August 5, 2020 --

On July 21, the attorneys for Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell and Jesse Binnall, persuasively asked the D.C. appellate to  not return the Flynn matter to Judge Emmet Sullivan for further action, but to end Flynn's ordeal.   Among other things, the attorneys pointed out that there no longer is a case or controversy to act on, as both government and defendant seek the same thing: dismissal of this matter.  They suggested that, "in lay terms"  Judge Sullivan's conduct was comparable to an umpire in a baseball game demanding to go to bat "or run bases."   They also implied that Judge Sullivan is acting as though he "has a personal stake in the outcome of the case," and such conduct would require that he "recuse himself immediately."

LPR is writing this item early in the morning of July 23.  The appellate court should order dismissal of this matter by the time this comment is posted.  LPR hopes, in any event, that the appellate court, ruling en banc, does not return the matter of Judge Sullivan by a 7 - 4 majority, reflecting the political division on the court:  seven circuit judges were appointed by Democratic presidents, four by Republican presidents.   (Four by President Obama, three by President Clinton; two by President G.H.W. Bush, two by President Trump.) 

LPR submits that a decision along the party lines of the appointing presidents would simply emphasize the political nature of the Flynn proceeding.  A political result would hardly support the concept that we are governed  by the rule of law.

LPR further expects that a presidential pardon if the appellate court issued a political ruling would be justified, but would ignite outrage from the left that the pardon -- not a political ruling -- proves that President Trump does not abide by the rule of law.   

How The New York Times would thunder against the president on the eve of the Democratic National Convention. (Of course, they would do so in any event.)   

If the appellate court returns the Flynn matter to Judge Sullivan, perhaps rather than wait for a presidential pardon,  counsel for Flynn should appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court.   It would then be for Chief Justice Roberts to persuade his colleagues that a political ruling by the high court would be a grievous blow to the concept that ours is government by rule of law, not by men -- and in this case  the law  requires dismissal of the Flynn matter, over the apparent aims of men who want  inquisitorial injustice to decide the matter.