Alan Dershowitz, amicus briefs, Andrew McCarthy, attempted judicial coup, barack obama, Bookworm, General Michael Flynn, Gropin' Joe Biden, John Gleeson, Jonathan Turley, Judge Emmet Sullivan, President Trump, Senator Tom Cotton, The Constitution, the coup
In General Flynn and Law Enforcement: Hate, I used the Obama Administration’s corrupt prosecution of General Michael Flynn and the foolish actions of some police officers in enforcing unconstitutional and despotic “stay at home” orders to illustrate an important point: public faith in the integrity of law enforcement is essential to a functioning republic. That has not changed, but the full depth of the Deep State’s determination to keep alive a coup against President Trump by destroying General Flynn is being, day by day, further exposed. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the bizarre actions of the judge in the case, Emmet Sullivan.
Sullivan has not only refused to accept the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, he initially invited amicus—“friend of the court”–briefs on why the case should not be dismissed, as Fox News reports:
Former U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman thought he had ‘seen everything’ over the course of his career until a federal judge opened the door Tuesday for legal experts and other outside parties to oppose the Justice Department’s motion to drop the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
…Tolman said he believed Judge Emmet Sullivan’s decision was ‘outrageous’ and that the Washington D.C. judge had turned himself into an ‘activist,’ willing to set aside rules, ethics, and precedent in favor of partisanship.
‘She [Flynn’s attorney, Sydney Powell] may file for example a writ of mandamus. That would allow her to immediately appeal this decision and this approach by this judge to the circuit,’ he remarked.
‘And let’s face it, if it looks like this is what’s going on, there is strategy then that’s at the heart of what this judge is trying to accomplish. And, that strategy is offensive to anyone who practices,’ he stated. ‘It’s the United States against Michael Flynn. And, when the United States says we’re no longer going to pursue it because we don’t have the evidence, then the audacity of somebody outside of that coming in who has no authority is outrageous.’
It’s more than outrageous; it’s a usurpation of the authority of the Executive Branch and an offense against the rule of law. Former federal prosecutor and legal authority Andrew McCarthy agrees:
Judge Sullivan, who has been so unhinged on this case that he originally characterized it as a treason case, decided this was just a peachy idea so now he’s inviting basically an anti-Trump group therapy session,’ McCarthy said.
‘All the lawyers out there who want to file amicus briefs are invited to do that…It will make no difference in the end but it will just drag the process out.
Dragging the process out seems to be Sullivan’s goal, because he has gone beyond amicus briefs—far beyond. Tolman has seen something new, as Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine reports:
The New York Times reports:
The federal judge overseeing the criminal case of President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn appointed an outsider on Wednesday to argue against the Justice Department in its effort to drop the case and investigate whether Mr. Flynn committed perjury, an extraordinary move in a case with acute political overtones.
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia said in a brief order that he had appointed John Gleeson, a retired judge, ‘to present arguments in opposition to’ the department’s request to withdraw the charge against Mr. Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to lying to investigators as part of a larger inquiry into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.
How did Sullivan come to select Judge Gleeson? Gleeson co-wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post attacking the DOJ’s motion to dismiss.
Consider that piece an audition for the job Sullivan has now given Gleeson. The title of the op-ed, ‘The Flynn case isn’t over until the judge says it’s over,’ appealing as it must have been to Judge Sullivan, probably ensured the audition would be successful.
What a remarkable coincidence. The same day Sullivan appointed Gleeson, Gleeson revealed himself—again–as a rabid anti-Trump partisan in The Washington Post.
Who is John Gleeson? He’s a lefty judge appointed by President Clinton. Gleeson was a critic of mandatory minimum sentencing before it became fashionable for a certain kind of conservative to take that stance. According to Wikipedia, Gleeson ‘[went] so far as to request federal prosecutors [to] vacate convictions he had been forced to impose’ by law.
Judge Gleeson’s ruling against the FBI in a landmark racial profiling case was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, a 2009 case. Now, Gleeson will become a friend of the Obama FBI’s corrupt leadership, as he urges Sullivan to stick it to General Flynn in furtherance of the Bureau’s plan to bring Flynn down.
Before becoming a judge, Gleeson was an Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. In that capacity, he worked closely with Andrew Weissman, perhaps the most hardcore Trump hater on Robert Mueller’s defunct team of Trump haters.
What another remarkable coincidence! Weissman has a well- deserved reputation as a corrupt prosecutor.
Only the executive branch has the power of prosecution. They decide when to prosecute and when to dismiss a prosecution. The judicial branch has no such power. Judges are limited only to ensuring there is no prosecutorial misconduct. For example, if a case if going badly for the prosecution and they suddenly move to dismiss the charges, Judges may refuse if they suspect the prosecution is so moving to put together a stronger case and recharge the defendant in the future–double jeopardy–or they can agree to the motion, but with prejudice so the charge can never be filed again. That’s not what’s happening here. The DOJ has admitted Flynn did not commit a crime, its prosecutors were corrupt, and wants the case dismissed with prejudice. Judges cannot mandate a prosecution, but apparently, Judge Sullivan never got that memo—or the Constitution.
It would be instructive to read my pal Bookworm’s American Thinker article. Not only is she a fine writer, but a practicing attorney.
Judge Sullivan’s threat to charge Flynn with criminal contempt for perjury still stands. And how did General Flynn perjure himself? Apparently Sullivan intends to proceed on the theory that when Flynn pled guilty, he was lying under oath. This is, to put it kindly, insane. Defendants often change their pleas. It’s routine and expected. It’s also allowed under the law. In this case, when the government has admitted its prosecution of Flynn was unjust, even criminal, that Flynn’s guilty plea was unlawfully coerced, and has moved to dismiss all charges with prejudice, there is no possible legal justification for Sullivan’s actions. Both parties, the prosecution and defense, agree. There is no further issue before the court. I’m sure, however, D/S/Cs feel a continuation of the political pursuit of President Trump through General Flynn is more than justified.
One might almost be tempted to think Judge Sullivan involved in the ongoing coup. One might be tempted to think he is trying to drag this out as long as possible to further punish General Flynn and to damage Mr. Trump’s electoral chances. One might even be tempted to think he is trying to drag this out past November in the hope Mr. Trump would be defeated, a D/S/C DOJ would renew the prosecution, he could put Flynn away for years, and the perpetrators of the coup would be protected from consequences for their crimes. Perhaps there’s a Supreme Court seat in it for him? Or perhaps he’s just another corrupt, political hack in black robes?
Havard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, by no means a Trump fan, is also less than pleased with Sullivan, as Fox news reports:
Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz pushed back on the new ruling by the judge in the Michael Flynn case, arguing he’s acting in a partisan fashion to ‘resurrect’ the prosecution of President Trump’s former national security adviser.
‘The great tragedy is that the American public does not know who to trust. They don’t know who is using politics and misusing national security,’ the author of ‘Guilty By Accusation’ told ‘The Ingraham Angle’ on Wednesday. ‘Everybody seems to be weaponizing national security and other issues for political advantage.’
‘Now, enter Judge [Emmet] Sullivan, who has become the most partisan, the most political in this effort to try to resurrect the prosecution against Flynn.’
In another article, Dershowitz wrote:
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg recently wrote for a unanimous Court: ‘Courts are essentially passive instruments…’ It is not within their legitimate authority to ‘sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right.’ Their role is to ‘decide only questions presented by the
parties.’ Judge Sullivan is improperly exceeding that role in the Flynn case and should be chastised for it, whether one agrees or disagrees with the Justice Department’s decision on its merits.
There is a joke lawyers who practice in Federal Court like to tell. Angel Gabriel summons Sigmund Freud in heaven and tells him God is having delusions of grandeur. Freud asks how God can have delusions of grandeur: There is no one grander than Him. To which the Angel Gabriel responded, ‘he thinks he’s a federal judge.’ But what Judge Sullivan is doing is no joke. He is endangering our system of separation of powers and he should be stopped by a writ of mandamus or a motion to recuse. Judges, too, are not above the law or the Constitution.
It has also been revealed that many high Obama Administration officials, including Joe Biden, unmasked General Flynn some 49 times. President Trump is not amused:
It was the greatest political crime in the history of our country,’ Trump said in an interview with Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo that aired Thursday morning. ‘If I were a Democrat instead of a Republican, I think everybody would have been in jail a long time ago, and I’m talking with 50-year sentences. It is a disgrace what’s happened. This is the greatest political scam, hoax in the history of our country.’
Trump continued: ‘People should be going to jail for this stuff and hopefully, a lot of people are going to have to pay. No other president should have to go through, and I’ll tell you, Gen. Flynn and others are heroes, heroes, because what’s happened to them. They weren’t after Gen. Flynn. They wanted him to lie about me. Make up a story.’
D/S/Cs continue to do everything they can to further the coup against President Trump and the Constitution. General Flynn is merely a useful pawn, and was pursued in the first place because he threatened to expose the plot and return American intelligence agencies to the role of protecting American interests. We are in a race against the clock. Will the DOJ under AG William Barr be able to expose and prosecute everyone involved in the coup before November? Will President Trump win a second term so those prosecutions can continue, and we have a chance at restoring public confidence in the rule of law? Or will a Democrat-to-be-named replace Joe Biden, win the presidency, and ensure coup plotters are forever protected? These are only some of the stakes, and for the moment, it appears Judge Sullivan is very much on the side of the coup rather than justice.
UPDATE, 05-15-20, 1700 CST: General Flynn’s lawyer, Sydney Powell, has posted an “Open Memorandum” to Barack Obama, which addresses his concern that dismissing charges against the General is an attack on the rule of law. By all means, gentle readers, take the link. It’s an epic beat down of a poser who has pretended to be a “constitutional law professor.” He was never a professor, and merely taught a single class at the University of Chicago for a short time. He was given the job as a political favor. Little wonder he knows so little of the Constitution or the law.
UPDATE, 05-16-20, 1245 CST: What happened to the original FBI 302, the report of the interview of General Flynn by FBI agent Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka? The FBI claimed it was lost, and it has certainly never been provided to the defense. The Conservative Treehouse provides convincing evidence that the usual suspects are even deeper into the coup conspiracy than was previously imagined. Go here.
The actions of the “judge” in this case have me scratching my head. First, he refused friends of the court brief submissions. Now, he is requiring one from a “friend” and after making derogatory statements about the defendant. Specifically referring about treason. Then the Supreme Court just ruled the other day about courts making decisions base from third parties not being acceptable.
It almost seems that this “judge” is doing everything he can to be removed from this case. His actions are like someone that has a gun to their head.
Mike McDaniel said:
The treason statute is actually quite narrow, yet many use that term rather than “anti-American,” “betrayal” or “seditious,” all of which are much more generally descriptive of the behavior they try to label. In the Flynn case, he did nothing that could reasonably be characterized as any of these, even if the charge of lying to an FBI agent were true, which we now know it was not.
I doubt Judge sullivan has a gun to his head. the most likely explanation is he is a doctrinaire Leftist, and as such, given a chance to cause harm to an enemy of leftism, is taking advantage of it. For such people, the law and the Constitution are irrelevant.
The other Phil said:
And recall that Flynn’s first judge, Contreras, was forcibly recused from the case because, immediately following Flynn’s plea agreement, someone released the first batch of Strzok-Page text message that revealed that Contreras and Strzok were friends. You know, Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who helped to frame Flynn. What a coincidence, eh?
Funny that, how the judge must have seen his friends name in the record at some point, but he never felt the need to disclose that to Flynn.
And inquiring mind might even ask why John Roberts doesn’t appear at all concerned about all these activities in his judicial system. No, let’s all focus on Trump’s unorthodox style, cause that’s apparently the real problem here.
Roy Lofquist said:
It’s called “owned”. I have seen two presidents who were not owned – Eisenhower and Trump.
Eisenhower was so good that few realize just how good he was. He finished WWII twice, once in Europe then the final battle in Korea. then built the Interstate Highway System, the largest, most successful infrastructure project in the history of the world.
The Book of Donald is not finished but so far it’s my favorite.
Possibilty: Covington and Burling, Flynn’s original counsel of which Eric Holder is a partner, ends up being real baddies.
As judges go, judges such as this one has Almighty God as his judge. As justice goes, the Almighty Judge takes justice quite seriously. This failed judge may not take his position seriously, he may even scoff at the prospect. However on that certain day he may regret his position only once, but that will be forever.
For those that aren’t familiar with the ways of the Imperial Capitol. Anyone who is anyone is compromised. It is not what you know or who you know, it is who sent you. Once you realize that fact, everything makes sense. People are surprised when their congress critter goes native after going to the Imperial Capitol. First, they were already compromised. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t have gotten picked to run for “the job”. After awhile the “compromises” add up. It makes it easier for the head honchos to keep the rank and file in order.
As an example. There was that one from California, the one that had an unusual living arraignment. If you don’t think that the big wigs didn’t know about that, I have a bridge to sell you. They look for people like that. That way they can be convinced to vote the way they are told. The reason she was “convinced” to resign was because there wasn’t much invested in her. That’s also the reason why a certain party goes to the mattresses when one of their senior members gets in trouble. They will fight tool and nail to save them. They have a lot invested in them and next time when they need that person to vote a certain way, it is guaranteed.
Now, what does that have to do will judges. What makes you think it isn’t the same way. These people all know one another. Most judges are left to decide most cases. However, when there is a close one, they get a visit. The powers to be know where the skeletons are buried.
On a related topic. Some people aren’t compromised. That is one of the reasons that President Trump is so hated. There isn’t anything they can hold against him. Another person who isn’t compromised is Associate Justice Thomas. Why do you think they despise him so much? And no, it doesn’t have anything to do with how he rules on cases.
Mike McDaniel said:
What you said.
Can someone explain why the DOJ doesn’t just tell Sullivan to pound sand? Who enforces Sullivan’s order? I don’t understand.
Mike McDaniel said:
They’ll do that, just within the normal workings of the justice system. It’s also up to Flynn’s attorney, and I wouldn’t want her coming after me.
I’m still puzzled, on an even larger scale. The case is dropped. The judge has no further “say”.
Also…regarding executive orders. It seems the president cannot issue an executive order without unanimous consent of the entire group of federal judges. If a single judge disagrees, he issues a “stay” and everything stops. It seems out of whack. Can a single person in either the executive or legislative branch stop the action of the supreme court, or even a single federal judge?
Mike McDaniel said:
There is some ambiguity in federal law and rules regarding dismissals, but Judge Sullivan is far overstepping his bounds, and if he persists, will eventually be overruled. Unfortunately, a great deal more damage will be done to General Flynn, the rule of law, and American’s respect for our system in the meantime. Whatever happens, Sullivan is unlikely to suffer any consequence.
As to the executive order issue, the Supreme Court needs to step in and deal with that kind of judicial overreach. Will they? They normally move at a glacially slow pace…
Alan Reasin said:
As to your UPDATE, 05-16-20, 1245 CST:
Dan Bongino, former Secret Service agent on the Bush and Obama details, in today’s podcast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ9cqYSMWFs&feature=youtube) explained that Gen. Flynn was not unmasked over the call from the Russian ambassador. The person who ordered the telephone surveillance of the Russian ambassador’s call to Flynn when Flynn was on vacation in the Dominion Republic .was redacted. Federal law allows the President to order surveillance for National Security purposes for a year without a FISA warrant and no warrant, FISA or otherwise, was located during the investigations.. There is no record of a unmasking of Flynn for 5 days after the call, which seems strange. The most interesting aspect Dan’s report was that per the FBI charging document to the court, Flynn was charged with lying about the Obama sanctions against Russian intelligence agencies over their attempt to interfere with our 2016 election. The FBI 302 write up of the FBI interview at the WH is missing for some unknown reason, however there are 2 revisions to the original 302 available and both show the FBI never asked Flynn about the sanctions; only about the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats. They are separate issues in the executive order that the NYT and WaPo have acknowledged. And in Flynn’s interview by the Daily Wire, also reported in the WaPo, he stated they were different issues and he only discussed the expulsions of the Russian diplomats. So for over 3 years no one until now has noticed that the criminal charge vs the 302 report on what Flynn was asked when interviewed are different.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Alan Reasin:
Quite so. We’re only scratching the surface of this particular conspiracy. Thanks!