Judge Sullivan petition for en banc review of General Flynn case, July 9, 2020, Sidney Powell: Flynn “totally set up” because he threatened to expose Obama Administration
“her client was “totally set up” because he threatened to expose wrongdoing by top intelligence officials in the Obama administration.
“He was going to audit the intel agencies because he knew about the billions Brennan and company were running off the books,” Powell said, referring to former CIA Director John Brennan.”…Sidney Powell, Vickie McKenna Show
“Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they call ‘The Resistance’ and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the executive branch.” …Attorney General Barr
“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October
From Just The News July 9, 2020.
“Judge in Flynn cases now want full court to decide whether to dismiss case, filed court docs show”
“Attorneys for the federal judge overseeing the Michael Flynn case filed court documents Thursday requesting a full panel of judges be allowed to hear briefings and arguments on a pending motion to dismiss the U.S. government’s case against the former national security adviser. The attorneys argue the three-member panel of judges that denied the effort “marks a dramatic break from precedent that threatens the orderly administration of justice.”
In the 68-page document filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, attorneys for Judge Emmet Sullivan argue three main points: that the 2-1 majority rule by the panel in June undermined the court’s “consistent interpretation” of standards that would forcing the district court to grant a motion it had not yet resolved; the panel undercut Supreme and Circuit court precedent on such matters, and thirdly, that the panel contravened Supreme Court and Circuit precedent in precluding the district court from appointing an amicus and scheduling a hearing. ”
Judge Sullivan petition: