Yesterday we noted a rather important, yet less discussed, motive for the strength of the DC Circuit Court position against Judge Emmet Sullivan. I’ll expand after the video.
In this interview Gregg Jarrett talks with Flynn’s defense lawyer Sidney Powell about the rather unusual behavior of Judge Emmet Sullivan. WATCH:
A DC judge hiring a well connected DC lawyer to write his response to a DC circuit court appeals panel is the part that’s interesting. There’s no guarantee the appeals court will accept such a response; but that’s also another issue. Bottom line: Judge Sullivan is importing a lawyer to represent his interests. Very unusual.
Our readers are smart; aware and smart enough not to get stuck in the weeds; so let’s stay elevated on this and look at the whole picture. Consider this decision by Judge Emmet Sullivan through the prism of recent events surrounding Flynn:
♦ The DOJ, joined with the defense position and filed an unopposed motion to drop the case against Michael Flynn.
♦ A USAO from Missouri, Jeff Jensen, has discovered a trail of internal evidence pointing toward a corrupt originating prosecution for the case against Flynn. Mr. Jensen has been revealing those documents and providing them to the court (and defense).
♦ Meanwhile DNI Ric Grenell has declassified and revealed documents showing a corrupt intent by the U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) against Michael Flynn.
♦ On Friday (5/22/20) the FBI Director announced an internal investigation into officials inside the FBI for wrongful conduct specifically as it relates to a corrupt operation, now discovered and public, against Michael Flynn.
Additionally, we shall not play games and ignore the obvious.
Judge Emmet Sullivan is well aware of the reason why former Judge Rudolph “Rudy” Contreras was recused from the Flynn case; only days after accepting the first plea agreement, and less than 72 hours after the Peter Strzok and Lisa Page text messages publicly surfaced.
Lisa Page: “Rudy is on the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]! Did you know that?” “Just appointed two months ago””..Peter Strzok: “I did. We talked about it before and after. I need to get together with him.”…
Notice Strzok is saying he and Rudy had a talk about the judge joining the FISA court both before and after Judge Contreras was appointed. There is a friendship connection, not just a professional relationship. This will come into play later on.
Lisa Page and Peter Strzok even discussed the friendship between the FBI Agent and Judge Contreras being an issue that might cause a conflict of interest within the activity of Strzok as lead agent within the counterintelligence division within the FBI.
The issue was enough for Peter Strzok to say he was planning to discuss the conflict with Rudy. Specifically Strzok was aware his work and Contreras position would likely lead to an investigation where the judge would have to recuse himself.
Agent Strzok planned to have this conversation with Rudy, and he preferred to have the discussion informally just days before Strzok official launched operation crossfire hurricane.
As the texts outline the issue of Rudy and Peter’s friendship is known to the small group in the FBI, being talked about internally, and Strzok is keenly aware he will have to approach it. As Peter Strzok replies to Lisa Page: “M suggested a social setting with others would probably be better than a one on one meeting.”
The informal nature of a social conversation about it, with others who could corroborate if needed, would provide plausible deniability on both ends and dilute the toxicity of any issue that surfaced later on. The conflict was enough of a concern to require a strategy.
Fast forward to the following year…
The special counsel investigation was absorbing 100% of the media’s attention. Within DC all that anyone was talking about was the Mueller investigation and the “Trump-Russia” narrative. The indictment of Lt. General Michael Flynn has led the news headlines for months.
There is no way a DC district court judge ; especially one that has sat on the FISA court during the time the DOJ and FBI were abusing the process; would be unaware of the investigation. Additionally and more importantly, there is no way a DC district judge, FISA judge and good friend of Peter Strzok, would be unaware that Flynn’s prosecution was an extension of an FBI counterintelligence case against all of the Trump officials.
Holding a position of justification by saying DC district court Judge Rudolph Contreras would be unaware of the nature and circumstances of the Flynn case prior to assignment would be intellectually silly and obtuse in the extreme. Contreras knew the case; perhaps not the granular details, but he knew the case and who was prosecuting it.
On November 30th, 2017, Mike Flynn signed a guilty plea; ostensibly admitting lying to FBI investigators. The plea was accepted the next day by Judge Rudolph “Rudy” Contreras (who is also a FISA court judge). Six days later, December 7, 2017, Judge Contreras “was recused” from the case without explanation.
It’s important to note that Judge Contreras did not recuse himself, he was recused by the U.S. District court for the District of Columbia. [Source]
The court made the public announcement that Judge Contreras “has been recused from handling the case.”
If the conflict -which required recusal- existed on December 7, 2017, wouldn’t that same conflict have existed days earlier on November 30th? Of course it did. And of course Judge Rudolph Contreras would be aware of that conflict long before engaging in the case itself.
The moment the case was assigned, Contreras knew there was a conflict for him.
Again, if the conflict existed on December 7th, the conflict certainly existed on December 1st. So why did he accept the case? Why did he participate in the case until the district court intervened and removed it from him?
There has been a transparent lack of media curiosity on this issue from the day the court announced his recusal. Apparently those questions did not fit the media objective.
This context is important because the DC circuit court is now ordering district Judge Sullivan to explain his decision-making. They are using very strong language toward Judge Sullivan and have surprised many legal experts in the way the circuit court panel has approach it.
The panel of circuit judges: Henderson, Wilkins and Rao, did not rule on the petition for the writ of mandamus; instead they “ordered” Judge Sullivan to explain himself within ten days. The same panel “invited” the DOJ to participate:
I would suggest to you the reason for the strength in the circuit court position is entirely connected to their knowledge of the back-ground of the Flynn case which included the recusal of Judge Contreras. None of this, specifically the tone of the panel in their order, is disconnected from the larger background.
Whether they want to admit it or not, and they would never do so publicly, the DC court has to be keenly aware of the material behind this case. They have to be aware of what DNI Grenell has exposed; they have to be aware the FBI is now investigating itself based on how the FBI handled the Flynn case; and this same DC circuit knows the FISA court process was abused by the exact same participants involved in this Flynn prosecution.
The media, and some DOJ and FBI defenders are playing too-cute-by-half in providing justifications for the DOJ/FBI activity. But the bigger picture is in full sunlight.
The media ignoring it, and the legions of former DOJ and FBI employees attempting to be disingenuous about it, does not change our level of information about it; and certainly does not change the disposition of a DC court system that has watched this playing out in their back yard.
