Getting bad news from the D.C. Court of Appeals today, 62-year-old former National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn must face more judicial review in the courtroom of 73-year-old District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan. Sullivan had his trial of Flynn rudely interrupted by 70-year-old Atty. Gen. William Barr when he ordered Flynn’s case dismissed June 1, prompting cries from the press that 74-year-old President Donald Trump interfered with the criminal justice system. When a three-judge panel upheld Barr’s motion June 24 for dismissal, Sullivan moved for full review July 9 by the D.C. Appellate Court. Ruling 8-2 today, the D.C. Appellate Court ruled remanded the case back to Sullvan for final disposition. Flynn was charged and convicted of lying to FBI agents when he said Jan. 24, 2017 that he had no contact with Russian intelligence during the transition period, .
Flynn and former 69-year-old Russian Amb. Sergey Kislyak had their conversations wiretapped during the transition and unmasked by 55-year-old former National Security Adviser Susan Rice. Rice confirmed to the House Intelligence Committee under oath Sept. 18, 2018 that she unmasked Flynn’s conversations during the transition period with Kislyak. Rice said former President Barack Obama was concerned that Flynn violated the arcane 1799 Logan Act, forbidding a private citizen from conducting U.S. foreign policy. When former President Barack Obama ousted 35 Russian diplomats Dec. 30, 2016 to protest Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, U.S.-Russian relations hits 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis lows, prompting 74-year-old President Donald Trump to ask Flynn during the transition period as incoming National Security Adviser to help mend fences.
Flynn was snared in 75-year-old former FBI Director Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel investigation, charging him of lying to federal investigators when asked if he had contacts with Russian intelligence during the transition period. Flynn didn’t think his conversations with Kislyak, a staple for 20 years a Washington cocktail parties, would qualify as Russian intelligence. Rice certainly thought Kislyak was connected to Russian intelligence enough to tap his phones under the Patriot Act, allowing government officials to wiretap foreign nationals living in the United States. Pressured by the Department of Justice to cut a plea deal on lying to federal prosecutors, Flynn decided ito plea, as the path of least resistance, having run out of cash, forced to sell his home to pay legal bills Flynn’s 2017 plea to one count of lying to FBI agents stood until Flynn’s 67-year-old attorney Sidney Powell withdrew his plea.
Today’s decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals puts the ball back in Sullivan’s court. After all the machinations, you’d think Sullivan would want to drop the case, considering he going against the DOJ’s recommendation. Barr recommended dismissal because recently declassified documents prove that Flynn was set up by 60-year-old former FBI Director James Comey who ordered former FBI Agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientko interview Flynn without notice at the White House Jan. 24, 2017, only four days after Trump;
‘s inauguration. Barr reveals personal notes of Strzok showing that Comey set a perjury trap for Flynn, who didn’t know his private conversations with Kislyak were wiretapped. Yet Judge Sullivan acted like he didn’t know the context in which Flynn was set up by Comey. Barr felt strongly enough about FBI misconduct to recommend dismissal.
Sullivan now gets his opportunity to do the right thing knowing Barr’s recommendation and new information about Flynn’s handling by the FBI and Mueller’s investigation. “We have no trouble answer that question in the negative,” wrote the D.C. Appeals Court, leaving it now to Sullivan to do the right thing. Prosecutors on Mueller’s team, especially former U.S. Atty. Andrew Weissmann, knew the underhanded tactics used by the FBI to entrap Flynn. It’s now Sullvan’s call to dismiss the case or schedule more hearings. If Sullivan were to uphold the prior ruling, Flynn would most likely receive and presidential pardon, something that would make a mockery of proceedings in Sullivan’s courtroom. Barr made clear to Sullivan’s court that the FBI did not have probable cause when Comey ordered Strzok and Pientko to go to the White House Jan. 24, 2017 to interview Flynn.
Sullivan has a golden opportunity to now reach the same conclusions as Barr, that the FBI had no basis for interviewing Flynn because he did nothing wrong talking to Kislyak. Transcripts to a Jan. 5, 2026 Oval Office meeting show that, whether or not Flynn was entrapped by the FBI, the transcript of Flynn’s “unmasked” conversations with Kislyak show that he did nothing wrong. Barr recognized this an tried his best, not to placate Trump but to serve the interest of justice. Concerned that Comey stretched FBI rules to the breaking point, U.S. Atty John Durham (R-Conn.) currently investigates Comey’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump’s 2016 campaign. Barr said April 11, 2019 that Comey spied on Trump’s campaign, something Comey emphatically denied. But without appropriate probable cause, Comey breached DOJ and FBI policy.
