
When the DOJ decided to drop the case, this should have put an end to Flynn’s legal nightmare. Instead, Judge Sullivan hired counsel to argue why the case should still go forward. Flynn’s new attorney, Sydney Powell, filed a motion with the Court of Appeals to compel Sullivan to do what he was supposed to: dismiss the case. Oddly, Sullivan had hired another lawyer (thus making him a litigant in the proceedings), to argue that he should be able to conduct a hearing on the Flynn case.
Sullivan lost and the Appeals Court remanded the case back to him for dismissal. In a stunning, but not surprising move, Sullivan appealed the decision. Think about this: the prosecutors (DOJ) and the defendant (Flynn) are in agreement that the case should be dropped because there really was no material case to begin with. But the Judge in the case begs to differ.
The case now sits with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which is scheduled to hear the case en banc. Ten judges will be present (the eleventh had to recuse himself). This court leans heavily to the Left. Many anticipate that the court will rule in Sullivan’s favor and ultimately wind up in the Supreme Court on appeal. But we shall see.
In a pleasant surprise, the DC appeals court, sua sponte (on its own initiative), has instructed the litigants (Flynn, DOJ, Sullivan) to be prepared to argue in court as to why Sullivan should not be disqualified from hearing the case due to bias.
While many think the case will be remanded to the District Court, allowing Sullivan to conduct his phony hearing on Flynn (the Judge insists that he has not determined whether he would ultimately rule to dismiss Flynn’s case or not, but wants to decide after a hearing), the fact that the court has asked for oral arguments on disqualification means that this determination is not a slam dunk.
While you are listening to the arguments, keep in mind that it is Trump who is the real target, not Flynn. By continuing a fraudulent “counterintelligence investigation” against the former National Security Advisor, Obama officials, based on false information in the deep state’s FISA application, were “allowed” to surveille (read: spy) on Flynn and those who were talking to him, namely President Trump and his cohorts.
Also keep in mind that the January 5, 2017 meeting where Obama and key members of his cabinet met, in part, to discuss the Flynn case and how to keep it going. In the scores of unmasking requests made largely by officials unconnected to the subject matter area of Flynn’s work (e.g., then-UN Ambassador Samantha Power), importantly, it was the current Democrat Presidential nominee Joe Biden — not his Chief of Staff — but Biden himself, that made the final unmasking request of Michael Flynn.
If the court doesn’t ultimately disqualify Judge Sullivan, the whole case is likely to play out as a long drawn-out political drama, leading up until the election. If that happens, it’s no coincidence.