The founders and framers of our nation, in their wisdom, were careful to separate certain powers to protect citizens from abuse. This snake of a judge is precisely WHY those powers were divided.
The legal system involves a series of carefully-considered responsibility hand-offs, working like a relay-race. One agency is responsible for collecting evidence and deciding whether there is enough of a case to press charges. Another entity is responsible for the process of leading a prosecution in a courtroom or negotiating plea bargain arrangements… among other things.
A judge or a jury plays no role in any of those, but is responsible for hearing arguments on both sides, and then making a ruling on the guilt or innocence based on the arguments brought forward by the prosecution and defense. As the most recent addition to the august membership of SCOTUS observed (emphasis added):
“My fellow Americans: Even though we judges don’t face elections, we still work for you,” Barrett promised after she was sworn in. “It is your Constitution that establishes the rule of law and the judicial independence that is so central to it. The oath that I have solemnly taken tonight means at its core that I will do my job without any fear or favor, and that I will do so independently of both the political branches and of my own preferences. I love the Constitution and the democratic republic that it establishes — and I will devote myself to preserving it.” –WashingtonExaminer
The oath sworn by the jackass who presided over the Flynn case had a similar pledge to rule impartially, that was obviously disregarded by the black-robed autocrat.
Jonathan Turley explained it this way:
Gen. Michael Flynn’s three-year odyssey in the criminal justice system finally came to an end this week with the long-delayed dismissal of his case in federal court. Ultimately, it took a presidential pardon to compel Judge Emmet Sullivan to release Flynn from the seemingly inescapable vortex of his docket. Yet Sullivan still decided to effectively declare Flynn guilty to the whole world – a final gratuitous act from a court long criticized for using Flynn to criticize President Trump and his administration.
…However, Sullivan held a hearing that could best be described as bewildering. He used the courtroom flag as a prop to accuse Flynn of being an “unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser” and to suggest that Flynn could be charged with treason – crimes not brought against him. Sullivan then declared: “I cannot assure you that if you proceed today, you will not receive a sentence of incarceration. I am not hiding my disgust and my disdain.”
Sullivan apologized for some of his comments but, in two additional sentencing hearings, he continued to refuse to sentence Flynn. Flynn must have felt like Gollum’s “precious” ring. Sullivan simply refused to part with the case. When the Justice Department dropped the charges, the case should have been immediately dismissed. Instead, Sullivan took the extraordinary step of appointing an outside lawyer, John Gleeson, to argue against dismissal of the case. Gleeson is a former federal judge who not only had made public remarks on the case critical of the Trump administration but, as a judge, was reversed for usurping the role of prosecutors.
…Months then passed; Sullivan seemed to be awaiting a new administration and a new chance to prosecute Flynn, post-election. In response, Trump pardoned Flynn.
So, on Tuesday, Sullivan decided to skip a trial and just declare Flynn guilty. Claiming, bizarrely, that dismissing the case after charges were dropped by prosecutors was a “close question,” he reluctantly accepted that the pardon meant there literally was no crime to prosecute. Yet, he proceeded to prove the case against Flynn and declared “a pardon does not necessarily render ‘innocent’ a defendant of any alleged violation of the law.” Of course, it also does not mean he is guilty.
Sullivan faced certain reversal if he did not dismiss the case after charges were dropped. While he acknowledged that he is not supposed to “second-guess” charging decisions, he not only substituted his own judgment but issued an effective decision on the merits. –MSN
He wanted to be judge.
This man has clearly shown himself unworthy of the robes he wears.
If he wants to behave as a prosecutor rather than a judge, he should lay down his robes and go back to practicing law. He clearly doesn’t possess the impartial temperament requisite of serving as a judge.