In a stunning move that has legal scholars commenting on his bias, the judge in the case against General Michael Flynn is doing all he can to keep the matter open after U.S. Attorney General William Barr dropped the government prosecution against Flynn.
Emmett Sullivan is the same judge who, during the trial, engaged in a bizarre rant, accusing Flynn of “treason.” That statement and this extraordinary effort call into question his judicial objectivity in the Flynn matter.
Go Ad-Free, Get Exclusive Shows and Content, Go Premium Today - $1 Trial
Fox News reports on the situation: “D.C. District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan used an unusual order Wednesday appointing a law firm partner ‘to present arguments in opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss’ the matter—and to consider whether the court should hold Flynn in contempt for perjury… The partner, retired federal judge John Gleeson, has openly criticized the Trump administration’s handling of Michael Flynn’s case, raising concerns that he was selected to improperly bolster Sullivan’s efforts to keep the Flynn case alive even though both the government and defendant want it dismissed.”
Gleeson wrote an article this week apparently pre-judging the case, writing that “the [Flynn] record reeks of improper political influence.”
“So if the court finds dismissal would result in a miscarriage of justice, it can deny the motion, refuse to permit withdrawal of the guilty plea and proceed to sentencing,” Gleeson wrote. Sullivan invited him into the case with no reason whatsoever except to bolster his own bias.
As is noted in the following tweet, Gleeson has a basic conflict of interest, as his firm represents an Obama official who could be charged in the Durham probe and thus who has a stake in this case as well.
I'm just astonished that there's been so little discussion tonight about the fact that Gleeson's firm, Debevoise, represents the despicable "Resistance" heroine Sally Yateshttps://t.co/TB0KYxK818
— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) May 14, 2020
“Judge Sullivan, who denied leave to file amicus briefs when he knew third parties would have spoken favorably of Flynn, now solicits briefs critical of Flynn,” legal journalist and attorney Michael Cernovich wrote on Twitter Tuesday evening. “This is a violation of the judicial oath and applicable ethical rules. We will be filing a complaint against Sullivan.”
I see that you're a law professor. Are you aware of U.S. v. Fokker Serv. (D.C. Cir. 2016) which is binding authority?
Judge Sullivan has no discretion here, and it's not even a close call. pic.twitter.com/KnDXR8xags
— Cernovich (@Cernovich) May 13, 2020
Quick - Do This Before Biden “Fixes” Your Retirement Plan Next …
Flynn’s attorney, in a filing on Tuesday, revealed that a sealed brief has already been submitted by a liberal group who call themselves the “Watergate Prosecutors.” They are urging Sullivan to stand firm on Flynn’s guilty plea despite the request from Attorney General Barr. That group was played up in an October 2019 Washington Post opinion piece, and listed Jill Wine-Banks, who previously advanced odd collusion theories involving the Trump campaign, as one of its members.
This group is involved in the case not in a legal but purely in an ideological fashion. It is akin to bringing players from another game in after a football game and asking them if the score is to their liking. It is obviously and blatantly a Sullivan action meant to hurt Flynn.
“Mueller can prove conspiracy with Russia beyond any doubt,” Wine-Banks previously wrote. She also claimed in 2017 that Flynn would receive “immunity for kidnapping as well as his federal crimes.” What in God’s name is she talking about? And, nice call on Mueller, eh?
MORE NEWS: Biden annoyed at Kamala Harris for not ‘rising to the occasion,’ VP scared of ‘messing up’: report
And Sullivan’s judicial impartiality? “I’m not hiding my disgust, my disdain for this criminal offense,” Sullivan said during that hearing. He added that Flynn’s allegedly unregistered work with Turkey “arguably” had undermined “everything this flag over here stands for.” That’s his objectivity for you.
Then last December Sullivan accused Flynn’s attorneys of plagiarism. In a filing he said they had “lifted verbatim portions from a source without attribution.” Flynn attorney Sidney Powell responded that the claim “made no sense,” and that she used her own material in writing the brief.
Sullivan has clearly lost his way, has a bias against Flynn, and if he had any integrity left would withdraw from the case. Thus justice will likely still come to Michael Flynn. It just may take a while longer.
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.