After the Department of Justice filed to drop charges against Michael Flynn, Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan, a Clinton appointee and apparently a member of the “resistance,” decided to take matters into his own hands. He thinks that he alone can bring justice in the Flynn case.
In his mind, it is up to him to convict Flynn of “perjury,” a crime Flynn was never charged with, even if former President Obama said he was. Obama, a former federal judge, and 2,000 former DOJ employees urged him on.
Sullivan wants to charge Flynn with perjury for saying he was guilty which he now says he is not. The judge is ignoring the misconduct of the agents that entrapped Flynn and instead is determined to finish what the Obama administration started way back in 2016, the destruction of Michael Flynn.
He followed the advice of a retired judge and former prosecutor, John Gleeson, who shared it in an opinion piece in the Washington Post. He then appointed Gleeson Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) to look into bringing charges against Flynn for committing perjury by changing his plea to “not guilty.”
John Gleeson, former prosecutor, former federal judge, Clinton appointee
Gleeson’s argumentation is rich with irony. He argues that prosecutors (the DOJ in the Flynn case), are expected to be honest and follow the rules. That is all well and good, but Gleeson goes wrong when he argues that the prosecution of Flynn was well-founded and therefore, the DOJ is corrupt and abusing its power to drop the case.
Prosecutors deserve a “presumption of regularity” — the benefit of the doubt that they are acting honestly and following the rules. But when the facts suggest they have abused their power, that presumption fades. If prosecutors attempt to dismiss a well-founded prosecution for impermissible or corrupt reasons, the people would be ill-served if a court blindly approved their dismissal request. The independence of the court protects us all when executive-branch decisions smack of impropriety; it also protects the judiciary itself from becoming a party to corruption.
The irony is that the DOJ is dropping their case against Flynn because of the documented evidence that the prosecution wasn’t well-founded at all, in fact, the evidence shows, as Attorney General Barr says, that the FBI “abused their power” and laid a perjury trap for Flynn. That abuse of power undermines any case Sullivan and Gleeson insist is legitimate.
Only two parties matter in a criminal court case
After Sullivan appointed Gleeson, Flynn’s attorneys objected to the third-party intervention in the case arguing that:
It is no accident that amicus briefs are excluded in criminal cases. A criminal case is a dispute between the United States and a criminal defendant. There is no place for third parties to meddle in the dispute, and certainly not to usurp the role of the government’s counsel. For the Court to allow another to stand in the place of the government would be a violation of the separation of powers.”
Judge Sullivan is also acting in opposition to the opinion recently rendered of the “party presentation principle” of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who said according to Forbes:
[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government … They ‘do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties. In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them.”
Both Flynn and the DOJ want to dismiss the case. It is Judge Sullivan’s job to end it.
2,000 former DOJ employees call for Barr’s resignation
Much ado is being made about a letter from 2,000 former DOJ employees calling for the Attorney General step down for dropping the Flynn case. At first, that seems like a large number, but here are over 113,000 employees in the DOJ as of 2019, so the 2,000 represent less than 2% of the DOJ. Even if there were 2,000 more current DOJ deep state employees, it would be less than 4% of the department. So, if you were worried that the “deep state” completely controlled the DOJ, rest assured, there are still good people in there (though no one has blown the whistle on the deep state activities in the DOJ).
The letter accuses President Trump and William Barr of “political interference” in the Flynn case, but makes no mention of the Obama administration’s political interference that started the Flynn case.
The chutzpa of these former employees matches that of Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer who have no qualms of accusing others of what they themselves have done.
Like faithful soldiers in the resistance, protecting their “dear leader” President Obama, they urged Sullivan to deny the DOJ motion to dismiss, and proceed with sentencing.
We urge Judge Sullivan to closely examine the Department’s stated rationale for dismissing the charges — including holding an evidentiary hearing with witnesses — and to deny the motion and proceed with sentencing if appropriate.
More evidence of political interference from the Obama administration
One day after Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden denied knowing anything about the investigation of Michael Flynn, declassified materials revealed that Biden had requested the unmasking of Flynn in the waning days of the Obama administration. Intelligence officials routinely request unmasking of American citizens that are swept up in intelligence surveillance, but it is not routine for political figures, like Joe Biden, to unmask officials in a political opponent’s campaign.
As Senator Rand Paul points out that the unmasking, or the listening in and spying on American citizens is a gross abuse of power and should be strongly curtailed. Dozens of Obama administration officials listened in on Michael Flynn’s conversations. If they can do that to him, they could do it to anyone.
There is good reason to hope that the unraveling of the Flynn case will be the undoing of Obama’s covert campaign to damage President Trump and to protect himself and his cohorts.
Watch Senator Rand Paul describe the “conspiracy” in the Obama administration.