UPDATED: Judge Emmet Sullivan declares himself as standing against Justice and the rule of law

In our system of law it's a very heinous offense if the prosecution deliberately hides evidence that shows that a defendant is innocent from the court and the defendant.

That's because the objective of any trial is to ascertain the truth which is impossible if critical information is concealed.  Further we know that concealing evidence that supports the innocence of the defendant is what fascist states like the USSR, and Communist China do.

But now Federal judge Emmet Sullivan is saying that maybe hiding exculpatory evidence is no big deal.

The charge that was brought against Flynn was that he'd lied to the FBI in an ambush interview about whether or not he'd talked to the Russian Ambassador about sanctions.

There is no question that as a member of the Trump transition team he had every right to talk to the Russian Ambassador about anything.  The only crime alleged was that he'd lied to the FBI.

Note that unlike Bill Clinton who lied under oath, committing perjury, Flynn was not under oath at the time of his alleged offense yet Democrats want Flynn punished much more severely than Clinton was.

For a very long time we've know that the FBI agents who conducted the interview believed that Flynn hadn't lied. We assumed that they thought that he simply hadn't remembered the details of his conversation.

But now due to diligent investigations by the DOJ we know know that the FBI knew for a fact that General Flynn did not lie to them.

It turns out that the original FBI report said that Flynn said that he didn't remember talking to the Russian Ambassador about sanctions but that he could have.

There is no way that that could be construed as a deliberate lie to the FBI.

Why did Flynn plead guilty then?

Well as a victim of a massive government conspiracy he'd been effectively bankrupted, he'd lost his house as well, paying the legal fees charged by his defense team.  Then as a coup de grace the FBI threatened to do the same to Flynn's son, and send him to jail, if Flynn didn't plead guilty.

That's what we'd expect of the KGB or the Gestapo not the FBI.

The fact that the FBI was threatening Flynn that way was deliberately concealed from the Court which is a clear violation of the law.  Further the fact that the FBI knew that Flynn said that he could have talked about sanctions, that he just didn't remember, was also concealed from the Court.

There are other things that the prosecution concealed that indicated Flynn's innocence.

Hence the DOJ has decided that the charges should be dropped which is what happens in all cases where the prosecutor deliberately tries to railroad an innocent man by concealing evidence.

Further under the law the sole authority to bring charges is the DOJ. Judges preside over trials but they have no authority to charge anyone with a crime.

That's why Judge Sullivan's sudden decision to continue to prosecute Flynn, despite the clear and unambiguous evidence of his innocence, is so outrageous.

Earlier in the trial the judge refused to allow friends of the court to make presentations about the Flynn case; presumably because at that time such statements would have been in Flynns favor.

Now he's asking for random people to comment on whether or not the DOJ should drop the case.

This is an attack on the rule of law.  Effectively Sullivan is saying innocent people who have been the victim of prosecutorial malfeasance can continue to be prosecuted for crimes we know that they didn't commit unless radical leftist lawyers say that they can be let off the hook.

This is clear and unambiguous politicization of the judicial process and we must condemn it in no uncertain terms.

Under the law the Judge has no standing to decide if someone should be prosecuted so once the DOJ says that prosecution is no longer warranted the Judge's only moral option is to drop the case.

UPDATE:

Over at Legal Insurrection a real lawyer says that maybe Judge Sullivan isn't evil incarnate. :)

He makes some valid points:

The Judge hasn't actually yet said he'll listen to random people's opinions; he's only said that he expects people to ask him to listen
The fact that Flynn has already pled guilty muddies the waters; though given that that plea was clearly coerced and that Flynn was denied information that showed he was innocent is in my non-legal opinion far more compelling
Apparently the Supreme Court asks for random people to give it advice when one of the parties in a legal matter no longer has standing

However he also points out that in Flynn's defense teams filing they point out that on 24 pervious occasions the judge has rejected efforts of people who claimed an interest to present the court with their viewpoints.

The defense also notes that Flynn has been persecuted for more than three years and that no further delay is acceptable given that the DOJ has produced facts that show not only prosecutorial misconduct but unambiguous proof that Flynn, by admitting he may have talked to the Russian Ambassador about sanctions but that he couldn't remember, was innocent of the charge.

UPDATE:  Yesterday judge Sullivan asked a virulently antiTrump former judge who has close ties to prosecutors who have been attacking people associated with Trump to fight against the idea that just because Flynn was prosecuted without cause and that the DOJ deliberately and illegally withheld exculpatory evidence Flynn's trial shouldn't end.

If Flynn were a drug dealer, murder, or rapist his trial would be over but because he's associated with Trump Sullivan wants to deny him the rights he, Sullivan, would give to hardened criminals.