Exclusive Analysis: What Comes Next in the Michael Flynn Saga

Jay Sekulow live exclusive analysis on the microwave legal saga by the ACLJ's expert legal team including Jay Sekulow. We don't want to miss it today. The broadcast live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow we are here now and permissible intrusion into the soul power of the executive branch under the take care clause to decide the case and what circumstances warrant dismissal government here provided an extensive and thoroughly documented motion to dismiss the prosecution.

Phone lines are open for your questions right now.

Call 1-800-684-3110 essential case for mandamus, because we have both issues of judicial usurpation of executive prerogative and a clear abuse of discretion judge has no authority to do anything further in the case, there is no case or controversy any longer. If the parties have decided the government had quit and he also had no authority to go into the reasons behind executive determination to dismiss the case and now your host Jordan secular welcome to Jay Sekulow why we are take your phone calls 164, 31 to what happens next. You got questions about that in my case now that it's been heard by the DC Court of Appeals in federal court. A three-judge panel will go through who was on the panel. The oral argument was on Friday. We played a little bit of it on the show Friday just to give you kind of a sense, but we wanted to bring in our legal experts to analyze what happened on Friday was extraordinary.

I hear he got a writ of mandamus. Before the Court of Appeals and what could happen next.

There's a few different options that could happen next in what is now we are calling public. The saga of Mike Flynn's trial that just will not come to a close we are to begin your phone calls at 164 3110 and questions on Facebook and periscope of your watching on Facebook and periscope.

I encourage you to share this with your friends and family.

Now here's why you will not get this kind of analysis anywhere else you might get 510 minutes on on cable news.

Maybe you not getting a full hour.

Analyzing this with top legal experts to share this now if you're watching on Facebook and periscope and I would go right to write at our chief counsel Jay Sekulow owe a debt we just kind of your overview of what happened on Friday will get into the details of that very important role argument. I want to address the Supreme Court issued a decision much anticipated decision this morning in a case involving whether sexual orientation constitutes a classification for discrimination laws to apply specifically to civil rights acts 1964 involving employment and other matters. It's interesting because in a 6 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court said that, in fact, sexual orientation does constitute a classification for antidiscrimination laws to apply some people were surprised at that.

But the most surprising thing I think for a lot of people I'm not surprised that I did. I expect the decision in a somewhat this way, but the decision was written by Justice Gore such a conservative, which tells you that these issues don't cut necessarily on ideological lines.

This is the application of his back to look at the statute, he made a determination that sexual orientation would in fact be covered by the act.

He was joined by Justice Roberts. That's why the six men. The liberal members of the court joined him there was a dissent by Justice Alito also by Justice Thomas and Justice Cavanaugh Justice Alito's dissent saying this opinion of justice or such.

Read more like legislation than it did a legal analysis based they do that with each other so as not bad unusual but I will say this, that, for those in the bed of infighting on this issue of sexual orientation being covered under civil rights laws. This was a watershed case that I didn't and I don't know matter what side you are on the issue. I don't want to dig for the fact that this was a big decision out of the Supreme Court, one that again I'm not surprised that it went that way.

God statute. You could certainly not always approachable to cases that if you're arguing at this for the side or for that side, and these are close cases and this particular one I was nutso close 63 decision so that decision is now on the law of the land which brings this now to general Flynn's case and I'll tell you what my boils down to Stewart in a segment of their God, side by adhering out 164, 31 to with your questions will be right back. The challenges facing Americans or substantial time in our Valley freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack is more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades now. ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do our work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms then remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you. If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us. ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life changing become a member today ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice as tech. Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission life will show you how you are personally pro-life support in the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist the ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the and what Obama care means to the pro-life discover the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/set the stage for what now the Flynn case by the weight of the case involving the right outside of the Supreme Court. If it was not happening now in Atlanta and still across the country dominating the news that this would be watershed moments where you'd see the reporters outside the US Supreme Court analyzing this all day. It might get some coverage and nightly news, national broadcast, but I'll get minutes instead of full coverage and it just kinda tells you where we are as a country right now with what were dealing with without race issues and also with the pandemic itself that they said Mike Flynn.

He still is dealing with his trial to get you up to speed with that I'm you think it's important that dad to just get people up to speed how even got to the Court of Appeals on Friday but we had the Department of Justice come in and say a motion to no longer they no longer would they want to drop the prosecution and that the judge gets rule on that instead of ruling on that.

Decide if you want to accept that motion.

Judge Sullivan decided he wanted to bring in an outside attorney, a former judge to argue why judge, Judge Flynn, Mike Flynn is guilty. General Flynn is guilty, so to bring outside A special prosecutor and to kind of continue the case, rather than just rule on the motion from the Department of Justice, which he did not have to accept he could've not accepted and since Flynn and Flynn could've appealed that, but instead he tried to do this bizarre thing he could claim inherent authority to bring it outside counsel. Then he got represented by his own attorney who went before and he got a writ of mandamus file from the Flynn team got actually granted by the Court of Appeals. They heard that on Friday and they dealt with are going to be dealing with a whole host of those issues. The outside attorney be rotted to argue against Flynn, the at the decision by the judge not to just make a call and it was not clear from the three judges though that exactly the certainly dislike they are ready just to go ahead and dismiss this for MiFi that they think this should be head of the District Court level yet I think that's right. But look at the ridiculous nature of where we are is you had the United States government come in and say you know wishing to prosecute this case we can to brought this case we withheld exculpatory evidence that was a bit of a frame up here.

This case should not move forward, we join general Flynn's motion to dismiss the case and case and that should've been in order that Judge Sullivan signed in real literally minutes not months, but Andy what happened here was this judge is got his own agenda because there is a soprano. We got a call coming in.

This will get to that in a moment, but the Supreme Court of the couple weeks ago in the decision by Justice Ginsburg said basically when the parties decided where the case is going.

If not for the court to keep it going. But that's exactly what's happening here exactly correct. I don't Sullivan have decided to become both the prosecutor and the judge at the same time he is appointed a former federal because of the amicus curiae which means friend of the court to argue against the decision of the Justice Department to dismiss the case to argue against the decision of the defendant desired to have the case vacated and he is got some agenda. I don't know what it is looking at probably know, on July 16 because in my opinion it's going back to the District Court and the writ of mandamus is not an issue. And they're probably gonna let yet Sullivan make a ruling one way or the other on whether to accept the government's motion to vacate concurred in by the defense or not and then I predict going to be back in the DC circuit again. Jack, you probably right. It may end up all end up in the US Supreme Court about once there is decision to be clear once there is a decision by the District Court, then the only issue before the Court of Appeals is Judge Solomon have that inherent authority that he calls it to keep the case going to sentence Gen. Flynn once the parties agree dictation not before, and I think the DC circuit's going to say no to that, but that's in a drawer and that's a different posture that the case is in now. I will say that Sidney Powell did a fantastic job Jeff, while the deputy solicitor Gen. United States today very excellent job as well. Very well done case was well present. I thought that Judge Sullivan's lawyer was not particularly that effective but just think what I just just think about what I just said Judge Sullivan's lawyer, that's how bizarre this case is become yet in what's interesting also is that it is many ways we could talk by this not the show that the Court of Appeals could come data they could say listen.

This goes back to Judge Sullivan but he can have an outside he can't bring an outside prosecutor or to let them how to do what he wants to do and see where it goes but you know I think what's tough.

There is, it the damage. This does to Mike Flynn and continuation of being under this kind of the legal issues and being in court not being able to move on with your life. Even with the Department of Justice said we were wrong to even prosecute you take a listen to as Sidney Powell a bite overnight judge Sullivan had denied the motion on this record, we would be entitled to mandamus right now and drag this out another six months.

I mean it won't just be a hearing on July 16. It'll go beyond that, I think it's clear from the amicus position now that they want to take Gen. Flynn defendant bring as possible and impose upon him the maximum possible for and to make us go through that process when the ultimate result has to be the grant of the motion to dismiss the government just wasting resources to help a lot in pursuing chaos. You know, go right to the sounds of Donald and Virginia online one Donald welcome the Jay Sekulow Lodge on the air morning I met quickly that previous case that the Supreme Court ruled again. I think with the ninth Circuit Court. Now my question becomes, given that if the case ended already a separation of powers in the Constitution clearly defined who has what authority why are we going to this.

Why can we go straight back to Supreme Court and have it settled once and for all to go straight to the Supreme Court, but it raises a really important issue and you raise the separation of powers is so what judge Flynn's lawyer did was rely on a statute and the rules of federal rules of criminal procedure about what judges do on motions, but the federal rules of criminal procedure cannot Andy supersede the United States Constitution and the separation and powers of powers is embedded in the Constitution. That's why we have article 1 article 2 and article 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure criminal procedure applied in this particular way they could rule 48 violates the separation of powers and it is rule 48 and it says that the government on its motion for sentencing, and dismiss the case that the problem is that it has a little because in their with the approval of the court and judge Sullivan has fashioned fastened upon that little clause to make it make himself not just the judge but the prosecutor in the case and called in a special counsel spent will really Gleason is a special counsel my column amicus curiae who wrote a terribly intemperate brief would even call that by one of the judges of the Court of Appeals and the oral argument and then got his own lawyer, Beth Wilkinson target on his behalf. So the litigant here.

You got the government you got Flynn you got Gleason you got Wilkinson anything like that, I mean it's crazy.

I've never seen Jordan, I have never seen anything like this practicing did not collectively been practicing law 90 years I have never seen anything like this were not supposed to see if you like the quote Justice Ginsburg and that 920 Supreme Court decision in May, she said, quote courts are sensitively essentially passive instruments of governments.

They do not or should not sally forth each day looking for wrongs to write.

They wait for cases to come to them and when cases arise. Courts normally decide only questions presented by the parties, and in a nutshell, this concept dictates the judges decide the case as presented by the parties before them not to go out questing for Dragon's display or issues to tackle.

The parties have not brought before the there it is. And yet judge Sullivan completely ignoring this very current 920 Supreme Court unanimously agreeing judges should not go outside their role of what's being presented before them and what's being presented before Judge Sullivan is a motion by the Department of Justice to dismiss the charges because of wrongdoing by the Department of Justice.

There was no legitimate investigation ended that motion could then be that would be before Judge Sullivan. He could decide whether to accept it or not. In the case could bid move on out of the District Court.

He decided to do exactly what Justice Ginsburg said courts should not do. He's not taking a passive role, dad. He's taking a most active role you can look he's become a litigant but be realistic here is become a litigant and this comes on the heels of subpoenas being adjusted quickly to family like 20 seconds or phantom subpoenas are now issuing from the Senate on this very matter, and others in article 1 play here as well. J as they look at this dispute.

It's largely between the other two branches just quickly J what about when Sally Yates gets the subpoena because she was in that January 5 meeting where the decision to pursue Gen. Flynn whisper was made and JR when she testified before the House Intel committee yes his firm represented her John Gleason so these conflicts are all over the place, but it's on its Jordan. It is, it's unprecedented.

What is happening here in American history is on press absently remember to continue to answer your questions about this. Got a great legal team experts here for you of 1-800-684-3110 to call with your questions.

Also requested a Facebook periscope make sure you share the broadcast as well watch a Facebook periscope click that share but now but call one 864, 31 to be a part of the show is always support the work of ACLJ. If you can.

NaCl. J.org you can donate today ACLJ.org will be right back only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn, called mission life will show you how you are personally life that supports publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist the ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the motion and what Obama care means to the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/the challenges facing Americans or substantial time in our value freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades ACLJ has been on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in courts in Congress and in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line we could not do her work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms then remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member.

Thank you. And if you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing, member today ACLJ Jay Sekulow like this Jordan secular.

We are take your phone calls were 800 684 31 two that's what 800-684-3110 gets it some more calls in just a minute to play some sound from that from that hearing on Friday from Mike Slade so this is again you're going to hear first from Judge Karen Henderson.

She was appointed by George H. W. Bush to this position initially reported to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan. I take this to this question and he brought up by 40. Granted, chosen, intemperate Amicus naming that he is going to deny this motion and considering to drastic remedy that mandamus heirs. Considering there is no precedent that allows us to move without an order. I don't see any.

And considering that there is a hearing been set for July 16. I don't see why we don't observe regular order and allow him to rule.

For all we know he will say this Amicus brief is over the top. The dismissal motion is granted.

Here's the attorney for the department of justice in response by 41 and I think you should go a step further and it's just not true that even if you as a limited digestion denies that he going to look for the motion. It's still not the case that the parties haven't suffered harmful harms to counseling obvious from the continued prosecution and the threat of contempt and the score takes away the harms the government along line focused on the parent is usually a potentially intemperate Amicus all the allegations being lobbied at the executive branch have to answer them in a public forum in a politicized environment. Let's talk about this intemperate Amicus that you mentioned. I mean it to. Just the basic definition is a lack of self-control or immoderate.

Maybe it's because he's our John Gleason, who was appointed to Ed to fill this position. It actually presents in the District Court. He has concluded already that Mike Flynn has committed a crime and should be punished for crime and he and he's written about it extensively how bad he thinks Mike Flynn is and how wrong he thinks it is. So he's it's it's a get immediate did judge Sullivan is bringing someone into prosecute a case, the Department of Justice said should not be prosecuted during the little doubt in my mind going domestically that we want to call them was certainly not a neutral Amicus. A friend of the court, but another prosecutor he was a famous prosecutor John Gotti.

He quit being a judge in 2016 with a law firm now in New York and he wrote one of the most invite corrective vitriolic intemperate breach I have ever read.

He not only said that Mike Flynn should not be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, but that he should be sentenced and because of the perjury that he committed before two federal judges that should be taken into account in giving him the maximum sentence for violation of 18 USC 1001 that Doug Sullivan could possibly impose.

This is supposed to be a neutral Amicus of the front of the carry-on of the court.

I don't think so. This is a prosecutor bent on giving the maximum possible sentence to a defendant who the government has it needed it failed to disclose relevant information to that was Brady material and should have been disclosed.

So in intemperate Amicus and intemperate District Judge at disaster for general Flynn series called Rhode Island on line 3 Jerry welcome to Jay Sekulow live. You're on the air team is what we are discussing now is already no nullifying the 90 decision that Ginsberg did enter this alone could this be the subject of an immediate mandamus to Supreme Court because of the vitriolic non-non-neutrality of late, so you you raise a really important question.

I think look that the Supreme Court decision by Justice Ginsburg, which was unanimous.

That means 920 all the justices agreed that the litigants determine the scope and nature of the case, the court is mostly passive, I think, was clearly violated in this decision of Judge were his lack of decision in the trial judge judge Sullivan as a relates to general Flynn now having said that, can they take a writ of mandamus to the Supreme Court, in the words of the DC Court of Appeals loses.

Could Sidney Powell and the Department of Justice file a writ with the Supreme Court. The answer that is probably yes they could will they do that that will be a tactical decision that they have to make. I want to understand this for a moment here and we go back to fan on this.

This comes on the heels of this last week authorization for a lot of subpoenas you just touched on this briefly before but expand on it than finding out exactly what was going on by the FBI in all of these investigations.

Yet this is just last week J of the Senate Judiciary Committee and I think one of the questions that people probably have what what what role does Congress have in this. This is a dispute between the courts and the executive branch will will not so fast Jamie because the article one branch of course has the power to confirm judges.

They also had the oversight for many of the programs and involved here, including the FISA court what the committee did last week Jay was grant chairman Lindsay Grandy authorization to issue up to 53 subpoenas for both witnesses and documents relating to the origins of the Russian investigation and crossfire hurricane which included this investigation called crossfire razor into general Flynn and Jake inside that group of 53 are can be several witnesses that are can have direct testimony related to this case anything about James Comey who is the one that bragged about us going around the White House counsel to do this interview with general Flynn think about Peter Strock and Joseph P and get the two agents who went over to do that interview. Think about real pre-step you had that famous memo that said, what are we after here. Are we after the truth, and NJ. I mention this when just briefly, but I think this might be the biggest one. Think about Sally Yates who is in that White House Oval Office meeting with Judge James Comey, Pres. Obama, Joe Biden, and then had to testify in front of the house Intel committee.

What firm did she used to represent her.

She used the amicus curiae in this case, Judge Gleason subject when those five witnesses particularly come before the committee.

I can guarantee you this separation of powers issues can be asked of them look I think that there is no doubt about it and as we know will go up by the second half of the program. We can go into this a lot. Winemaker Hutchison is gonna join us as well, but Andy the whole relationship between the judge in this particular case. Now Sally Yates all witness.

It is with thanks that is right is really unprecedented. I'm prepping that and I daresay, and I don't think it's too strong a term that I see in poster relationship.

Additionally and illegally that have transpired here because everybody is related to somebody in some way and cannot be, you know, I neutral arbiter this case, I am very distressed at that. The brief that Gleason Road is an amicus curiae.

I don't believe that Sally Yates was ignorant of what was going on in that meeting with the Pres. Obama when he was called back in her protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. She is a bright indeed brilliant woman and knew exactly what was happening and what the intent was of the parties, including chromium and Obama that time, but things are going to play out in the Senate and the hearings that are going to be conducted in the courts to but I don't think that that any of this stuff is is precedented and I think were going on territories that is untrodden in danger folks we come back will bring in Harry Hatch to discuss my dad will stay with us and economy will stay with the stand will stay with us. We want you to stay as well. More of your phone calls your comments at 100-684-3110 at 2000 684-3110. And remember, support the work.

If you can of the American Center for Law and justice@aclj.org donations are tax-deductible. You can donate online very quickly and securely at ACLJ.or writ be right back. The full half hour of additional analysis the Flynn case Jay Sekulow live for decades.

ACLJ is been on the frontline protecting your freedom is defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member. Thank you. If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today ACLJ live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow and now secular just kind of get this set the stage here which I met Mike Wade's case it was up before the DC Court of Appeals federal court on Friday. Full oral argument which unusual to be granted this writ of mandamus, but the whole thing is a bit unusual. I would take your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. I did want to start with this. It's interesting because it's a comment that came in the exit we could bring everybody into finance this Gordy on Facebook routed with judge Sullivan's move make it so that any plea deal offered by Department of Justice becomes an immediate perjury trap data start with you while the way that the judge has framed it. I think the answer that could be yes because here there was the government has basically confessed error. They'd said this. It was wrong what took place here that was as Andy said exculpatory evidence that was not a put forward there was other irregularities in the proceeding, and that plea should not have been entered into with basically like a worse play in a sense, and the government acknowledges and admits it and says the case should be dismissed. We agree with the judge without the general general Flynn. The judge should just sign the order, but he just will not cannot get himself to do it and that's the problem here right and what I giving this idea that every does it put in jeopardy. Plea deals because they do judge may just interpret that is somehow an immediate perjury trap will do another prosecutor. I have taken many cleaning cases and the defendant has to say what he did of the prosecutor has to say what the evidence is going to be and that means that he's got to say essentially confessed to the crime that is pleading to either in his own words or via the proper that's made by the prosecutor. Then suddenly, we find this tremendous prosecutorial abuse. Failure to disclose exculpatory information. Failure to disclose information that might be impeaching to the defendant that would should nullify the plate and the defendant that will now I just entered a plea admitted to all these things. It is a perjury trap the defendant.

What does this to the plea negotiations going forward is really something that I want to know.

I am at a loss as to why Joe Sullivan is making these forays into areas that he ought not to be involved.

Writer Jordan which I call upon when he said really quickly here and that is this he's just Sullivan's acting as if there's never been a case in history where police had been withdrawn and the end it happens all the time I draw the plate this at this and then you got the government agreeing so this should be a non-case, Harry carries joining us, Harry Hudson get his view on on the situation as he sees it.

While I agree with the analysis put forward so far and I think that the failure to do math in this particular case provides an incentive going forward for all pendants to decline to enter into plea deals because one thing that judge Sullivan's approach is allowed to stand, then they will themselves.at least potentially for perjury trap in the case is even more agree agree to hear why because the FBI had already concluded on January 4 that there was no derogatory information against general plan folks again.

We get a lot of calls.

What hundred 64, 31, said longer segments.

We consider taking more those cosplay more for you from the case ever to do that is well we come back at 1-800-684-3110 if you got questions. If you got comments this is the time to get the bid I got just two phone lines open for you are right now.

The rest are full with great questions and comments.

1-800-684-3110 called out you don't get your question through Facebook and periscope and let me encourage you if you're watching on Facebook periscope share this broadcast with your friends and family getting this kind of full analysis of Mike Flynn's case anywhere else with all these legal experts entire our live broadcast breaking it down for you click that share button now on Facebook periscope and as always, if you're in a position right now I don't. It's a tough time for some people to others. You are back at work it in the end have been able to continue to work throughout the pandemic and other crises. If you can support the work ACLJ do so by donating online and ACLJ.org as ACLJ.org challenges facing Americans are substantial time when our value freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades. ACLJ has been on the frontline protecting your freedoms defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. Here's the bottom line we could not do our work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms that remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times.

The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member.

Thank you.

If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life-changing, member today ACLJ only one.

A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice.

Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission life will show you how you are personally support the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists. The ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the and what Obama care means to discover many ways your membership is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/Jay Sekulow like this Jordan secular play feel a bit more from the oral argument because were that type your a lot of these oral arguments were certain. Having the broadcasted release the audio from the that was done here as well. This is judge will kids from the DC Court of Appeal circuit Court of Appeals appointed by Pres. Obama in 2013, at his question to Mike Flynn's attorney Cindy Powell about this appointment by Judge Sullivan of a special prosecutor if you will bite 11. The order denying appointed him to present arguments in opposition to the government's motion to dismiss that that's folded it says in that paragraph so so callous at violating article 2 to appoint someone to present arguments in opposition because the government had already made the decision to stop and the government only entity that can make that decision. The Department of Justice is the only entity that can decide whether to pursue the prosecution judge has no way of doing that on his time through Amicus or special prosecutor or anything else. The government has quit and it's time to leave the field currently skip the accident. I think the iMac that Cindy was just brilliant and that got colloquy with that the judge of me.

I think she just hit it exactly right. And it's time for the everybody to go leave the field and Harry. The unusual aspect of this we keep saying this, I don't want to get in his comments to is that you have agreement between the Department of Justice.

They're basically saying that we mess up your this case is never gone cold.

We should have never brought this case and now it's not too late. Judge Gen. Flynn wants to remove his withdraw his plea.

We think that's right you should grant that order, rule 48 of the Federal rules of criminal procedure so you can but those rules of criminal procedure do not override the constitutional separation of powers. So ultimately that judge is indicated at the end of the day you may be right back up there again arguing on the merits here. I think that is correct. So we examine the record of the paid clearly it very very likely that Mr. Gleason and his party when he concluded that the Justice Department had departed from the usual procedures in arguing for dismissal of this case fails to take note of back Mr. Gleason and George Solomon had departed for new school of proceeding in similar cases so far. Mr. Gleason offers a statement of identity, a statement of his and Chris suggesting that he is indeed passionate observer. In reality, he is a partisan with a distinguished record of buying applicant clock and he now accuses the Justice Department precisely the flyer that in fact his entire legal analysis and the economy pointed out earlier, Mr. Gleason relies largely upon the bond Russia pollution investigation. To make this case referring at length to this investigation which goes back to the summer of 2016. Linda full flower of crossfire hurricane document so if we're going to talk about credibility. I would argue that Mr. Gleason and Judge Sullivan, lack any sustained credibility. In this case and maintaining this case against general plan makes no legal practical credential sent this this call. It follows read up on it. Mike Scott California Mike, thanks for hold on your on the air, they might thank you very much yet and you hear me got yeah thank you for having me on the air as they 1980, he being University communication graduate.

I really appreciate all that the ACLJ have done over the years might question to you. It how can really move. Judge Sullivan permitted the Ben Charlie this case yes this is a really good question Mike and thank you for calling in any one of the things you and I have discussed early on a way out of the Court of Appeals could be here. You know where not can it decide whether districts should rule on this or not rule on this and maybe comes back up this but you know what this judge has a lawyer.

He is now almost actually he's basically a party in the proceedings he's making appearances through lawyers is appointed as special counsel as you said now he has an outside lawyer in addition to that, you know what Judge Sullivan you're no longer the umpire here. You're no longer the referee you become a party in interest and you need to be forcefully recused.

How do you forcefully recused the Court of Appeals.

I've done this to judges. I hate doing it, but I have done it forcefully recused me to go to the Court of Appeals that this judge's bias is obvious. We think he can no longer sit independently as a judge as that referee or umpire that he's basically become a cheerleader for the other side here, except in this case, and he's becoming a cheerleader only for inside because the government is what Gen. Flynn tried arming the protestations of Sullivan to the contrary that he my grant that motion to vacate really do not carry any truth in believability to them J because he has made himself very clearly a first baseman herein and put in a baseball game were you supposed to be the umpire and behind the plate not out there catching balls and throwing people out and this is a very dangerous precedent that is that in very dangerous for the future of the judiciary when the judiciary becomes the prosecutor in the case hired his own lawyer hired his own special prosecutor you blur the articles of the Constitution together and you have violated the separation of powers and one of the things that the DC circuit can indeed do is to say judge Sullivan with all due respect, you have become a partisan, you are no longer a neutral and you need to get out of the case that another judge rule. I welcome that kind of a decision from the DC circuit I doubt will get it to answer Lisa's question online for from California. Lisa welcome the Jay Sekulow live your on the air. In particular, I think there what this July date. I declared him do anything they put it off now than I'm I'm concluded that it that's a really good question know the judge's is basically said he'll make up a decision by 16 July.

That's when he's can come to his decision one way or another I do and what's up with the court is that the judge should not be in the process of making this decision off the family quickly hear the fan. I think it's actually got some time.

We lay out for everybody. Also that there's a there's a congressional component to this set and some were looking at both of these are office of government affairs are legal teams all involved in this.

What happened last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, let him what's going on there yet.

Majority the committee. J gave the chairman of the committee, Lindsay Graham authorization to issue subpoenas on a number of issues dating back to the origins of the Russian investigation off of the FISA applications crossfire hurricane crossfire razor. Of course this investigation into Gen. Flynn is crossfire razor Jake. We walked through some of the witnesses that might be subpoenaed by chairman Graham that relate to this case that were discussing today.

I talked about Sally Yates and her multiple conflicts. But what about another one, maybe another one. Bill pre-staff to many of our listeners are to know about. He is the one that authored that those handwritten notes about what what he said, what is our goal in going to interview Gen. Flynn tears exactly what he wrote. What's our goal, truth, admission, or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get fired. J. That is one of the individuals of the Senate Judiciary Committee now is looking at issuing a subpoena for you had a conversation earlier about is this a perjury trap for her. Gen. Flynn will J if it is I would tell you it's not the first time that it happened in this case because Bill pre-Stapp, who is one of the ones that authored that admitted that went before they sent the interview. The agents over the interview, Gen. Flynn, so I think it will be very interesting when he gets a subpoena from the committee how he answers that question. I don't see a way he can answer no way that exonerates himself J that I think they refuse him. I admit that that's a possible outcome. In this case is that he gets recusal will see soon enough toward yeah that's right having to face the consequences of the Court of Appeals will make its decision and that will then determine how it goes forward at the District Court level so we await the Court of Appeals decision.

They gotta decide pretty quickly because of that.

July 16 date would say the color mixes well we come back more of your comments as well. 164 3110 is 1-800-684-3110 with taken some phone calls have got some phone lines open for you. It will get to Bill's call first we come back from the brakes but again if you want to talk to us on air and get them part of this the final segment of the broadcast coming up. This is the time to call to make sure you get on the year 1-800-684-3110 of what we try doing the final segment special. We have all our experts on where this is to answer as many questions as we can.

We kind of gone through the case. Now let's answer your questions and respond to your comments as well. 1-800-684-3110 to be part of the broadcast of the final segment covered up a Jay Sekulow lie.

That's what 100 684-3110 again 164 3110 and as always, I encourage her, Facebook and periscope audience to share this broadcast with your friends and family. If you watch online click that share but now thousands of people are watching and you can bring in thousands more that there educated up to speed and I'll encourage you to donate and support the work of the Bexar flood justice online ACLJ.org if you were to go to our website. See all of the different work you were doing at the ACLJ before doubting that good ACLJ to see all the work were doing around the world and here the US make that online donation will be right back only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn Gold mission life will show you how you are personally support the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist the ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the end what Obama care means to the pro-life discover the many ways your membership in the is empowering the right to life question free copy mission life today online ACLJ/challenges facing Americans for substantial time and are now free to sort constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades. ACLJ on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights and courts in Congress and in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line we could not do her work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms that remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times.

The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member.

Thank you for your thoughts. Well, this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing become a member today ACLJ Jay Sekulow live like a similar take your calls or comments that are given out phone lines are full right now but if you will try to get on whether to just opened up. Got a call right now. 1-800-684-3110 is a sit Bergen go right to the phones.

Let's go to Bill in Wyoming online three Bill thinks hold on your on the air.

Michael will you be real quick for say an early happy Father's Day. My question is that this business with the general plan seems to me that what I understand is that all contracts, agreements a lot of that you want to call it that there made under duress, such as in Emmett forced guilty right that nullified over my wrong or going in the wrong direction here now I think actually raise a good point.

Even worse, clean, and he is no plea at all.

That's right. If you coerce a plea under Boykin versus Alabama look to the Supreme Court case, it is no plea at all, and the judge should ask him multiple questions to make sure his plea is voluntary, but when the government comes in and says Judge Lee admit that notwithstanding that the defendant's plea. We have dirty hands. We have failed to disclose to him, Inc. exculpatory exonerated information information that would impeach when the government then notwithstanding what the defendant did or said that prosecution should come to an and in the Flynn case is a perfect example of one a prosecution should terminate. I want to address something the wall where we have a few moments here and that is the situation with the protests are going on throughout the United States and and I want it because now there's a major one in town I grew up in and not have a lot of family and family but have a lot of family and and and that Jordan and Logan were born there that is in Atlanta, Georgia, where there have been a lot of protests over the last three or four days and I want to say a couple points number one. I support the protesting activity as long as it's not violent wino.

I supported number one is called the First Amendment to the United States Constitution you have the right to freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom to give your opinion and to do that is what you don't have the right to do is destroy property or building so I draw the line at that.

Now, for the most part.once there was some little bit of violence that was taken place and that it's justifiable then you had the situation in Atlanta where there was another horrific I think went the way that case was handled and I am a big supporter of the place with the way that was handled, I think, was probably incorrect and I imagine I don't prejudge but I don't like the video the way I saw it. The man had it in August it was resisting arrest, but to use lethal force when he had the officers Taser. It is wrong under any circumstances, and especially so in light of everything going on here so the protesting is fine. The burning of the way the neighborhood they just been rebuilt is really not good for those that live in the neighborhood's and Harry.

You and I have talked about that before protest is one thing, destroying businesses in minority communities makes absolutely no sense to advance the cause likely correct and if it happened far too often in American that legitimate constitutionally defensible product. They often turn into violent mayhem or arson. And I think that cannot be defended the right to exercise 100 684 31 text before we do, I say to you to get this idea of cut conflicts just bizarre scenarios you talk about the brief filed by Judge Gleason or Mr. Gleason that special prosecutor if you will, appointed by Judge Sullivan and the unique folks who who are now in this brief you have represented others in the past made it just looks like a lot of conflicts going on.

It's pretty shocking really Jordan, I mean the brief was signed by David O'Neill, one of the attorneys at at Judge Gleason's firm, David O'Neill is the same attorney Jordan who represented Sally Yates when she testified in front of the House intelligence committee and look it's it's not just like there's association with people involved in this a Sally Yates was one of the participants. One of the authorizer's of the very abuses in this case that is now causing the government to say we made a mistake and we have to withdraw the prosecution's or Jordan for the for the fact that one of the participants of that abuse that the same attorney would now participate and sign Judge Gleason's amicus in the case to me makes the point that Jay and Harry were making earlier in handy as well that that they're just anything but neutral in this case and the conflicts are all over the place. Quite frankly the government to be running from this case because they're getting deeper every every layer we go. It seemed like to me dad and I'm sure Randy would like the stack out of the stew.

It's like Sally Yates try to read this chat shadow dear Jamie we keep coming back to Sally Yates this former acting Atty. Gen. got fired because she would not forsake executive order which by the way, was upheld as constitutional by the US Supreme Court, but it was her main job is as Deputy Attorney General for the Obama administration. I was part of all of the sick targeting of my deflated I was in the room in Fresno. Bob was briefing everybody and that we learn to be the connections to her it's it's it's it's not just outstanding. It's just it's almost unbelievable how connected this group was and how connected they've stayed and yet how bold they continue to be like signing your name out to the brief of a guy say yeah I represent the person who got my deflated this mass and now the DOJ say what they did there was wrong, but I also believe that my flight is bad and he should be prosecutors of this type it into that brief that I may look at the fact is we know Washington is a big small town and the fact is that it is a bit of a very close knit group. But look at you. You made a very good point Jordan, and I think Annie's can agree this is as if the those outside the government, including Sally Yates and other are still being able to influence a judge.

Even today, indirectly, in the ME that this case should have been dismissed. But he wanted Jordan pointed it out and it really struck me and I really thought about it but it didn't strike me go toward pointed out that the lawyer who signed the amicus brief is the same lawyer who represented Sally J who was part and parcel of the Flynn investigation her, notwithstanding her statements to the contrary. And yet now he has the audacity to come into a federal court as an advisor and amicus a brand of the federal and say essentially judge you should stock at the Flynn with every bit of power that you have because he committed perjury and you should not only give him a sentence under 18 USC 1001, but it should be the maximum sentence and who are you that's doing this that guy who represented Sally Yates, who was part and parcel of the combing Obama decision to undermine and to get Flynn out what you see just inside of it last likely options are that the Circuit Court is going to take a day to predict, ever, but what you see activity as a couple is a court could say you got issue the order now and dismiss the case. They could say you know what a light of everything that we've now heard and seen recuse on on their own motion sua sponte. It's called on their own motion, they could say the judges recuse from the proceeding, or they can sign up he gets to make the decision may not like the decision come back up here that would be the only I think those are the three alternatives. Let me quickly go to Harry.

Harry, do you see any differentiation as they are ready think that is one of those three, I think you're absolutely right but I think fatally undermines Judge Sullivan's approach to the credibility of Mr. Gleason right right folks that will do it for today. I still encourage you your peers remember this broadcast is up on Facebook to keep continue sure if you enjoyed what you learned today about this case. What let your friends know about it. Share the broadcast and is always anchored to support the work of the ACLJ tax-deductible donation online@aclj.org Jodi today. Talk to you tomorrow for decades.

ACLJ is been on the frontlines protecting your freedom is defending your rights importance in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side.

If you're already a member thinking.

If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today ACLJ