Levin: ‘What the Hell is this Judge Pulling?!?’ by Allowing Outside Input Before Ruling on DOJ Motion to Drop Flynn Case


Source Link

Mark Levin

(Screenshot)

“What the hell is this judge pulling?!?,” Constitutional Scholar and conservative pundit Mark Levin asked Tuesday, reacting to news that a Clinton-appointed judge has delayed ruling on the Justice Department’s motion to drop the case against former Trump National Security Adviser Gen. Michael Flynn.

Reacting in a post on his Twitter page, Levin linked to an article in The Hill reporting the judge’s curious, atypical maneuver:

A federal judge said Tuesday that he would allow interested parties to weigh in on Michael Flynn‘s case, delaying the Department of Justice (DOJ) effort to drop the charges against the former national security adviser.

In an unusual move for a criminal prosecution, Judge Emmet Sullivan of the D.C. District Court said in a brief order that “at the appropriate time, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order governing the submission of any amicus curiae briefs.”

Judge Sullivan, who must approve the Justice Department’s motion has, thus far, refused to take further action, such as scheduling a hearing or requesting more briefings on the motion, The Hill reports.

“More on the outrageous political antics of Clinton judge, Emmett Sullivan,” Levin tweeted Tuesday morning, linking to a Fox News interview with a former U.S. attorney explaining how the “activist” judge’s “outrageous” move is ignoring “rules, ethics and precedent in favor of partisanship.”:

Former U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman thought he had “seen everything” over the course of his career until a federal judge opened the door Tuesday for legal experts and other outside parties to oppose the Justice Department’s motion to drop the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

….

“And let’s face it, if it looks like this is what’s going on, there is strategy then that’s at the heart of what this judge is trying to accomplish. And, that strategy is offensive to anyone who practices,” he stated. “It’s the United States against Michael Flynn. And, when the United States says we’re no longer going to pursue it because we don’t have the evidence, then the audacity of somebody outside of that coming in who has no authority is outrageous.”

(Screenshot)