Looks like U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan is an activist judge running a kangaroo court.
I am going to make a suggestion completely at odds with what everyone on both the right and the left thinks Judge Sullivan is doing. I am probably wrong, but it is something to think about:
1. Judge Sullivan is known for taking a hard line with the unethical prosecutors in the Ted Stevens case (it is why he issues an order requiring prosecutors to provide documents);
2. In the Ted Stevens case, the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss after the conviction that was granted.
3. The very brief motion to dismiss filed by DOJ in the Ted Stevens case includes: (a) an admission that it filed something “inaccurate” in opposition to a prior motion for new trial by Stevens; (b) an admission that “certain matters in this case have been referred to the Office of Professional Responsibility of the DOJ,” including with respect to the inaccuracies.
4. The DOJ’s description of FBI actions in the Flynn motion to dismiss looks bad to Flynn supporters, but does not describe anything done by the prosecutors as inaccurate or as being reviewed for ethical violations.
5. At the end of Judge Sullivan’s 12/16/19 Order denying Flynn some discovery and dismissal, he wrote: “This case is not United States v. Theodore F. Stevens, Criminal Action No. 08–231(EGS), the case that Mr. Flynn relies on throughout his briefing. In that case, the Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss, and the government admitted that it had committed Brady violations and made misrepresentations to the Court. In re Special Proceedings, 825 F. Supp. 2d 203, 204 (D.D.C. 2011).”
6. By comparison — in exchange for the DOJ’s motion to dismiss, Flynn filed to withdraw his “motion to dismiss case for egregious government misconduct.” So the DOJ in the Flynn case is attempting to walk away without coming completely clean.
7. The DOJ’s main argument for dismissal is that Flynn’s statements were not “material” to an investigation. Judge Sullivan found Flynn’s alleged lies were “material” in his 12/16/19 Order, because that is what DOJ argued at the time. It would not be unreasonable to require the DOJ to explain whether the earlier DOJ arguments were “misrepresentations,” or perhaps “proved to be wrong by new evidence.”
Conclusion: It is possible that Judge Sullivan is going to require AG Barr to embarrass the prosecutors who have withdrawn before granting the dismissal.
WTF is this? Since when do judges decide who gets prosecuted?