Flynn’s lawyer files EXPLOSIVE motion to disqualify Judge Emmet Sullivan, attaches declassified docs exposing set-up
Story is developing
Former national security advisor Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn’s defense team filed an explosive motion Wednesday to disqualify U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan over his overt partiality against Flynn and actions to operate as a prosecutor in the case, rather than a judge.
Months of stunning disclosures in Flynn’s case have also revealed extensive malfeasance by FBI investigators in his case and that of the investigation into President Donald Trump’s campaign. For example, the recent revelation that former British spy Christopher Steele’s primary sub source for the debunked dossier was a Russian spy that was being monitored by the FBI for years and that they kept this information from the FISA courts is a reflection on the culture of corruption that existed inside the bureau during the Obama administration.
Powell stated in the motion filed Wednesday, that her request for the disqualification of Sullivan from further participation in this case was based partly on “his failure to follow the mandamus of the D.C. Circuit panel and his decision with his own retained counsel to take the unprecedented and improper step of filing his petition for rehearing en banc, Judge Sullivan ‘cast an intolerable cloud of partiality over his subsequent judicial conduct’ and “risk[ed]  undermining the public’s confidence in the judicial process.”
Last week, Flynn’s defense attorney Sidney Powell battled with Sullivan during a hearing saying, he had displayed “abject bias” in her clients case and should recuse himself.
She stunned the court when Sullivan then turned and asked her if she had ever discussed Flynn’s case with President Donald Trump. Further, the Justice Department agreed last week that the case should be dismissed, stating there was no controversy between the two parties. Sullivan, however, is refusing to give up the fight and acting more like a prosecutor, stated Powell in a previous interview with this reporter.
Powell told Sullivan, “I can tell you I spoke one time with the president, one time about this case to inform him of the general status of the case.” She then said when asked if any requests were made, “no, other than he not issue a pardon.”
Powell’s arduous work ethic over the past several years and investigations have led to the disclosures off unbelievable malfeasance both within the FBI, as well as alleged cover-ups and actions that could be construed as obstruction of justice among former prosecutors in Robert Mueller’s special counsel that originally charged Flynn with lying to investigators.
Powell also enclosed now fully redacted documentation obtained by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham during his committee’s recent requests and investigation into the FBI and CIA’s handling of the investigation into Trump and Russia.
The explosive information received by Graham from the Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliff revealed that Flynn and Trump were more than likely dragged through the mud in national and international media by an operation allegedly set up by Hillary Clinton. The information was obtained by CIA Director John Brennan through Russian sources and briefed to President Barrack Obama in the White House in July, 2016.
- In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S . Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee. The IC does not know the accuracy ofthis allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.
- According to his handwritten notes, former Central Intelligence Agency Director Brennan subsequently briefed President Obama and other senior national security officials on the intelligence, including the “alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.”
- On 07 September 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James Corney and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding “U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S . elections as a means o f distracting the public from her use o f a private mail server.”
Flynn’s national case has led to hundreds of thousands of supporters and his request for dismissal of Sullivan comes on the heels of President Donald Trump’s Tuesday night announcement that he will declassify all documents pertaining to the Russia hoax investigation by the bureau into his campaign, as well as the FBI’s failed investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email to send government documents. Then FBI Director James Comey, who was since fired by Trump for his actions, exonerated Clinton months before ever interviewing her or the witnesses involved in her secret server scam.
Powell references the case of In re Al Nashiri, 921 F.3d 224, 237, 239 (D.C. Cir. 2019) in her motion: “[A]ll that must be demonstrated to compel recusal,” then, is “a showing of an appearance of bias…sufficient to permit the average citizen reasonably to question a judge’s impartiality.”
Powell noted in her motion that “Sullivan satisfied that standard when he actively litigated against General Flynn. He has since far exceeded it—rising to the level of demonstrating actual bias. The court’s contempt and disdain for the defense was palpable throughout the hearing on September 29, 2020, including when defense counsel made an oral motion for his immediate disqualification, which he refused to allow even to be fully stated for the record.”
Powell stated that Sullivan’s “immediate disqualification is mandatory” based on previous case law and as established by his actions throughout his time overseeing Flynn’s trial.
Established case law, said Powell, requires that a judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” and § 455(b)(1) states that a judge “shall disqualify himself… where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party…”
FROM POWELL’S MOTION
Because “unbiased, impartial adjudicators are the cornerstone of any system of justice worthy of the label, [a]nd because ‘[d]eference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges,’ jurists must avoid even the appearance of partiality.” Al Nashiri, 921 F.3d at 233- 234. The court jettisoned any appearance of neutrality before and throughout the hearing. Judge Sullivan’s words and conduct prior to and during the hearing have had a profound negative affect on “public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process” and require him to recuse himself under §455(a) and §455(b)(1). Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860 (1988). See Ex. A (a random sample of tweets of citizens in response to the hearing).
28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5)(i) requires a judge to disqualify himself when “he is a party to the proceeding.” When the district judge aggressively petitioned for rehearing en banc as if he were a party, it invoked the application of this section sufficiently to trigger the application of 455(a) for the appearance of bias and 455(b)(1) for personal bias against General Flynn himself. Indeed, by the time of the en banc oral argument, the court’s conduct was so far afield from all precedent, the Solicitor