{"id":348451,"date":"2020-05-13T16:09:00","date_gmt":"2020-05-13T20:09:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?p=348451"},"modified":"2020-05-14T16:07:53","modified_gmt":"2020-05-14T20:07:53","slug":"judge-sullivans-sinister-flynn-decision","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2020\/05\/13\/judge-sullivans-sinister-flynn-decision\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge Sullivan\u2019s Sinister Flynn Decision"},"content":{"rendered":"

RUSH: So a lot of people, “Rush, what does it mean, what the judge is doing allowing Watergate prosecutors to weigh in on the Flynn thing?” Well, I\u2019ll be happy to try to explain this to you, my friends. Man, is there a lot brewing out there today, as there, sadly is each and every day. We\u2019re on top of all of it, looking forward to the next three hours broadcast excellence hosted by me, Rush Limbaugh. Really great to have you with us, folks. Telephone number is 800-282-2882. The email address, ElRushbo@eibnet.us.<\/p>\n

So the judge in this case is Emmet Sullivan. And just to refresh, the Department of Justice has decided to throw the Flynn case out. There\u2019s no case. They literally have no case. There is no evidence. There was nothing. The whole thing was manufactured. The DOJ is throwing it out.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

So a bunch of Watergate-era, dinosaur lawyers have petitioned the judge to file amicus briefs. A friend of the court is what amicus brief means. And it\u2019s entirely without getting into the — into the here on legal issues, it\u2019s entirely irrelevant, uncalled for and not relevant or necessary in this case. But the judge is going to permit it. The judge is Emmet Sullivan. He\u2019s a Clinton appointee.<\/p>\n

And the thing about this that\u2019s curious is Emmet Sullivan presided over the Ted Stevens trial, which he threw out because of the same kind of prosecutorial abuse that has gone on here. Yet in this case, Sullivan, the judge is on record as having called Michael Flynn a traitor. He\u2019s on record as wanting Flynn to be punished far more severely than the DOJ even when it was an active case, wanted Flynn punished.<\/p>\n

So the judge doesn\u2019t want to let them get away with just dropping the case. Now, the judge cannot try a case the DOJ doesn\u2019t bring to court. So it isn\u2019t about that. It\u2019s not about Judge Sullivan trying to force Barr and the DOJ into submitting for a trial and to present the evidence or lack of it. It\u2019s about something that\u2019s — well, depending how you look at these things, far more sinister.<\/p>\n

Judge Sullivan, you should know, refused 25 times to allow amicus briefs written and to be submitted on behalf of Flynn. During the phase of this where it was an actual case, before the DOJ had dropped it, there were 25 separate requests for friends of Flynn to file amicus briefs on his behalf, and this judge refused all 25 times.<\/p>\n

Legal experts will tell you that case law generally prohibits trial court judges like this from second-guessing the government\u2019s decision not to prosecute a defendant. But it is really rare for a judge to ask for or, in this case, permit amicus briefs when prosecution has decided to drop the case. So what\u2019s happened here, the DOJ and Barr announced they\u2019re gonna drop the case, and these Watergate guys led by Richard Ben-Veniste — we\u2019re talking about lawyers whose heyday was in the 1970s, folks — are demanding to be heard.<\/p>\n

They want to prolong this. They want to be able to give the media something they can go on record to counter this case because the news of the case is there isn\u2019t a case. There wasn\u2019t any collusion. The Russians, if anything, we have now learned, were helping Hillary. And we have that sourced from none other John Brennan<\/a>, Obama\u2019s CIA director. That\u2019s coming up here in just a second.<\/p>\n

So what these lawyers — pure, partisan, left-wing Democrat hacks — have asked the judge to do is to give them a forum to file these briefs in which they can claim Flynn is guilty, that Flynn did it, that Barr is a reprobate, that this is nothing more than Trump politicizing justice and, oh, how horrible because they know that the media is gonna cover and expose and promote and amplify whatever it is they submit as their amicus briefs.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s simply a way, and the judge is complicit, of creating a phony news cycle that will continue the original attempt to suggest that Flynn is guilty. I mean, friend of the court brief, friend of what, friend of who here? Who are they friends of? Who are these Watergate lawyers friends of? Well, they\u2019re the friends of the court in this case. What are they arguing? They\u2019re arguing DOJ should not drop the case.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

They don\u2019t have a case. That\u2019s why it\u2019s being dropped. It\u2019s that simple. Ask any lawyer. There\u2019s no case here. “But, Rush, but, Rush, Flynn pled guilty.” Ah, ah. Been through this. Flynn pled guilty twice because they were threatening him with ruination. They threatened K.T. McFarland. The same thing with Roger Stone. That\u2019s how you get guilty pleas. It\u2019s how this particular bunch of lawyers, the Mueller team, the Enron task force, it\u2019s how they operate.<\/p>\n

It is outrageous what these people have done. They\u2019ve put people in jail who have not committed crimes with the willing participation of judges. They cost Ted Stevens his Senate seat, then he had a heart attack and dies, the case gets dropped. They never had a shred of evidence against Ted Stevens. It was made up. The star witness in the Ted Stevens case, senator from Alaska, he was threatened by these lawyers. He was told to recite, i.e., this is your story, this is what you\u2019re gonna say under oath. It was all lies suborned by the prosecution led by people like Andrew Weissmann, part of the Enron task force and part of Mueller\u2019s merry band of investigators.<\/p>\n

So the purpose of the friend of court brief is to provide a forum for a bunch of Watergate-era lawyers to write how Flynn is guilty. This is a travesty of justice. It\u2019s not gonna change anything. Andy McCarthy was on Fox this morning and it was Ed Henry who said, “You say this is a bizarre order, Andy. What is really going on here?”<\/p>\n

MCCARTHY: There\u2019s a bunch of lawyers who are actually more ancient than I am who call themselves the Watergate prosecutors, and they figure the Rolling Stones still go on tour so why shouldn\u2019t they get the band back together and they\u2019ve been doing that since Trump came to office trying to get him impeached. Judge Sullivan, who has been so unhinged on this case that he originally characterized it as a treason case, decided this was just a peachy idea. So now he\u2019s inviting basically an anti-Trump group therapy session. It will make no difference in the end, but it will just drag the process out.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

RUSH: Well, who\u2019s to say? Yeah, it won\u2019t make a difference in the end. Flynn is not gonna be tried. He\u2019s not gonna be prosecuted. But by the time this is all over, by the time the media is finished promoting and amplifying these friend of the course briefs, what\u2019s gonna happen is that a certain percentage of the American people are gonna think Flynn did it, and he got away with it because Donald Trump is corrupting the DOJ. That\u2019s what this is about.<\/p>\n

We could sit here, oh, wring our hands, how horrible this is, these guys just miss the limelight. It\u2019s far more devious than this. Let\u2019s see. Sound bite number 10. This is another former prosecutor. Brett Tolman was his name. He was on Fox & Friends today with Brian Kilmeade. Tolman is a former U.S. attorney. I don\u2019t know when he served. But the question, “Judge Sullivan, 72 years old, delaying his decision on whether to drop charges against -” he\u2019s got no choice. Look. What if the judge doesn\u2019t drop the charges? What happens is the DOJ has to try the case if they\u2019re not gonna try the case. The judge can\u2019t do anything. The judge cannot bring charges himself and act as the prosecution. That\u2019s the DOJ. They have announced they\u2019re not gonna proceed here. That\u2019s what this really all about.<\/p>\n

They\u2019re trying to find a way to go on with this thing so they can get to the end of it with Flynn guilty, and that\u2019s what these friend of the court briefs\u2019 ultimate objectives are — or is. So, anyway, the question to Brett Tolman. He\u2019s now allowing outside groups to weigh in with these friend of the court briefs. “What\u2019s your take on the judge\u2019s move?”<\/p>\n

TOLMAN: I thought I\u2019d seen everything in 20-plus years in the federal criminal justice system, but this is a first. This is an outrageous decision by a judge who\u2019s now placed himself into that awful category of an activist who\u2019s willing to set aside rules, set aside ethics, set aside precedent and just go in a direction because he is politically motivated to do so. Sidney Powell is correct that this court is now going against its own rulings, which is sacrosanct in the judiciary, that you follow your rulings so that there\u2019s consistency in cases.<\/p>\n