In a bizarre and unprecedented move last week, D.C. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan decided that he would abide by neither the wishes of the prosecuting Justice Department nor the defending Michael Flynn in seeking a swift resolution to a case that should have never happened in the first place.
Apparently irritated by the DOJ’s decision to drop the case against Flynn after it became clear how egregiously the FBI violated the former national security adviser’s constitutional rights, Judge Sullivan put the case on hold…so he could cast about for an individual (or individuals) who would argue against the Justice Department’s decision. Since, you know, there were no such people already in the court proceeding.
Instead of simply accepting the will of both sides, Sullivan appointed retired judge John Gleeson to come into court and recommend whether or not Flynn should face a perjury charge. Why is the judge making up a new charge to replace the one the Justice Department is dropping? Well, his reasoning is that Flynn is guilty of criminal contempt since he once plead guilty…and now is claiming to be innocent. When justice has become twisted to this degree, you know damn well that something political is going on.
Sullivan’s off-the-charts bias has horrified many legal experts, including George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley. In an op-ed for USA Today this week, Turley said that under the judge’s purview, the case was “rapidly moving from the dubious to the preposterous.”
“This is fast becoming a case of gross judicial overreach as the court appears to assume both judicial and executive powers. Sullivan can disagree with the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, but he cannot substitute his own judgment for it,” wrote Turley.
“The Flynn case has proved to be the defining temptation for many in discarding constitutional protections and values in their crusade against President Donald Trump,” he continued. “Experts are asking a court to consider sending a man to prison after the Justice Department concluded it can no longer stand behind his prosecution. Under this same logic, any defendant could face public outrage over an unopposed motion to dismiss, and a court could invite third parties to make arguments against him. Rather than protecting an unpopular criminal defendant from those outside clamoring for his head, the court is inviting them inside to replace the prosecutors.”
Over and over again, the left has shown that they are willing to ignore constitutionally-thorny issues if the end result means sticking it to Donald Trump. With a judicial activist willing to use Resistance Logic to run his courtroom, the anti-Trump pundits couldn’t be happier.
Does anyone really want to put these tyrants back in power?