It is even what it said in richard. You can ask for the reasons,. What if theth court is concerned about favoritism being displayed to a politically powerful defendant . Is that a proper reason to have a hearing . Mr. Wall no. That is a concern that is not the domain of rule 48. Judge griffith what is your authority for that . Mr. Wall in the United States, i would say richards or falkirk. It does not matter. The District Court might believe the government has a bad motive to do all sorts of things, favoritism or something else. But everybody agreeing that the United States cannot be made to bring a prosecution even if it even ifeven if it is its motive is not regular or impermissible, the same is exactly true of a prosecution. There are checks on that. Judge griffith what would be an appropriate hearing for judge sullivan to call on these facts in this case . What are the outer limits of what he could do or what the government would think is appropriate . Mr. Wall i dont think there i
All persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States are admonish to give their attention landmark cases, cspans special history series, produced in partnership with the National Constitution center, exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12th historic Supreme Court decisions mr. Chief justice, former mayor please the court quite often, in our most famous decisions, theyre one that the court took that were quite unpopular. Lets go through a few cases that illustrate, very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of different people who help stick together because they believe in the rule of law. Hello and welcome to landmark cases. This is the first of 12 historic Supreme Court cases that we will look at this season. Mcculloch v. Maryland is our case tonight, and we will learn more about this significant case in the people and issues behind it and why it is so important in our American History process. Later,
Court of appeals heard oral argument Via Teleconference on whether they should order the trial judge of the d. C. District to dismiss the justice departments perjury case against michael flynn. Well show you that oral argument next. Michael t. Flynn, the honorable emmett g. Sullivan. Good morning, counsel. Well here first from ms. Powell. Good morning. This is Sidney Powell for petitioner michael flynn. Were here now to stop further intrusion into the sole power of the executive branch under the take care clause to decide to dismiss a case and what circumstances warrant that dismissal. The government here provided an extensive and thoroughly documented motion to dismiss this prosecution weighing as it should all of the factors that go into that, include the provision of evidence that came to light through an independent review by mr. Jensen who not only had ten Years Experience as an fbi agent, but ten years as a federal prosecutor before attorney general barr tasked him to review this
Honorable emmett g. Sullivan. Good morning, counsel. Well here first from ms. Powell. Good morning. This is Sidney Powell for petitioner michael flynn. Were here now to stop further intrusion into the sole power of the executive branch under the take care clause to decide to dismiss a case and what circumstances warrant that dismissal. The government here provided an extensive and thoroughly documented motion to dismiss this prosecution weighing as it should all of the factors that go into that, include the provision of evidence that came to light through an independent review by mr. Jensen who not only had ten Years Experience as an fbi agent, but ten years as a federal prosecutor before attorney general barr tasked him to review this case. It cannot go on any longer. This is the quintessential case because we have both issues of judicial of prerogatives and a clear abuse. Theres no case or controversy any longer. The government has quit, and he also has no authority to go into the re
Petitioner michael flynn. We are here now to stop further impermissible intrusion into the sole power of the executive branch under the take care clause to decide to dismiss a case and what circumstances warrant that dismissal. The government here provided an extensive and thoroughly documented motion to dismiss this prosecution, weighing as it should all of those factors that go into that, including the exculpatory evidence that came to light through an independent review by mr. Jenson, who know the only had 10 Years Experience as an fbi agent, but 10 years as a federal prosecutor before attorney general barr asked him to review this case. It cannot go on any longer. This is the quintessential case from mandamus, because we have issues of judicial hurts her and at usurpation clear abuse of discretion. The judge has no authority to do anything further in the case. Theres no case or controversy any longer. The parties have decided, the government has quit, and he also has no authority t