The DOJ responding to prodding by AG Bill (B2) Barr, has dropped its case against Gen. Flynn in the Washington, D.C. circuit court.

The DOJ vacated the charges against Flynn, refusing to prosecute him on the frame-up orchestrated under Barr's predecessors, including J. Sessions. The "evidence of guilt" has been totally destroyed. Some, like the initial hand-written FBI 302s have been lost. Other 302's have been edited by amongst others, Lisa Page, who was not a percipient witness to any involved interviews and would not be so, since she was not an investigator, but only a legal advisor in the FBI.

Brandon Van Grack, lead persecutor of Flynn, who apparently has now "lawyered up" to protect himself for willful violations of Judge Sullivan's explicit admonition that the DOJ MUST supply the defendant and the court with Brady material, indicative of possible exculpatory evidence. Sullivan was once painfully sucked into a case brought by elements of the USG in which significant Brady material was knowingly withheld by the USG.

Okay, now. This should be simple. No plaintiff exists, since Uncle Sam withdrew from pursuing prosecution. Easy, peasy. Let Flynn off the hook and let him and the country go about its business.

But no. Anything for a stall. First "the Watergate prosecutors" want to file an amicus curiae brief advising the court that Flynn committed perjury or at least admitted guilt or some such legal nonsense.

The effect of the Amicus brief would simply be to delay the inevitable. The Watergate prosecutors, now 40+ years past their prime, just wish to delay the inevitable. They have nothing factual to offer than legal opinions. These opinions involve whether a guilty plea can be vacated and the quibbles.

Look at Judge Emmet Sullivan's official biography.

He is a true child of the swamp. Nominated at various times by the following cast of ne'erdowells: GHW Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan. Before ascending to the bench, he was a partner in al law firm noted to be a judge factory:

In 1973, Judge Sullivan joined the law firm of Houston & Gardner. He subsequently became a partner and was actively engaged in the general practice of law with that firm until August 1980, when his law partner, William C. Gardner, was appointed as an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Thereafter, Judge Sullivan was a partner in the successor firm of Houston, Sullivan & Gardner. Over the years, ten lawyers from the Houston law firm went on to become judges.

Now if that ain't swamp born and bred, then ain't nothing else is.

So, before we sing: "It's all over now", take note of Judge Emmet's mind whirring about delay, delay delay:

Federal judge mulls contempt charge against Michael Flynn

A federal judge is signaling that he might pursue perjury or contempt charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn over his effort to abandon a guilty plea to a charge of lying to the FBI.

The Justice Department moved last week to drop the prosecution of Flynn launched by special counsel Robert Mueller, but U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan slammed the brakes on that effort by announcing Wednesday evening that he is appointing a former federal judge to argue against the government’s unusual bid to dismiss the case against an ally of President Donald Trump.

Sullivan’s order also directed the retired judge, John Gleeson, to recommend whether Flynn should face a criminal contempt charge for perjury — apparently for declaring under oath at two different court proceedings that he was guilty of lying to the FBI, before he reversed course in January and claimed he had never lied.

Sullivan’s announcement appears to shatter the hopes of Flynn’s defense team that the court case will quickly fade away. Instead, the retired general who spent a little more than three weeks as national security adviser before being fired by Trump faces a legal brawl that could drag on for months.

Gleeson, who was appointed to the federal bench in New York by President Bill Clinton and retired to enter private practice in 2016, has already staked out a position deeply skeptical of Attorney General William Barr’s decision to abandon the Flynn prosecution. The ex-judge co-authored an op-ed earlier this week that decried the move.

The case isn't over until the judge says it's over

Here's the reasoning:

The department’s motion to dismiss the Flynn case is actually just a request — one that requires “leave of the court” before it is effective. The executive branch has unreviewable authority to decide whether to prosecute a case. But once it secures an indictment, the proceedings necessarily involve the judicial branch. And the law provides that the court — not the executive branch — decides whether an indictment may be dismissed. The responsible exercise of that authority is particularly important here, where a defendant’s plea of guilty has already been accepted. Government motions to dismiss at this stage are virtually unheard of.

But because such a maneuver vacating an existing guilty plea is virtually unheard of, does that mean it is illegal. Is there any legal precedent for such a move being illegal? If there isn't, then due to absence of precedent, there is nothing besides bias to delay the exoneration of Gen. Flynn.