Tag: DC Circuit

  • Breaking: Jack Smith Moves For Dismissal

    Breaking: Jack Smith Moves For Dismissal

    Jack Smith, the unconstitutionally appointed special council tasked with prosecuting Donald Trump on a variety of charges has just filed a motion to dismiss the charges in the DC circuit court. Those charges are related to January 6 and an alleged conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 election. You can read the entire motion below.

    In the filing, Smith relies on the OLC finding that a sitting president cannot be indicated or tried for criminal charges. Smith noted the prohibition on prosecuting presidents is “categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind.”

    The document charges in Florida are also being dismissed at least for Trump. The charges are still pending for Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, Trump’s co-defendants in that case.

    I should note that the motion does not ask for the charges to be dismissed with prejudice, meaning the charges could be refiled once Trump leaves office in 4 years.

    This is a breaking story and will be updated if and when necessary.

  • BREAKING: DC Circuit Rules Trump Is Not Immune From Prosecution

    BREAKING: DC Circuit Rules Trump Is Not Immune From Prosecution

    AP Photo/Matt Rourke

    Joe Cunningham | RedState

    A long-awaited ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has come down, bringing bad news for former president and current Republican front-runner Donald Trump.

    Trump, who has maintained presidential immunity safeguards him from prosecution over events related to his waning days in office, had hoped the courts would agree. However, in a ruling out Tuesday morning, the DC Circuit ruled that such immunity did not apply here.

    The three-judge panel on the DC Circuit said in its opinion Tuesday that it is upholding the decision from a lower court denying him absolute immunity from prosecution.

    The appeal, which is likely to find its way to the Supreme Court, has forced the delay of a March trial date for the presidential candidate. 

    The trial is part of the federal criminal case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith against Trump, specifically regarding alleged 2020 election interference. The March trial date was removed from the March calendar, and led to a freakout on the left – one that was epitomized by Washington Post associate editor Ruth Marcus.

    Failing to try Trump before the election would be a terrible disservice to voters. They are entitled to know before casting their ballots whether they are choosing a felon, especially one guilty of election interference. Polling suggests that a Trump conviction would matter even to many Republican voters.

    In its ruling, the DC Circuit wrote that “For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant” and that “any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.”

    Trump is expected to appeal the decision to either the full DC Circuit or the Supreme Court. Most experts seem to think this will become a Supreme Court case before it’s all over.

    Original Here

  • Federal Judge’s Amazing Must Read Dissent…

    Federal Judge’s Amazing Must Read Dissent…

    Federal Judge’s Amazing Must Read Dissent on the Threat of the Liberal Media to Our Freedom

    Federal Judge Laurence Silberman delivered an amazing dissent in a defamation case before the D.C. Circuit.

    What was amazing really was not the particular facts of the obscure case, but what Silberman had to say about the bias of the mainstream media and how harmful it has been not only to free speech but to our ability to be informed as well.

    Journalist Glenn Greenwald highlighted the dissent.

    Silberman argued that the standard set in the landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan requiring and as he was seeing it interpreted by the majority that there be “actual malice” before media could be sued by public officials/public figures was too restrictive. His point was that it had given so much power to the press it made them a threat to democracy, that it allowed the press to cast aspersions with virtual impunity.

    It would be one thing if this were a two-sided phenomenon. The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions. Our court was once concerned about the institutional consolidation of the press leading to a “bland and homogenous” marketplace of ideas. It turns out that ideological consolidation of the press ….is the far greater threat.

    Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s….Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction. The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.

    Silberman said the problem was compounded by Silicon Valley holding sway over the distribution and filtering of news, and that too is favorable to the Democrats. He cited Twitter banning the spread of the url to the Hunter Biden New York Post story.

    The problem?

    But ideological homogeneity in the media—or in the channels of information distribution—risks repressing certain ideas from the public consciousness just as surely as if access were restricted by the government.

    To be sure, there are a few notable exceptions to Democratic Party ideological control: Fox News, The New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page.

    Can opposition to that Democratic control survive with the efforts against it, Silberman asked?

    After all, there are serious efforts to muzzle Fox News. And although upstart (mainly online) conservative networks have emerged in recent years, their visibility has been decidedly curtailed by Social Media, either by direct bans or content-based censorship….And now, a decade after this book’s publication, the press and media do not even pretend to be neutral news services.

    It’s obviously an open question about which we all are concerned, seeing the efforts all around us to shut down that which is not the Democratic orthodoxy, not just conservative thought.

    Silberman then warned what was coming next.

    It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy. It may even give rise to countervailing extremism. The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness—if not eagerness—to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power.

    His final footnote explained how we got to this point, and it’s through the bias (read control) at academic institutions.
    By: Nick Arama – March 21, 2021 https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2021/03/20/federal-judges-amazing-must-read-dissent-on-the-threat-of-the-liberal-media-to-our-freedom-n347214

    Comment: Refreshing to have a Judge recognize the existing and increasing damage “His point was that it had given so much power to the press it made them a threat to democracy, that it allowed the press to cast aspersions with virtual impunity.”

  • Flynn Suffers Setback at DC Appeals Court

    Flynn Suffers Setback at DC Appeals Court

    In an 8-2 en banc ruling today, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Judge Naomi Rao’s writ of mandamus ordering Judge Emmett Sullivan to dismiss charges against Michael Flynn. Read the full ruling below:

    https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1300469850532384768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1300469850532384768%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftownhall.com%2Ftipsheet%2Fkatiepavlich%2F2020%2F08%2F31%2Fbreaking-general-flynn-suffers-major-setback-in-case-dismissal-n2575378

    In June, the Department of Justice called for the case against Flynn to be dismissed after new evidence surfaced showing the FBI essentially made up a case against him without evidence and after agents argued it should have been closed.

    Then, Flynn’s attorneys and the DOJ appealed to the DC Court of Appeals, seeking mandamus relief after judge Sullivan refused to drop the charges. Mandamus was granted by a three judge panel of the Court. In August, an en banc hearing was granted at Judge Sullivan’s request.



    So what happens from here? The DOJ and Sidney Powell could appeal the case to the Supreme Court, which probably would prefer not to get involved in this case at all. The Supreme Court justices might figure that it will happen more quickly without them than with their intervention. Given that neither Powell nor the DOJ actually sought to have Sullivan disqualified, a point brought up instead by the DC Circuit, the Supreme Court isn’t likely to try a split-the-baby compromise by rejecting the writ but disqualifying Sullivan.

  • What Not To Do

    What Not To Do

    I’ve searched the comments boards in Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and the Blogs. And while there are some, who have come forward to defend the statements being made during this mornings United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, as they consider the Review in the case of Michael Flynn.

    The number of comments who see the courts as hostile is stunning – you be the Judge.

    See also: Of Mountain Men and Map Makers pt 5

    This hearing can be reviewed later on CSPAN also

  • Full DC Circuit to Hear Flynn Appeal

    Full DC Circuit to Hear Flynn Appeal

    The District of Columbia appeals court has agreed to hold an en banc hearing regarding the Flynn dismissal order. The date has been set as 11 August.

    https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1288872685041319937?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1288872685041319937%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-3690243494263847539.ampproject.net%2F2007172306003%2Fframe.html

    In June, a panel of three judges for the court determined in a 2-1 vote that Judge Emmitt Sullivan had an obligation to follow an order from the Department of Justice and dismiss the case against General Flynn.

    The DOJ moved to have the case dismissed after an internal review found no evidence for the case. “Through the course of my review of General Flynn’s case, I concluded the proper and just course was to dismiss the case. I briefed Attorney General Barr on my findings, advised him on these conclusions, and he agreed,” U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri Jeffrey Jensen stated at the time.



    Flynn’s attorneys filed a brief opposing the rehearing.

    “Judge Sullivan’s stubborn disagreement with the Government’s decision to dismiss the case does not confer the right to contest it himself or through his amicus,” Flynn’s lawyers, including Sidney Powell, said. “His actions smack of vindictive animus against General Flynn and judicial overreach that have no place in America’s justice system. No precedent even suggests a ‘hearing’ on a substantial government motion to dismiss. Not one.”

    Flynn’s lawyers added: “The umpire cannot force the teams to play extra innings after the game is over. He, the players, and the spectators need to go home and turn off the floodlights.”