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.

Michael Flynn Oral Arguments — Flynn Likely to Prevail in Federal Court after a Few Months, No Mandamus Order

The criminal law case of a former national security advisor in the Trump administration, Michael Flynn, is the subject of oral arguments before a three-judge panel at the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held yesterday.

But the issue before the D.C. appellate court is the conduct of the presiding U.S. district court judge, Emmet Sullivan, in United States of America v. Michael T. Flynn, (No. 20-5143).

Flynn has filed a May 19 Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus that seeks an order that the criminal case be dismissed, per the petitions from both the U.S. DoJ and Flynn.

As Benjamin Wittes reports in Lawfare:

[T]he case before the D.C. Circuit’s remote hearing concerned whether the appeals court should preemptively order Judge Sullivan to dismiss the case on the theory that he has no authority to do anything else. Flynn’s lawyer, Sidney Powell, has asked the court for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Sullivan to grant the government’s motion to dismiss, and the government is supporting Flynn. In other words, today’s case pitted both the prosecutor and defendant against—get this—the district court itself. The respondent in today’s case was none other than Judge Sullivan, who is trying to defend his authority to hold a hearing on the motion before him and to seek the input of a court-appointed amicus whom he named to argue against what both prosecutor and defendant want him to do, and to weigh in on the appropriateness of contempt charges against Flynn. Sullivan’s hearing is scheduled for July 16.

The litigation is extraordinary on several fronts, and its nature was signaled by Sullivan's bizarre musing and posturing in open court at a Dec 2017 plea bargain hearing.

Faced with the U.S. DoJ agreeing to a plea deal composed of a single criminal count with no jail time, Sullivan launched into a tirade against Flynn that questioned whether the DoJ had contemplated charges of treason, (The Guardian).

Sullivan's unhinged comments also included voicing his "disgust" and "disdain" towards Flynn.

To understand Emmet Sullivan, one needs to appreciate the political salience of the Democratic Party and intelligence community's determination to often smear politically unorthodox beliefs as Russian-inspired.

Sullivan is an unabashed partisan in a new McCarthyite effort to tar everyone from Flynn to Bernie Sanders to Tulsi Gabbard as Russian assets.

Self-dealing Sullivan is using his court to impose the end-game of his judicial scheming.

Sullivan seeks to delay Flynn's legal victory, gaming that a new administration would feature a new DoJ reaching different determinations in the criminal case, in accordance with Sullivan's charging preferences.

Trump Mocks Kavanaugh Accuser as GOP Promises Confirmation Vote

Donald Trump and Republicans will not let credible sexual assault accusations and Brett Kavanaugh's torrent of lies detour his successful Senate confirmation vote.

The Republican Party is a white supremacist, misogynistic, indecent faction of America.

Three Republican U.S. senators will decide the future of liberties, as determined by a rightwing United States Supreme Court.

"[I]f I were a senator, I would vote against Kavanaugh’s confirmation. I would do it both because of Ford’s testimony and because of Kavanaugh’s. For reasons I will describe, I find her account more believable than his. I would also do it because whatever the truth of what happened in the summer of 1982, Thursday’s hearing left Kavanaugh nonviable as a justice, writes Benjamin Wittes in The Atlantic.

As the Republican Party looks to pull off a coup, Kavanaugh could have killed and raped people, and Trump, looking to the rightwing for help, would press on.

Watch these 3 men at Trump’s Mississippi campaign rally laugh and laugh as Trump does a mocking impersonation of Dr Blasey Ford describing her sexual assault. pic.twitter.com/kRZPuW36wo

— John Aravosis 🇺🇸 (@aravosis) October 3, 2018

In the last 12 hours we've seen Trump cruelly ridicule #DrChristineBlaseyFord so his fans could laugh at her + GOP Sen Chuck Grassley release a letter "slut shaming" Julie Swetnick saying she can't be believed because she enjoyed having sex with men. This is today's GOP.

— (((DeanObeidallah))) (@DeanObeidallah) October 3, 2018