Subscribe to the Blunt Force Truth podcast

A user-friendly analysis explaining why Flynn’s case got dismissed

You’ve no doubt heard that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision dismissing Michael Flynn’s case. Judge Neomi Rao used impressively accessible prose in the decision, but it’s still written in legal language. This post simplifies her argument even further.

Here’s the vital point: Rao, a Trump appointee, and Judge Karen L. Henderson, a Bush appointee, ruled in Flynn’s favor, and ordered that Judge Emmett Sullivan stop trying to keep the Flynn prosecution alive. Judge Robert L. Wilkins, an Obama appointee, dissented.

The decision is not yet final. Wilkins, or another judge on the appellate court, may still ask for the entire court to review the matter. This possibility explains why, in the decision itself, Rao takes the time to write a brutal takedown of Wilkins’s silly reasoning.

Rao recited the necessary background facts: As information came out showing the FBI and the DOJ railroaded him, Flynn moved to have his guilty plea reversed, and the case dismissed. The DOJ then reviewed the case and concluded that the newly revealed facts, combined with the FBI’s misconduct, undermined its case, justifying its own motion for dismissal.

Read the full story from American Thinker

Want more BFT? Leave us a voicemail on our page or follow us on Twitter @BFT_Podcast and Facebook @BluntForceTruthPodcast. We want to hear from you! There’s no better place to get the #BluntForceTruth.