The actions of Judge Sullivan in the General Flynn case are unconstitutional – the judge invited into this case said so!
The judge overseeing the General Flynn case, Judge Sullivan, has shown his disdain for the rule of law. He accused General Flynn of treason during one court hearing. He is clearly a Deep State hack. Now he wants to bring another judge into the case to determine if it is right for the DOJ to dismiss the case against Flynn.
The problem for Judge Sullivan is that the judge he invited into his kangaroo court has said previously that what Judge Sullivan is doing is lawless.
Former prosecutor and federal judge John Gleeson, who was appointed by Judge Emmet Sullivan to submit a brief opposing the Justice Department’s (DOJ’s) motion to dismiss former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s case, recently went public defending Sullivan’s decision not to sign off on dropping the case — but his own judicial history undermines that position.
In a July 1, 2013, memo and order in the case of U.S. v. HSBC, then-U.S. District Court Judge Gleeson seemed to side with the idea that prosecutors have “near-absolute power” to drop a case.
“The government has absolute discretion to decide not to prosecute,” Gleeson wrote at the time. “Even a formal, written agreement to that effect, which is often referred to as a ‘non-prosecution agreement,’ is not the business of the courts.”
Gleeson went on to say that “the government has near-absolute power under [the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] to extinguish a case that it has brought.” He cited Rule 48(a), which says: “The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information or complaint.”
Earlier this week Sol Wisenberg shared on the Laura Ingraham show why Sullivan’s actions are against current law:
Under the Fokker Case that just came out 2 years ago, the DC Circuit which governs Judge Sullivan made it very clear if the government wants to dismiss a case you cannot, the District Court cannot refuse to do so because he doesn’t like the government’s theory. Because he thinks the government should continue the case. And it doesn’t matter if the defendant has pled or not.
Via The Ingraham Angle:
The Fokker case referred to by Wisenberg is discussed in the Harvard Law Review. The judge in the Fokker case stated that:
…as a matter of established law, the judiciary is not to second-guess the Executive’s decisions of “whether to initiate charges, whom to prosecute, which charges to bring, and whether to dismiss charges.”
The ruling states that it is the government’s duty to charge individuals with crimes and to dismiss cases, not the court’s decision.