Last month the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered the case against Michael Flynn to be dismissed. The Department of Justice had requested the case be dismissed but the judge in the case, Judge Emmet Sullivan, refused to honor the request.
The higher court found that Sullivan had overstepped his bounds in ignoring the DOJ’s request.
“Decisions to dismiss pending criminal charges – no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to bring – lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion,” it wrote in its decision.
“The Judiciary’s role under Rule 48 is thus confined to ‘extremely limited circumstances in extraordinary cases.’”
Yesterday Judge Sullivan filed an appeal of the Court of Appeals decision. Sullivan is asking for a hearing before all eleven judges on the appeals court. The decision to dismiss the case was found by a 3-person sub-sect of the court.
“The panel’s decision threatens to turn ordinary judicial process upside down. It is the district court’s job to consider and rule on pending motions, even ones that seem straightforward. This Court, if called upon, reviews those decisions—it does not preempt them,” Sullivan wrote in his filing.
An attorney for President Trump, Jenna Ellis, criticized Sullivan for the appeal saying it is not on sound legal footing.
“Not surprising but totally ridiculous. Sullivan is NOT a party. He actually has no standing to petition for en banc. He should be removed from the bench entirely after his egregious conduct.”
Not surprising but totally ridiculous. Sullivan is NOT a party. He actually has no standing to petition for en banc. He should be removed from the bench entirely after his egregious conduct.https://t.co/MdODDix1xK
— Jenna Ellis (@JennaEllisEsq) July 9, 2020
Sullivan has made a number of irrational decisions throughout Flynn’s trial. His agenda at this point may be more anti-Trump than pro-justice.
Photo by United States District Court for the District of Columbia