For some reason, Steve Benen’s description of the proceedings in the case of former National Security Advisor (NSA) Michael Flynn has really brought the probable true nature of the top of our political ladder into focus. For those readers not up on the Flynn incident, Flynn was Trump’s first NSA for a little over a month, at which point allegations that he lied to the FBI about contacts with the Russians forced him to resign. Subsequently, he was charged with said lying, pled guilty twice, but, for reasons of cooperation with prosecutors, had his sentencing hearing delayed. Eventually, he sought to retract his guilty pleas, which was under consideration by presiding Judge Sullivan. Now the DoJ has sought to drop the charges, which resulted in a second letter calling for the resignation of AG William Barr, signed by 2000+ former employees of the DoJ of all political persuasions.
But the DoJ does not have unilateral control over dropping the charges, and here’s what Benen has to say:
Harvard Law School’s Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge, told the New York Times. “I would predict that he holds a hearing and has the prosecutors justify the decision they made. The judge could be concerned this is cronyism.”
That would be a reasonable concern given the unprecedented circumstances.
Let’s also not lose sight of the judge’s previous comments regarding the case. In December 2018, for example, during a sentencing hearing, Sullivan made little effort to hide “disgust” with Flynn over his felonies, briefly broaching the subject of whether the former White House national security advisor had committed treason.
The judge — a Republican appointee with a conservative reputation — at one point told Flynn, “Arguably, you sold your country out” by working as an unregistered foreign agent.
This is the same judge who’s now open to receiving briefs about the Flynn case before deciding whether to accept the prosecutorial strategy of the Trump/Barr Justice Department.
Gertner’s remark about cronyism really hits home for me. This isn’t about policy differences, the political “assassination” of Flynn, or clashing ideologies, is it? If it was, Judge Sullivan wouldn’t have made his disgust concerning Flynn known. He would have approved dropping the charges without comment, or even with an approving comment. He didn’t.
The federal judge overseeing the case involving retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn took the unusual step Tuesday night of inviting briefs from third parties, and he plans to setup a schedule soon to accept those filings.
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said in a filing Tuesday he’ll allow individuals outside of the Justice Department and Flynn’s attorneys to submit filings in the case that might be able to provide the court with additional information or perspectives that might help him make a decision on whether to dismiss the charges against Flynn or let him withdraw his guilty plea. [NBC News]
This is about rescuing a crony, who may have incriminating information, from the clutches of law enforcement. Clearly, presiding Judge Sullivan has his suspicions, and I suspect mine are congruent: the top levels of the GOP have been taken over by a criminal element. Composed of con-men, they have used the campaign tools built by the GOP to leverage themselves into positions of power, and now they seek to preserve their power, not only by winning reelection, but by pulling Flynn out of danger (presumably, “he knows too much” – which probably makes both him and Trump sweat), and by rebuffing all attempts at retrieving Trump’s tax information. To that latter, taxes may be dull, but they contain some of the most interesting stories.
Sullivan’s next move may be one of the most important legal decisions this nation has seen. I’d give $100,000 for him to respond, in open court, with this question for the government attorneys:
Please explain why you’ve not charged Mr. Flynn with treason? And don’t bother me again with a filing requesting all charges be dropped.
And I’d want to be there to see those government attorneys faint. Barr would probably have a heart attack.
