[Rockingham]

Perhaps, but in spite of Judge Sullivan's comment, he has not initiated a contempt charge against Flynn, and if he did, he would risk compromising his judicial role by becoming a prosecutor. Moreover, the fatuity of any such contempt charge is easily demonstrated because it assumes that Flynn was innocent but lied about his guilt in order to get the benefit of a plea bargain.

In a contempt charge on those grounds, Judge Sullivan would have to aim to punish an innocent man whom the prosecution induced to falsely plead guilty. Yet courts have long prioritized getting to the truth of guilt or innocence instead of trying to penalize a defendant for a false guilty plea.

Indeed, prosecutors often come in for sharp criticism when they threaten a defendant or witnesses with perjury charges in order to maintain a questionable guilty plea or verdict. It is hard to see how a judge can engage in such conduct without correction by the appellate courts or suffering judicial misconduct charges.

[Cboldt]

-- ... if he did, he would risk compromising his judicial role by becoming a prosecutor --

The criminal contempt precedents are an interesting study, because of that unique quality. yet the caes law allows this supposed risk to impartiality, ironically on the grounds that judges are impartial, and must be allowed to defend that, as well as defend the integrity of the judicial process as a whole. It is an extreme power, to be used in extreme circumstances.

And it is used. There are plenty of cases. None that I know of for withdrawing a guilty plea.

-- In a contempt charge on those grounds, Judge Sullivan would have to aim to punish an innocent man whom the prosecution induced to falsely plead guilty. --

The legal mumbo jumbo for criminal contempt is "to protect the integrity of the judicial process." yes, I know its a crule joke, but that's what star chambers do.

-- courts have long prioritized getting to the truth of guilt or innocence --

Looks good on paper, but it's not the real world. Judges are petty tyrants for the most part, and don't you dare forget it. Samre for judicial misconduct - that is for "way out there" behavior, and Sullivan and the DC Ciruit are not so stupid as to obviously go that far. What makes this case different is that it has larger public awareness than most. Otherwise, i donb't think this sort of judicial conduct is all that uncommon. Not the norm, to be sure, but not rare. Look at how Congress behaves. Courts are not much different. Self-important arrogant people, with power.