Let’s review. In the American system of justice, only the government can bring criminal charges against an individual. You may file a complaint with the police claiming you have been assaulted or your neighbor stole your property, but only the representatives of the people as a whole can then actually prosecute the case.
If a case is prosecuted it will be handled according to a very clearly delineated set of rules. The people will be represented by a prosecutor. T he accused will be represented by defense counsel. Presiding over it all, neutral and unbiased, will be a judge, whose sole objective will be to ensure justice is done.
That system, handed down to us via English common law, has been the backbone of our nation since its inception.
Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, responding to a government motion to dismiss the case against Lieutenant-General Flynn opened the case up to receive what is legally known as amicus briefs. That means that the judge will now allow third parties, presumably all hostile to Flynn, to intervene in the case, take on the role of prosecutors, and argue to the court as to why the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency should go to jail.
Responding to the development, Flynn’s attorneys, had this to say, “It is no accident that amicus briefs are excluded in criminal cases. A criminal case is a dispute between the United States and a criminal defendant. There is no place for third parties to meddle in the dispute, and certainly not to usurp the role of the government’s counsel. For the Court to allow another to stand in the place of the government would be a violation of the separation of powers.”
The extraordinary nature of Judge Sullivan’s decision can hardly be overemphasized. We will now see the spectacle of a man being prosecuted in an American court of law, when the people’s representatives, the prosecuting attorneys assigned to the case have affirmatively stated that they do not wish to proceed and do not believe that proceeding would be in accordance with the dictates of justice. In effect, the judge is taking unto himself the authority to proceed with a criminal case against an American citizen even when the Justice Department deems it unwarranted.
It is an extreme step, but, then again as the entire Spygate narrative enters its third and final phase, for those determined to ensure a coverup these are extreme times.
In the first phase of the Spygate travesty, we were treated to an endless barrage of accusations against President Trump and his closest advisors. Trump was a Russian stooge. He won the 2016 election only because of collusion with Vladimir Putin. The new President was a traitor, and there was, we were told, again and again, ample, concrete evidence that would prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
In the second phase of the Spygate hoax, we watched as not one, but two separate investigations proved that nothing we were told initially was ever true. First, independent counsel Mueller found no evidence that there had ever been any collusion or cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia. Then, Inspector General Horowitz demonstrated that much of the investigation activity directed at the Trump campaign by the FBI and DOJ violated rules and regulations and was based on deliberate misrepresentations. While Horowitz bent over backward to claim that there was no evidence of political motivations, to most people the conclusion seemed clear. This was a political hit job from the outset.
We have now entered the third phase, the one in which we begin to see the inner workings of an attempted coup and to identify precisely what was done, by whom and on whose orders. The information that led the Department of Justice to walk away from the prosecution of General Flynn, which showed clearly that the highest levels of the FBI were directly involved in targeting and attempting to destroy the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, was only the beginning.
The revelations that forced prosecutors to stand down on any further efforts to send Flynn to prison came out of a grand total of four pages of redacted documents that had been declassified. That is nothing. What is coming when U.S. Attorney Durham starts handing down indictments in the near future will be a tidal wave by comparison.
The crest of that wave will reach all the way to the most senior levels of the FBI and the CIA, into the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Democratic Party’s leadership, and, perhaps, into the White House itself. All efforts to characterize what happened as simply a few rogue FBI agents coloring outside the lines will be for naught. Some of the most powerful people in this country — men and women — who thought they had the right to decide for themselves who could sit in the Oval Office may well be headed for prison.
And, so, a line must be drawn. An IG report noting procedural errors and abuse of process is one thing. Suggestions that FISA court procedures be modified can be considered. A full accounting for how and by whom the first attempted coup in American history was carried out cannot be allowed.
Judge Sullivan, a Bill Clinton appointee, has drawn the line. No matter that General Flynn was railroaded, his reputation destroyed, and his family subjected to unimaginable psychological abuse. The inquiry will not be allowed to proceed any further. An “accounting” for the immensity of the abuse of power that begins with overturning Flynn’s conviction is far too likely to take us deep into the halls of power.
Limits must be set. If that means perverting the entire American system of justice, so be it. The inquiry has come this far, and it will go no further.