Sullivan’s last sally revisited

Judge Emmet Sullivan’s refusal to grant the government’s initial motion to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn commits a rank injustice that conflicts with the applicable law. One would never know from his behavior in the case that he is bound by canons of judicial ethics intended to protect the integrity of our system of justice and to deter the disgrace he has brought on the judiciary.

Sullivan’s 43-page memorandum opinion dismissing the case on grounds of mootness now stands as the final chapter in the disgrace he has wrought. These are the points I sought to make in my own way in “Sullivan’s last sally.”

Professor Jonathan Turley makes the points I sought to make much more stylishly in the Hill column “Flynn’s case finally ends — but not before Judge Sullivan flogs a corpse.” Turley calls out Sullivan’s judicial misconduct, though he doesn’t put it quite that way.

Given the egregious nature of Sullivan’s misconduct, I am somewhat surprised it hasn’t attracted more comment. Turley disturbs the silence in this thoughtful column, which I believe still falls short of a full accounting of the extent of Sullivan’s misconduct.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.