Author: Aaron Ames Via American Thinker
Judge Emmet Sullivan's refusal to abide by the D.C. Circuit Court's decision to dismiss the Flynn case and subsequent appeal for an "en banc" decision is not without precedent.
Flying under the radar is the role that Judge Sullivan has played in simultaneously overseeing both the Michael Flynn case and a major lawsuit against Trump. In Blumenthal v. Trump, Jerry Nadler, who oversaw the House impeachment of Trump, and some 200 congressional Democrats sought to sue the president according to the obscure "Emoluments Clause." The basic contention is that Trump is in a compromising position because his business holdings occasionally receive funding or contracts from foreign entities, much like any other elected official with business interests in foreign countries.
As Matthew Walther noted in The Week, "The [Emoluments C]lause has never given rise to any legal cases of note, and it has never been defined or even meaningfully addressed by the Supreme Court." But Sullivan was willing to take the first shot at it by ultimately ruling the suit as constitutionally valid, while admitting that "there is only one other judicial opinion interpreting the Clause." Sullivan relied entirely upon the briefs and counsel provided him by Democrats, as he has also done in the Flynn case, especially by bringing in retired judge Gleeson and inviting briefs from activist lawyers and prosecutors.
As in the Flynn case, the D.C. Circuit Court intervened to dismiss the case because Sullivan "did not adequately address ... the separation of powers issues present in a lawsuit brought by members of the Legislative Branch against the President of the United States." The Circuit Court also protested that Sullivan had "abused" his discretion in attempting to minimize and reject the validity of Trump's appeal. While Sullivan ultimately lost the battle on this case, the court documents demonstrate that he repeatedly attempted to push through what is otherwise a defunct and never-before-prosecuted Emoluments Clause.
The story doesn't end there. There are two other lawsuits invoking the Emoluments Clause that have been brought against Trump: CREW v. Trump, initiated by the hyper-partisan David Brock, and D.C. and Maryland v. Trump, filed by two progressive attorneys general who have attempted to sue the president in no fewer than a dozen cases.
Both cases were originally dismissed by appeals courts on the grounds that Congress has no need of the Judicial Branch to enforce its own law. However, they were then later reinstated, even though it was conceded that there was "no history" of opinions to aid their decision.
In fact, the D.C. Circuit's decision to reverse the dismissal of D.C. and Maryland v. Trump was done by appealing to the rare "en banc" decision, the very same appeal Judge Sullivan has now sought in the Flynn trial.. An "en banc" appeal allows for a case to be reheard by the entire court's bench rather than only the three appointed judges. If the majority of the bench decides against the original ruling of the three-person panel, the decision is reversed.
It is worth noting that while the D.C. Circuit has averaged fewer than three en banc cases per year over the last 20 years, it has exercised this rule four separate times in cases related to President Trump. To put it more simply, out of the eleven cases that this court has heard en banc since Trump took office, four of them are cases against Trump's or his administration. The Flynn case would make the fifth. For comparison, during the entire tenure of Obama, there were no en banc hearings by the D.C. Circuit that involved Obama or his administration.
But even if Sullivan's appeal did not eventually succeed in overturning the dismissal of the Flynn case, it is likely that he would count it a victory if he were simply able to convince the court to have an "en banc" hearing. This would further delay the end of the Flynn case by weeks, if not months. And considering that Trump is seriously considering inviting Flynn back into the Trump administration, this could spell imminent danger for many intelligence officials who have not done things "by the book." .... Full Article @ American Thinker
Gen. Flynn: If We Don't Act, 2% of the People Are About To Control the Other 98%
Our silent majority can no longer be silent.
I was once told if we’re not careful, 2 percent of the passionate will control 98 percent of the indifferent 100 percent of the time.
The more I’ve thought about this phrase, the more I believe it. There is now a small group of passionate people working hard to destroy our American way of life. Treason and treachery are rampant and our rule of law and those law enforcement professionals who uphold our laws are under the gun more than at any time in our nation’s history. These passionate 2 percent appear to be winning. Read More
How the Obama Administration Shattered the Rule of Law
Or - is our basic understanding of rule of law at risk?
This week, former President Barack Obama reemerged from hibernation to lecture Americans about the threat to rule of law posed by the Trump administration. As America found out over the past two weeks, Flynn wasn't supposed to be the subject of any investigation at all: The FBI had decided to close an investigation into Flynn in January 2017. Obama himself asked James Comey about the Flynn-Kislyak communications. Comey upped the ante: He avoided following normal FBI-White House protocols in order to interview Flynn, and Comey's deputy director, Andrew McCabe, avoided informing Flynn of his rights. . . notes between top FBI officials at the time said, "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired? Read More
The Firehose of Falsehood Hits Flynn, Gorka, and King
The firehose of falsehood campaigns against Flynn, Gorka, and King have a number of things in common.
First they came for General Mike Flynn, and I did not speak out— - Because I was not a truth-telling military officer who contradicted the worldview of Max Boot and Jennifer Rubin and David Ignatius and others on the Washington Post payroll. Read More
