Michael Flynn can sue for $17.7 million


As reported, former National Security Adviser to Donald Trump, Michael Flynn won his most recent appeal to a panel of three judges to dismiss his case.

Judge Napolitano explained that they concluded it is the decision of the Executive Branch to determine which case to dismiss and the court should not get involved. The DOJ called for the case to be dismissed.

The former Judge also said that General Flynn can sue the DOJ for the prosecution of him for the $17.7 million that he has spent in legal fees because the prosecution was not in good faith.

Napolitano also said the opinion and the dissent were surprisingly ferocious.


ABC News reports that the three-judge appeals court panel ruled 2-1 in granting Flynn’s motion to overrule Sullivan. Trump-appointee Judge Neomi Rao authored the majority opinion for the order.

They believe Judge Sullivan overstepped his authority by appointing an outside former judge to argue against the Justice Department and Flynn’s legal team.

“A hearing cannot be used as an occasion to superintend the prosecution’s charging decisions, because “authority over criminal charging decisions resides fundamentally with the Executive, without the involvement of—and without oversight power in—the Judiciary,” Rao writes.

Rao also stated they should revisit the integrity of the overall prosecution.

“Each of our three co-equal branches should be encouraged to self-correct when it errs. If evidence comes to light calling into question the integrity or purpose of an underlying criminal investigation, the Executive Branch must have the authority to decide that further prosecution is not in the interest of justice,”

The opinion denies one part of the motion from Flynn’s attorneys in their request to have Judge Sullivan reassigned from the case entirely.

Judge Robert Wilkins dissented from the ruling. He said they are interfering in the process and that is “extraordinary.”

“It is a great irony that, in finding the District Court to have exceeded its jurisdiction, this Court so grievously oversteps its own,” Wilkins says. “This appears to be the first time that we have issued a writ of mandamus to compel a district court to rule in a particular manner on a motion without first giving the lower court a reasonable opportunity to issue its own ruling; the first time any court has held that a district court must grant “leave of court” … without even holding a hearing on the merits of the motion; and the first time we have issued the writ even though the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy, on the theory that another party would not have had an adequate alternate remedy if it had filed a petition as well. Any one of these is sufficient reason to exercise our discretion to deny the petition; together, they compel its rejection.”

Judge Sullivan will most definitely ask for the full court to review this decision.



0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments