Listen to Latest podcast:
Listen Live to Dan
Watch: TV

On The Air

Michael Flynn Judge Could Be Disqualified From Proceedings After Hearing Today

  • by:
  • Source: Dan Bongino
  • 06/11/2022
Fight tech tyranny. Join Dan on Parler @dbongino.

We’re not sure what took them so long, but some on a full federal appeals court are concerned about Emmet Sullivan’s bias in the Kafkaesque Michael Flynn case.

Ronald Reagan famously quipped that the closest thing we’ll ever see resembling eternity on this Earth is a government program – but it’s safe to say that “the Michael Flynn trial” also qualifies.

After the Department of Justice announced that they would be dropping their criminal case against Flynn in May, Judge Sullivan appointed an outsider to serve as an amicus curaae to present arguments against the DOJ’s motion to dismiss. The man, John Gleeson, without a hint of irony blasted the DOJ’s motion as a “gross abuse” of power. Two weeks after that a federal appeals court ordered Sullivan to grant the DOJ’s request to drop charges against Flynn. A three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals approved Flynn’s petition to intervene in the case after a district court judge had tapped an outside counsel to argue against the DOJ’s move.  In response, Sullivan appealed to the Circuit Court for an en banc hearing, and oral arguments were scheduled for August 11th, which are going on as I write.

According to Townhall’s Matt Vespa:

[The August 11 em banc hearing] could end up “disqualifying” Sullivan from the proceedings. Some on the DC Circuit seem to be worried about the level of bias exhibited by Sullivan and that he should be prepared to answer questions about it.

Vespa points to a thread from Reeves Law founder John Reeves, who read through court documents proving that that some on the DC Circuit are concerned that Sullivan is biased and needs to disqualify himself.

Meanwhile, during oral arguments today the DOJ clarified that while they’re not calling Judge Sullivan biased, they believe he has an “appearance of partiality” problem. According to the Albany Law Review, the phrase that one’s “impartiality might be reasonably questioned” is the “linchpin for judicial disqualification in every state, and is based on the American Bar Association’s Code of Judicial Conduct.”

Of course, in the Michael Flynn trial nothing seems to make sense. Despite apparent concerns of bias, anyone listening to the oral arguments will notice that these judges seem awfully biased themselves. It’s hard not to speculate that they’re simply trying to drag the case out for as long as possible to effectively force Trump to intervene, so they can then falsely accuse him to abusing his power as President by ending their witch hunt.

In a sane world, Judge Emmet’s behavior in this case would disqualify him from his entire career.

Photos by Getty Images

Get latest news delivered daily!

We will send you breaking news right to your inbox