The 8-6 ruling restores power to a judge questioning the Justice Department’s handling of a politically divisive case, when Attorney General William Barre accused National Security Adviser Donald Trump of lying twice earlier this year. To the FBI.
Fly fought a third-party lawyer for District Judge Emmett Sullivan to argue against the Justice Department’s dismissal in the case and plans to hold a hearing on it, which has yet to happen.
Monday’s decision could be the most result-oriented round for an unusual and deeply deep political court case in an election year, and one of the most symbolic actions of a Trump adviser during this presidency, he added. Earlier, a group of three judges from the Appellate Court’s DC Circuit Court upheld Flynn 2-1, ordering the lower court to hear his case. Monday’s 8-2 decision by the full court came to the opposite conclusion.
In recent months, Flynn’s case has become a hotbed of criticism from President Donald Trump and his supporters over Russia’s investigation. Separately, many in the legal industry in the case publicly opposed Burney’s treatment of the president’s friends, saying his decision in the Flynn case bends the law to help Trump politically. The fate of Flynn’s case is widely considered to be a sort of Rosetta Stone, so how can people see the Mલરller investigation – Flynn’s deportation is abused by the president or Flynn’s sentence is handed down to the president.
DC Circuit Judge Thomas Griffith, George W. Bush, the appointee in his last day before retiring from the bench, warned in a coherent opinion that the recent turn in Flynn’s case should not be read as a political statement.
“In cases that attract public attention, it is common for pundits and politicians to organize their comments in a way that makes the judicial process a little more messy than a partisan fight,” Griffith wrote. “The party affiliation of the president who appoints the judge becomes an explanation for the real cause of the judge’s disposition, and the legitimate reasoning is seen as a cover for the use of raw political power. There is no doubt that some people will describe it.” Yes, but they will be wrong. “
Disagreement: ‘Plaintiff no longer has a plaintiff’
Trump-appointed Judge Niomi Rao, who also served on the original appellate court panel that voted for Flynn and is now in the minority, wrote his dissent to argue that he believes Flynn’s case ultimately denies anything. .Will not be.
“In Flynn’s case, the prosecution is no longer the plaintiff. However, the case continues with the district court proceedings aimed at highlighting the department’s internal deliberations. , In the hope and gesture that the district judge will make it clear that he will not take any action, ”Rao wrote.
If Fly wants to appeal to the Supreme Court to keep Sullivan in custody for longer – there is still a possibility – Rao’s disagreement and his previous opinion in the case could be important legal arguments for his team to push towards the judges.
Rejected Sullivan’s request to reassign the case
The appellate court also refused to refer Flynn’s case to another trial judge after Flynn’s legal team accused Sullivan of bias against Flynn.
Sullivan, who hired a lawyer to argue the case regarding his authority and asked for a full panel for his hearing this summer, took those steps at the invitation of the Court of Appeal, for the right legal reasons, and not because he took his side. The court said in the case under Flynn.
“The Court of Appeal wrote in its opinion on Monday that it did not, and could not, make a fair impression of bias in any way.” “
This story has been updated with Disagree Language.
.
