Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE.
Legal expert Mark Levin is not having it. He wants the Department of Justice to take immediate legal steps to overrule defiant Judge Emmet Sullivan who refuses to let the Michael Flynn case go even though the DOJ has dropped the charges.
In the end, the judge will be defeated because he’s on the wrong side of the controlling law, Levin declared.
In short, it should be an open-and-shut case.
Parenthetically, hypocritical, hyperpartisan Democrats often complain about supposed rule-of-law violations when they are the primary violators.
Instead of dropping the indictment which would be routine, Sullivan, a Bill Clinton appointee, took the highly unusual step of appointing another Clinton-era judge to argue against the dismissal of the case.
In doing so, Sullivan disregarded precedent, including a just-decided and unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision written by liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that sharply limited, if not ruled out, such outsider amicus (or so-called friend of the court) interventions.
Levin, the host of his own FNC show, Life Liberty & Levin, didn’t hold back with his Sullivan criticism in the Deep State-orchestrated case against General Michael Flynn, who was briefly President Trump’s national security adviser before Obama holdovers in the FBI tried to frame him.
(Source: Fox News)
“This judge is an eyewitness to the corruption. This judge has failed to handle this trial properly. For instance, the government is compelled to provide any exculpatory evidence and other information it has to the defense. It clearly did not. It took a U.S. Attorney from the Eastern District of Missouri, under the watchful eye of the attorney general of the United States, to drag like pulling teeth this information out which shows how corrupt this prosecution was.’
The mainstream media and Obama apologists (basically the same entity) have made much noise about Flynn’s guilty plea, but Levin insisted that it is a non-issue under the circumstances.
“He pled guilty because he had a gun to his head. He pled guilty because they were going after his son. He pled guilty because he was set up and he was going broke. And the judge knows all these things. But he’s an innocent man. He’s an absolutely innocent man. That’s what these documents show. The guilt is on the government.
“So Attorney General Barr sees this, and he says we’re going to drop this case. So when the government says we’re going to drop this case, and the defense says yes, drop the case, both parties agree there’s no case, and so the judge decides well, I will decide if there’s a case or not. I will substitute my opinions for the party’s opinions.”
Levin, an attorney who worked in the Reagan administration Justice Department and was a Never Trumper in the run-up to the 2016 election before he switched gears, alluded to the U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith case which should be binding precedent on the non-compliant liberal judge.
“Now, we have a Supreme Court decision last week, 9 to 0, written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which basically said you can’t bring in these friend of the court briefs because you as a judge, and she was talking to the Ninth Circuit back then, because you as a judge decide you don’t really like how the parties have set up this case. And there’s a 9-0 decision. This judge is in Washington, D.C. He’s defying the Supreme Court.”
“The D.C. Court of Appeals has done the same thing. He’s defying the Court of Appeals. He’s defying the wishes of the parties, And he’s violating the 4th amendment of the Constitution because he knows what was done to Flynn was an unreasonable search and seizure. There weren’t proper warrants. They used the back door with the tapping of the Russian ambassador’s phone, to try and get Flynn and other people. He also knows he was deprived of due process, under the 5th amendment.”
“And in the end, the judge will lose. So my advice to the Department of Justice is this, it’s a rare filing, but file a motion for prohibition with the Circuit Court in D.C. And tell the Circuit Court this judge has no jurisdiction based on your prior opinion, based on the Supreme Court’s opinion, take this case away from this rogue, partisan anti-Trump, pro-Obama judge. Take it away from him and end this travesty.”
Watters chimed in that impeachment proceedings should be instituted against the judge should the GOP retake the U.S. House of Representatives in November.
Summing up the Ginsberg decision, Forbes columnist Mark Chenoweth explained that “In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for dragons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them.”
- Fired college football coach who removed BLM poster files lawsuit, claims First Amendment rights violated - December 6, 2021
- NY Times says Biden’s Afghan refugee camp at Fort Dix joint base ‘larger than half the towns in NJ’ - December 6, 2021
- San Fran eatery admits it ‘badly’ handled booting on-duty cops, welcomes them back WITHOUT weapons - December 6, 2021