Judge Sullivan’s Corrupt Flynn Hearing: Is the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., On Drugs? Or, Has It Already Seceded from the Union?

September 30, 2020
Left: Judge Emmet Sullivan - Right: (Ret) Gen. Michael Flynn
Left: Judge Emmet Sullivan - Right: (Ret) Gen. Michael Flynn

Judge Emmet Sullivan, given completely ludicrous freedom by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, held a hearing in the Michael Flynn case Tuesday to consider whether to dismiss the charges against Lt. General Flynn after the Justice Department moved to dismiss the charges and refuses to prosecute further. The hearing was an outrage and demonstrated, conclusively, for those with any doubts, that Emmet Sullivan is in the tank in this case for the former President, Barack Obama, and his wingman, former Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder is a close personal friend of Judge Sullivan.

While taking his decision, “under advisement,” Judge Sullivan strongly signaled that he will continue the Flynn prosecution atrocity for as long as he can in order to allow for a new and different Attorney General, presumably under President Biden, to renew the case against Lt. General Flynn.

The Justice Department moved to dismiss all charges against Flynn following an independent investigation, conducted by U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen of the Eastern District of Missouri, which reviewed Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Flynn prosecution file for undisclosed exculpatory evidence. He found plenty. Jensen’s investigation found that the intense FBI and DOJ investigation of Flynn through the Trump presidential transition had cleared Flynn of any criminal culpability or counterintelligence suspicion whatsoever. Jensen was a 10 year FBI agent before becoming a career prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney’s office in St. Louis for 20 years. He was appointed U.S. Attorney by President Trump in 2017.

Jensen’s investigation found that the Flynn investigation, Crossfire Razor, continued, nonetheless, under protest from the FBI Case Agent William Barrett, and other FBI agents due to its questionable tactics and illegalities, at the behest of the Obama White House. A January 5th meeting at the White House including Obama, Joe Biden, Sally Yates, Susan Rice, and James Comey laid out the demand for continued investigation under the over 200 year old Logan Act, a never enforced unconstitutional statute.

Prior to the January 24, 2017, White House meeting at the center of the Flynn charges, notes of FBI Counterintelligence head Bill Priestap contain the admission that the interview which led to the charges was a setup to get Flynn to lie in order to prosecute him or get him fired as President Trump’s National Security Advisor. The original FBI 302 reporting and analyzing the statements for which Flynn was indicted disappeared and a new 302, edited by FBI agent Peter Strzok, and FBI Counsel Lisa Page, was substituted for it. The September 17, 2020 interview of Case Agent William Barrett by Jensen produced the most damning evidence of government misconduct yet. Barrett underlined that General Michael Flynn was totally innocent and a victim of an out of control effort to “get Trump” both in the FBI and later under Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

In the hearing, Sullivan with his self-proclaimed friend of the Court, former Judge John Gleeson, played prosecutors, wandering down one outrageous conspiratorial rabbit hole after another. Their central claim is that Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell, Attorney General Bill Barr, and President Donald Trump were in a deep conspiracy in which the President, by tweets, ordered Barr to take actions exonerating Flynn and to assist Powell.

Sullivan, who had trouble even stating Sidney Powell’s name at the beginning of the hearing, referring to her repeatedly simply as “her,” confronted Powell directly with one of his conspiracy theories in one of the hearing’s more heated and revealing moments, threatening her with a Bar ethics complaint. Judge Sullivan noted that Powell wrote a letter to Attorney General Barr in 2019 asking him to review the case. Sullivan claimed, wildly, that some form of secret agreement to exonerate Flynn might have been forged there, despite the fact that the letter was already publicly filed on the court’s docket. He claimed that Powell was “unethical” in seeking the DOJ review. As opposed to the hair on fire portrait Judge Sullivan attempted, such inquires by criminal defense lawyers, seeking relief from Main Justice for the actions of lower level prosecutors, are hardly uncommon.

Sullivan then attempted to conduct an interrogation about whether Powell had ever spoken to President Trump about the case and the nature of those conversations. Powell responded that she had spoken to the President once, about two weeks ago, to tell him the status of the case and to tell him not to grant a pardon.

During one of his exchanges with government counsel about prior guilty plea withdrawals, Judge Sullivan referred to former Attorney General Holder as “Eric,” unconsciously acknowledging their deep and abiding relationship. Having had enough of this charade, Sidney Powell moved that Sullivan recuse himself, with Sullivan refusing to do so on the spot but allowing “briefing on the matter.” Surprisingly, Sullivan claimed that Powell should have asked for his removal months earlier.

The proceedings now before Judge Sullivan are unprecedented and represent a violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers in that Sullivan is attempting to become a prosecutor, invading the exclusive discretion of the Executive Branch. There was substantive argument concerning this Tuesday. But the senior career prosecutor for the U.S. Attorneys’ office in Washington, D.C., Kenneth Kohl, took a different approach by meticulously attempting to pierce the Trump derangement fever infecting the proceedings. He resorted to present cold reality.

How, he asked, could the case actually be prosecuted when the two FBI agents who interviewed Flynn, eliciting the alleged false statement charges against him, had either been cited by the DOJ Inspector General for misconduct in the same investigation (Joe Pientka) or fired for blatantly demonstrable bias against Donald Trump, including the vow to “stop him” with an “insurance policy” (namely, illicit spying and prosecution) against the President and his allies? (Peter Strzok). Even with that, the two interviewing agents did not believe that Flynn lied to them in the interview. The individual directing the investigation, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, had been fired from the FBI for lying to the DOJ Inspector General.

Senior Justice Department officials meeting on the case, Kohl continued, said that Flynn just had a bad memory and had not deliberately misled the FBI. A key witness to the meetings setting up the Flynn White House interview, Bill Priestap said openly it was a set up to get him to lie. The lead investigator, William Barrett says it was all a setup to “get Trump” and that Flynn is innocent. Kohl summarized his argument by noting that prosecutions cannot be brought based on a speculative theories or an “argument.” Prosecutions must prove cases beyond a reasonable doubt and believe the defendant guilty. That, he noted, is in no way the case with respect to Lt. General Michael Flynn.