, , , , , , , , ,

The Duke LaCrosse case is as egregious an example of the miscarriage of justice as one might hope to find, but after irreparable damage to the victims of that hoax, justice finally won out.  The state Attorney General was not only forced to take over, he ensured the local prosecutor, Michael Nifong, was convicted and disbarred, and because Nifong’s misconduct was so outrageous, so criminal, took the highly unusual step of declaring the victims “innocent.”  This is unusual in that our criminal justice system does not declare defendants “innocent.”  After trial, they may only be declared “not guilty.”  This distinction is more than semantics, and the rare occasions when a judge or prosecutor declares a defendant innocent tends to follow the logic of the Duke case: severe police and/or prosecutorial misconduct—justice–allowed for no other pronouncement.

This should have been the outcome in the case of General Michael Flynn (US Army, Ret.).  Unfortunately, Judge Emmett Sullivan refused to observe the law or common decency.  It’s a travesty I wrote about in The Flynn Persecution Ends, on 11-27-20.  Now, General Flynn’s long ordeal is finally over, as Breitbart reports:

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, the presiding federal judge in the trial of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, said Tuesday that President Donald Trump’s decision to pardon Flynn did not mean that the retired general was actually innocent.

In a memorandum opinion issued as he closed the case, Sullivan made a number of conclusory statements based on claims that were never proven to be true, such as the claim that Flynn had lied to FBI agents. Though Flynn pleaded guilty, under pressure, to having done so, the agents who interviewed him at the time did not think he had lied. Sullivan argued: ‘As an initial matter, whether or not the FBI agents thought Mr. Flynn was lying is irrelevant in a false statements case.’

By all means, gentle readers, take this link and read the judge’s ruling.  This is all that was necessary, all Sullivan should have written:

Pending before the court are: (1) the government’s motion to dismiss the criminal information against Mr. Flynn with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), seeGov’t’s Mot. Dismiss Criminal Information Against Def. Michael T. Flynn (“Gov’t’s Mot. Dismiss”), ECF No. 198; and (2) the government’s notice of executive grant of clemency and consent motion to dismiss this case as moot, see Notice Executive Grant Clemency Consent Mot. Dismiss Moot (“Consent Mot. Dismiss”), ECF No. 308.  Upon careful consideration of the motions, the applicable law, the enrire record herein, and for the reasons explained below, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the government’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 48(a), and GRANTS the government’s consent motion based on the presidential pardon and DISMISSES this case AS MOOT.

Judge Emmet Sullivan

But Sullivan would not do his job, and spent more than 40 additional pages assuming the role of disgraced Mueller prosecutor Brandon Van Grack—another name that should live in infamy—insanely attacking Flynn and praising himself for usurping the legitimate role of the executive branch.  It’s must reading if you want to see how far afield from the Constitution, the law, common sense and decency the judicial branch of the Deep State has gone.

Sullivan also claimed that Flynn ‘personally asked for a favor from the Russian Ambassador that undermined the policy of the sitting President prior to the President-Elect taking office.’ In fact, as the transcript of Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador show, he simply asked that Russia not escalate after the Obama administration had imposed sanctions. It was a statement in support of Obama’s policy, and it was not a ‘favor’ for himself, but for America’s interests as a whole.

Sullivan wrote that were he permitted to rule on the Department of Justice’s motion to drop the charges against Flynn, it would have been a ‘close question,’ but that he probably would not have done so, because he did not trust the government’s reasons.

That’s because honest lawyers at the DOJ finally prevailed and revealed the utter corruption of the Mueller investigation, the FBI, and much of the DOJ.  Sullivan wanted to get Flynn regardless of the evidence, so when the DOJ took the unusual step of explaining in detail Van Grack’s criminal conduct in prosecuting an innocent man and denying him his rights at every turn, Sullivan became unhinged.  For additional and more detailed information about the DOJ’s corruption, see this article by Margot Cleveland at The Federalist.  

Sullivan just couldn’t leave things alone.  He couldn’t simply do his job as any honest judge would do:

On the other hand, a pardon does not necessarily render ‘innocent’ a defendant of any alleged violation of the law. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that the acceptance of a pardon implies a “confession” of guilt. … [T]he pardon ‘does not, standing alone, render [Mr. Flynn] innocent of the alleged violation.’

Remember that Sullivan refused to dismiss the case with prejudice, which is what the DOJ lawfully and rightfully demanded.  Even when the case was remanded back to him to do just that with appropriate judicial dispatch, he refused.  He was obviously hoping—actually, he was probably told—that a Biden administration would withdraw the motion to dismiss and press the case all the harder.  Finally, he would have legal cover to get Flynn, and all he had to do was delay until a Biden administration became a reality. This renders Sullivan’s shameless diatribe against Flynn not only indecent, but worthy of impeachment.

During my police days, I occasionally ran across a cop who for some reason got it in his head someone was deserving of the figurative death penalty.  There was usually no evidence of criminal conduct, no probable cause for arrest, but that didn’t matter.  They just knew the object of their obsession was guilty of something, and they spent years trying to find whatever it was.  In extreme cases, their derangement made them cross legal and ethical lines, it destroyed them, but even that did not dislodge their sure knowledge of guilt, and their righteousness in pursuing the guilty.  Where Judge Sullivan is concerned, Scott Johnson at Powerline would agree:

Among those who have earned a share of the infamy in this case are Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Susan Rice, the rotten James Comey and his rotten FBI underlings, John Brennan, Robert Mueller and everyone who had a hand in the case on his team and, last but not least, Judge Emmet Sullivan.

It’s really not possible to overstate the corruption involved, corruption that is far from rooted out.

Sullivan’s determination that the case was moot should have ended the matter, but something is seriously wrong with Judge Sullivan. His appointment of an amicus curiae to press the case for pursuing Flynn over the motion of the Department of Justice should have been a clue. Sitting en banc, however, the D.C. Circuit court of Appeals pretended that nothing was amiss. (Judges Henderson and Rao got it right in their dissents.)

Plainly, there is something seriously wrong with Judge Sullivan.  This is the kind of corruption President Trump had some success in exposing.  A second term would see far more success, which is surely why we are now dealing with election fraud on an unprecedented scale.  It is people like Emmett Sullivan that are instrumental in destroying public confidence in our system of justice, and in the legitimacy of our republic.

For General Flynn, it’s finally over, but he was denied the presumption of innocence from start to finish.  Where does he go to get his house back?  Where does he go to get his reputation back?  Where does he go to get every penny he ever saved back? Where does he go to get lost years of misery and anguish back?  And where do we go to get honest public officials and actual justice?  Where do we go to get back the reasonable expectation that we won’t be treated like General Flynn?

UPDATE, 12-10-20 1630 MT:  Take this link, gentle readers, to an article by law professor Jonathan Turley.  Turley is certainly not a Republican, but is often a rational voice on the law regardless of politics.  In this article, he furthers that rational voice.