'Let’s review. In the American system of justice, only the government can bring criminal charges against an individual. You may file a complaint with the police claiming you have been assaulted or your neighbor stole your property, but only the representatives of the people as a whole can then actually prosecute the case.
If a case is prosecuted it will be handled according to a very clearly delineated set of rules. The people will be represented by a prosecutor. T he accused will be represented by defense counsel. Presiding over it all, neutral and unbiased, will be a judge, whose sole objective will be to ensure justice is done.
That system, handed down to us via English common law, has been the backbone of our nation since its inception.
Until yesterday.
Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, responding to a government motion to dismiss the case against Lieutenant-General Flynn opened the case up to receive what is legally known as amicus briefs. That means that the judge will now allow third parties, presumably all hostile to Flynn, to intervene in the case, take on the role of prosecutors, and argue to the court as to why the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency should go to jail.
Responding to the development, Flynn’s attorneys, had this to say, “It is no accident that amicus briefs are excluded in criminal cases. A criminal case is a dispute between the United States and a criminal defendant. There is no place for third parties to meddle in the dispute, and certainly not to usurp the role of the government’s counsel. For the Court to allow another to stand in the place of the government would be a violation of the separation of powers.”
The extraordinary nature of Judge Sullivan’s decision can hardly be overemphasized. We will now see the spectacle of a man being prosecuted in an American court of law, when the people’s representatives, the prosecuting attorneys assigned to the case have affirmatively stated that they do not wish to proceed and do not believe that proceeding would be in accordance with the dictates of justice. In effect, the judge is taking unto himself the authority to proceed with a criminal case against an American citizen even when the Justice Department deems it unwarranted.
It is an extreme step, but, then again as the entire Spygate narrative enters its third and final phase, for those determined to ensure a coverup these are extreme times.
In the first phase of the Spygate travesty, we were treated to an endless barrage of accusations against President Trump and his closest advisors. Trump was a Russian stooge. He won the 2016 election only because of collusion with Vladimir Putin. The new President was a traitor, and there was, we were told, again and again, ample, concrete evidence that would prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
…'
http://andmagazine.com/talk/2020/05/13/judge-sullivan-draws-the-line-seeks-to-stop-coup-inquiry/