U.S. District Court Judge, Emmet Sullivan, was Prepared to Sentence, Former Trump's National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, the 24th National Security Advisor for the first 22 days of the Trump administration.

In December 2018, he was Indicated and a Jail Term was likely, despite Prosecutors’ Suggestion that a Term of Probation would be Acceptable. The Judge cited Flynn’s Admission, Part of his Plea Agreement, that he Worked as a Paid Agent of the Turkish Government during the 2016 Campaign without Disclosing it. But rather than Impose a Sentence, Sullivan Granted Flynn more time to Cooperate with Prosecutors pursuing a Case against his Former Business Partner.

Soon after the Aborted Sentencing Hearing, Flynn Fired his Legal Team and hired Sidney Powell, from Fox News, who had repeatedly Attacked the Mueller Investigation. Powell soon asserted that Flynn was the Victim of Massive Abuses by the FBI and Prosecutors, claiming they Withheld Exculpatory Evidence and Essentially Entrapped Flynn into a False Statements Charge, later Pressuring him into a Guilty Plea.

Earlier this year, Flynn Moved to Withdraw his Guilty Plea and was soon Aided by DOJ’s Decision to Drop the Case. But Judge Sullivan, citing the Traditional Discretion of the Court in these matters, opted against Immediate Dismissal and Instead Appointed an Outside Adviser, Gleeson, to Help him consider whether he must Grant the Dismissal or has Alternative Options amid the Questions about Political Interference in the Case.

Flynn’s Attorneys quickly Petitioned the Appeals Court to force Sullivan to Drop the Case, and a Split Three-Judge Panel Ruled in their Favor in June. But Sullivan then asked the Full Bench of the Appeals Court to Reconsider the Matter, leading to Tuesday’s August 11th, Hearing.

The Federal Appeals Court, Full Bench, appears poised to Block an Effort by Flynn to Immediately Dismiss the Criminal Charge against him, raising the Specter that the Politically Explosive Case could continue to make Headlines in the lead-up to the Nov. 3rd Election.

The Court sounded Sharply Skeptical, about Arguments by Flynn’s Attorney and the Justice Department, that U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan Abused his Authority by Scheduling a Hearing on efforts to Drop the Case, which came Despite Flynn Twice Pleading Guilty to Lying to the FBI.

If the Appeals Court Rules against Flynn, it’s likely to Create a Vivid Pre-Election Spectacle pitting Flynn against FBI Agents and Prosecutors he has Accused of Misconduct, Allegations echoed often by President Trump. It would also crimp Trump’s Ability to Turn to Flynn as a Pre-Election Surrogate.

The en banc Court sounded Poised to Part with the Smaller Appeals Court Panel that sided, 2-1, with Flynn in June.

A clear Sign that Flynn’s Drive to Shut down his Criminal Case was Running into Trouble Tuesday came when Judge Thomas Griffith, the Sole Republican Appointee on the En Banc Court who had Not already Ruled in Flynn’s Favor, suggested he believes a Court Rule the Justice Department Seized on to Dismiss the Case does give Judges some Role in making sure a Case isn’t Dropped for an Illegitimate, Political Reason. “Favoritism for a politically powerful defendant. Isn’t that one of the purposes?...That seems to be right in the wheelhouse of what is going on here,” Griffith said.

Flynn and the Justice Department did Not appear to do any better with any of the other Judges, aside from the two GOP-Appointed Appeals Judges who Ruled for Flynn earlier this year.

Judge Nina Pillard aggressively Challenged Acting Solicitor General, Jeffrey Wall, noting that Flynn Pleaded Guilty in the Case and later Reaffirmed that Plea, before Attorney General, William Barr, Ordered a Reversal in May and Moved to Drop the Case. “What self-respecting Article II judge would simply jump and enter an order without doing what he could do to understand both sides?” said Pillard, an Appointee of President Barack Obama. “It’s just really striking and remarkable — what is the government worried about?....He only wanted an argument.”

Sullivan’s Attorney, Beth Wilkinson, faced somewhat Friendlier Questioning from the Judges, who Pressed her on what Sullivan viewed as the Appropriate Role of his Court in Assessing the Effort to Dismiss the Case. Wilkinson repeatedly Emphasized that Sullivan simply wants to Hold a Hearing and Accept Briefs from the Parties. She described as "speculation and fear" the Repeated Alarms raised by Flynn and the Justice Department about what Questions Sullivan might pose.

The timing of the Next Steps in the Case could dramatically alter the Political Impact of Flynn’s Legal Predicament.

A Decision soon in Flynn’s Favor could Free the Former Defense Intelligence Agency Chief up to become a boisterous Late-Campaign Surrogate for Trump, who has Blasted Flynn’s Prosecution as Corrupt and Pledged to welcome him Back into his orbit.

However, a quick Ruling Against the Former Aide would Free Sullivan to Proceed with his Plan to hold an Attention-Grabbing Hearing where a Former Federal Judge Sullivan Selected, John Gleeson, would Argue against the Justice Department’s Motion to Drop the Case, while Flynn’s Lawyers seek to air their Claims that he was Entrapped by Politically Motivated FBI Officials and Denied Exculpatory Evidence for years by Deputies to Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Such a Hearing would almost certainly become a Proxy Fight in the Partisan Combat over whether Mueller’s Probe was a Diligent Inquiry into Russian Interference in the Election and Malfeasance by Trump Allies or whether it was a “witch hunt” based on Flimsy Evidence and led by Biased Investigators.

Powell quickly alluded to the Political Polarization surrounding the Case, referring in her Opening Statement to Sullivan’s Handling of the Matter as Displaying “the now-glaring appearance of bias to millions of citizens.”










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker