Full DC Appeals Court To Hear Arguments Regarding AG Barr’s Decision To Drop Charges Against Michael Flynn

(PatrioticPost.com)- The legal drama for Michael Flynn just won’t end.

On Thursday, the Federal Appeals Court in Washington, D.C., announced that the entire court will hear the case regarding William Barr’s decision to drop the prosecution of Flynn. That overrides the decision of a three-judge panel of the same court, which ordered the case to immediately end.

Attorney General Barr intervened in the case against Flynn, making a request to drop the case entirely. But Emmet Sullivan, the trial judge who was overseeing the case, appointed an outside former judge to scrutinize the Department of Justice’s request.

John Gleeson, the retired judge who was appointed to fulfill that duty, found that Barr was corrupt in requesting the charges be dropped. He also urged Flynn to be sentenced for his crime of lying to the FBI, which he twice pleaded guilty to.

Flynn’s legal team appealed Sullivan’s decision to a three-judge panel of the DC Appeals Court, which ordered the lower court judge to immediately end the case in a split decision. But Sullivan himself appealed that decision, hoping the full Appeals Court would hear the case.

In a surprising decision to most, a majority of the full court voted to vacate the three-judge panel’s June 24 decision. Oral arguments in this next step in the case are scheduled to begin August 11.

One of the main arguments against the court intervening in the case was “the situation did not qualify for the extraordinary remedy of an immediate order to the trial judge — a so-called writ of mandamus,” according to a New York Times report. The reasoning behind this is that “an alternative was available: Judge Sullivan could be permitted to make his decision in the normal course, and if Mr. Flynn did not like it, he could file an appeal.”

Despite that, though, the full court’s majority decision signals it may want to hear the matter so it could focus on that argument. The court issued an unsigned decision that read:

“The parties should be prepared to address whether there are ‘no other adequate means to attain the relief’ desired.”

Back in June, Gleeson filed a brief following his review that said the rationale used by prosecutors to dismiss charges against Flynn made no sense. He contended that the only reason it made sense was if it was a politically-motivated decision, which made it corrupt.

Barr has been accused on numerous occasions of doing the bidding of President Donald Trump. The Department of Justice disputed the notion that Barr was acting in a corrupt manner.

Sullivan was set to hear the DOJ’s arguments against Gleeson’s brief, but he never got the chance to. The three-judge panel of the Appeals Court ruled that Sullivan didn’t have the authority to hear the matter or scrutinize Barr’s decision to drop the charges against Flynn.

The dissenting judge on that panel said the two judges in the majority “grievously” overstepped their authority in ruling that way. Sullivan then appealed the panel’s decision and won — at least for now.