Thursday on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” conservative radio talker Mark Levin slammed U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, the judge presiding over the case of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
Earlier in the week, the Department of Justice dropped its case against Flynn. However, Sullivan has resisted the Justice Department decision, to which Levin attributed to Sullivan’s stance against President Donald Trump.
Levin called on Sullivan to recuse or resign if he insisted on allowing political views t guide his decisions.
Partial transcript as follows:
LEVIN: It’s worse than that. Judges are human beings. They are imperfect human beings. When you look at judges over history, some have been great, some have been morons, some have been freedom fighters, some have been racists, some bigots and corrupt, and I’m just talking about the Supreme Court justices.
What’s happened here — we have an imperfect human being, he’s a flesh and blood, and he obviously hates Trump and honestly loves the Obama administration because that’s what’s going on here. This is the Obama administration against the incoming Trump administration, the Trump candidacy and the Trump presidency. It is an absolute disgrace.
Now, I want to remind this judge of a couple of things. You like to be called, “Your Honor, Your Honor.” You’re an American citizen, and it is your job to protect what goes on in that courtroom, and protect the defendant, protect the defendant.
Under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, Fourth Amendment, Judge, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seen.
Put aside this counterintelligence crap. That was a fiction from day one. Mr. Flynn is first and foremost an American citizen, as is everybody else who has been unmasked by the Obama administration. They used the surveillance of the Russian ambassador, and I suspect many others as an excuse to backdoor their way into eavesdropping on American citizens, particularly those who work for the Trump administration, in clear violation of the purpose, intent of the Bill of Rights and the Fourth Amendment.
Let me explain another amendment to the judge that would be amendment Five, the Fifth Amendment. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law.
How the hell can you look at the documents that have been released recently on what the government did, specifically the Obama administration did to Michael Flynn, among others, and say that there was due process of law?
You have these phony former federal prosecutors, these phony former Democrats who work in the Justice Department, you have the clowns on TV who are splitting hairs. He pleaded guilty. He pleaded guilty. The man never had due process under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
Now let me help out the judge a little bit further. You need what is called a Taser controversy. You don’t have a case, and you don’t have a controversy. The parties have dropped out. The parties want to get out.
You don’t have the right to continue to do what you are doing, so what does the judge do? I don’t like what the parties are doing. Oh, what are you doing, Judge? I don’t like it. I’m going to invite anyone who’s going to file underneath this brief. A homeless guy, the guy at the fryer at McDonald’s.
And specifically, I’m going to ask another former judge also appointed by Clinton as this judge was — I loved his op-ed in “The Washington Post” on Monday. He says I have all this power. I can ignore the executive branch and separation of powers. I can do whatever I want. I want him to send me a brief and tell me, tell me what I can do — in other words, another backdoor way to violate the Constitution.
Judge, you expect me to follow your rulings and your opinions? Do you think you are the law? The United States Supreme Court as Sean just alluded to, last week, in the unanimous decision, that will be 9-0, written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, took a situation like this with the Ninth Circuit was using amicus curiae, a friend of court briefs, to change the nature and position the case, not what the parties were fighting over but what the court wanted them to fight over.
So, this judge is a rogue judge. He’s out of control, he should recuse himself, but he is too arrogant and he won’t.
So, let me make a suggestion to the folks over there at the Department of Justice. They’ve got a lot of smart attorneys in the office of legal counsel and elsewhere. I used to work at that grand Department of Justice before the left destroyed it.
It’s called a writ of prohibition. It’s almost never used because we almost never have situations like this, and you file with the appellate court, the D.C. Circuit Court, an appellate court’s order to a lower code prohibiting it from acting because of lacks jurisdiction.
This judge lacks jurisdiction to do what he is doing, according to the United States Supreme Court last week, according to the United States Constitution. And if he wants to be an Obama flunky and a “Never Trumper,” then take your black robe off, Judge, leave the courtroom and join the rest of us.
But if you’re not going to conduct yourself like a serious judge, you need to either recuse yourself, resign, or the department has to go over his head to the D.C. Circuit and get him the Hill off this case. That’s it.
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor