Flynn judge and his liberal lawyer plead delay
The judge and the liberal lawyer at the center of the Michael Flynn case filed a brief on Monday, as required by the D.C. Circuit Court of appeals, answering why the judge has not dismissed the case at the request of the prosecutors.
Previously Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. A subsequent investigation, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ), revealed no basis for the original investigation, thus no crime.
The DOJ moved a routine motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, which was refused by presiding judge Emmett Sullivan.
The DOJ then filed for relief from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to force Sullivan to dismiss the case. The Appeals Court required Sullivan to explain himself by June 1.
Essentially, the brief filed by Sullivan and his attorney on June 1 argued that the dismissal of the case could be slowed down without prejudice to Gen. Flynn.
Because of the unusual nature of the case (i.e. involving Trump) the judge is questioning the motivation of the DOJ in seeking a dismissal. He wants time to consider why the DOJ is now dropping the case.
At issue is whether the judge can replace the executive authority of the DOJ in finding someone else to prosecute the case when the prosecutor says it will no longer pursue it.
The DOJ argues, amongst other things, that by ignoring the department’s intentions in the case, the judge assumes executive authority as a prosecutor which is a violation of the separation of powers.
On the other side, Sullivan’s lawyer, “retired federal judge John Gleeson, has openly criticized the Trump administration’s handling of Flynn’s case, raising concerns that he was selected to improperly bolster Sullivan’s efforts to keep the Flynn case going even though both the government and defendant want it dismissed,” reports Fox News.
In an op-ed run two days before his selection by the Flynn judge, Gleeson and other partners at his firm signaled that they thought Sullivan had wide discretion to delay the request by the DOJ to dismiss the case: “If prosecutors attempt to dismiss a well-founded prosecution for impermissible or corrupt reasons, the people would be ill-served if a court blindly approved their dismissal request.”
Additionally, they argued that the decision to drop the case “reeks of improper political influence.”
As the New York Post observed: “Gleeson’s op-ed makes it clear where he stands, as he asserts that reversing Flynn’s guilty plea on lying to the FBI over his 2016 contacts with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak would ‘smack of impropriety.’”
And if Judge Sullivan’s appointment of Gleeson and Gleeson’s op-ed both don’t smack of impropriety, they at least smack of collusion to delay dismissal of the case and delay Michael Flynn’s bid to be free.
Scroll down to comment!