U.S. Dist Judge Emmet Sullivan Is Obsessed

The zeal to convict Gen Michael Flynn (ret) of something, anything, is a testament to how warped the criminal justice system has become — as exemplified by U.S. Dist Judge Emmet Sullivan, who should be conducting himself in a manner beyond reproach.

In United States of America v. Michael T. Flynn, (No. 20-5143), the 73-year-old judge wants to act as judge, prosecutor, jury, grand jury, strategic communications specialist, oppo-researcher, and lord high executioner in what has become Sullivan's self-dealing warrant for the destruction of Flynn.

Sullivan suggested that Flynn committed the capital crime of "treason" at a Dec 2018 plea hearing, though the DoJ, (no friend of Flynn), repeated then that it is pursuing only one charge of the considerably lesser offense of lying to the FBI with a recommended sentence of no jail time.

As chronicled in Flynn's May 19 Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, (pp 3,4):

Flynn pled guilty on December 1,2017. (1)  A year later, on what was  scheduled to be his sentencing, for which the Government had filed a motion for downward departure and certified his 'substantial cooperation,' Judge Sullivan publicly berated him. He suggested he may have committed 'treason,' asserted that he had 'sold [his] country out,' and expressed 'disdain' and 'disgust' for General Flynn’s conduct—flat wrong on crucial facts of the case. Before Judge Sullivan returned from recess, explosive headlines of General Flynn’s 'treason' permeated international news. Judge Sullivan postponed sentencing, after making clear that General Flynn faced prison despite the Government’s recommendation of leniency.

1 The plea  was  taken by Judge Rudolph  Contreras who, a few days later, recused without explanation, and the case was  transferred to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. It soon became public that  Contreras and Strzok are friends. Strzok’s now-infamous texts with [FBI Agent] Page exploded into the news the morning after Special Counsel Mueller coerced Flynn into taking a swift plea with threats to indict his son and give them both the 'Manafort treatment' if Flynn did not immediately surrender his claim to innocence.

---

Sullivan has an unhealthy taste for Flynn; but not so much for judicial ethics, as the political operator in robes jettisoned any appearance of independence and impartiality.

On May 11, 2020, the D.C. political landscape featured an op-ed in the Washington Post co-authored by the retired federal judge and fellow Flynn hater, John Gleeson. [John Gleeson, David O'Neil, and Marshall Miller, The Case Isn’t Over Until the Judge Says It’s Over,  Post (May 11, 2011, 6:52 PM),]

Within two days, on May 13, Sullivan appointed Gleeson as an amicus curiae in a transparent act to perpetuate the crusade against Flynn, to the chagrin of the prosecution and defense. 

Judge Sullivan asked Gleeson, in part, to consider the proposition that Flynn committed perjury, in light of the fact that Flynn pleaded guilty but is now contending that he is innocent.

Sullivan wants Gleeson to address whether the Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury, in accordance with Sullivan's determination that the prosecution and defense are wrong in their determination that all charges should be dropped. 

This is fantastic prosecutorial overreach by Judge Sullivan.

Defendants facing the routine charge-stacking and coercive conduct of federal prosecutors cannot be fairly said to have entered into plea agreements without coercion.

Robert Jackson

A rampaging prosecutor state is what Robert Jackson warned us about 80 years ago, a fact that both the United States Dept of Justice and the Flynn defense have pointed out in legal filings.

But even Jackson likely did not imagine that when the prosecution exercises prosecutorial discretion that a rampaging judge would seek to displace the prosecution, the State.

An argument by Former United States Attorney General Edwin Meese III and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund prominently notes Jackson's commitment to a society protecting free citizens by a prosecutor who pursues and advocates truth without regard to Party, or any other external interest, (pp 4-12).

Writes Meese: "the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who ... seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches [the] task with humility" (The Federal Prosecutor: An address by Robert H. Jackson, Attorney General of the United States, April 1, 1940).

This point about defendants being forced into plea agreements is made in several briefs before the appellate court in support of Flynn's Mandamus petition, most recently by Flynn's attorney, Sidney Powell, at oral arguments last week.

"There are 500 people on the database of the National Registry of Exonerations who would otherwise be susceptible to perjury prosecutions because they entered guilty pleas, but they were actually innocent," said Powell, (16:20 mark, YouTube).

Sullivan does not want truth, he wants a legal crucifixion, and perjury charges are the best way forward for Sullivan to meet his objectives.

Pontius Pilate of Judea presided at the trial of Jesus, ordering his crucifixion after soliciting the judgment of the crowd.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan is different than Pilate.

Sullivan is soliciting the judgment of the D.C. crowd, and wants to get his hands dirty, inviting the crowd to do the same.