Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Court-Appointed Amicus John Gleeson Doesn’t Want Michael Flynn Charges Dropped

Court-Appointed Amicus John Gleeson Doesn’t Want Michael Flynn Charges Dropped

Two days before he was appointed by Judge Emmet Sullivan as “amicus” Gleeson wrote a WaPo Op-ed expressing a similar view, so Sullivan appointed someone Sullivan knew would give Sullivan the opinion he wanted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd9sHB6WMb0

In one of the least shocking developments in the otherwise shocking Michael Flynn case, ex-Judge John Gleeson who was appointed as Amicus by Judge Emmet Sullivan, has filed a vituperative Reply Brief arguing that the government should not be permitted to drop criminal charges against Flynn.

This comes after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in an en banc ruling, overturned a panel decision ordering Sullivan to grant the government motion as premature since Sullivan had not yet denied the motion to dismiss.

So Gleeson was given the green light to file his brief.  In his opening Brief (pdf.) in June, Gleeson argued against dismissal.

In his just filed Reply Brief (pdf.) Gleeson again argues, in particularly pungent language, among other things:

To describe the Government’s Motion to Dismiss as irregular would be a study in understatement. In the United States, Presidents do not orchestrate pressure campaigns to get the Justice Department to drop charges against defendants who have pleaded guilty twice, before two different judges—and whose guilt is obvious. And the Justice Department does not seek to dismiss criminal charges on grounds riddled with legal and factual error, then argue that the validity of those grounds cannot even be briefed to the Court that accepted the defendant’s guilty plea. Nor does the Justice Department make a practice of attacking its own prior filings in a case, as well as judicial opinions ruling in its favor, all while asserting that the normal rules should be set aside for a defendant who is openly favored by the President.

Yet that is exactly what has unfolded here. There is clear evidence that the Government’s Motion to Dismiss the case against Defendant Michael T. Flynn rests on pure pretext. There is clear evidence that this motion reflects a corrupt and politically motivated favor unworthy of our justice system. In the face of all this, the Government makes little effort to refute (or even address) the evidence exposing its abuses—and the arguments it does advance only further undermine its position. Instead, the Government invokes a parade of false formalities that would reduce this Court to a rubber stamp. The Government’s motion should therefore be denied.

Where have we heard a similar argument before? Oh, that’s right, the op-ed Gleeson wrote in WaPo on May 11, 2020, two days before he was appointed by Sullivan:

The Justice Department’s move to dismiss the prosecution of former national security adviser Michael Flynn does not need to be the end of the case — and it shouldn’t be. The Justice Department has made conflicting statements to the federal judge overseeing the case, Emmet G. Sullivan. He has the authority, the tools and the obligation to assess the credibility of the department’s stated reasons for abruptly reversing course….

Prosecutors deserve a “presumption of regularity” — the benefit of the doubt that they are acting honestly and following the rules. But when the facts suggest they have abused their power, that presumption fades. 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. The independence of the court protects us all when executive-branch decisions smack of impropriety; it also protects the judiciary itself from becoming a party to corruption….

There has been nothing regular about the department’s effort to dismiss the Flynn case. The record reeks of improper political influence….

Flynn’s guilt has already been adjudicated. So if the court finds dismissal would result in a miscarriage of justice, it can deny the motion, refuse to permit withdrawal of the guilty plea and proceed to sentencing.

Sullivan appointed someone Sullivan knew would give Sullivan the opinion Sullivan wanted.

The appointment of Gleeson, purportedly as a neutral amicus, was a farce. It’s was the type of bad faith which led the panel to question the propriety of Sullivan’s actions.

So now Sullivan gets to put on a show trial of the government’s dismissal of the charges. It’s not at all clear what Sullivan will do since the law is so clear that Sullivan has no choice in the matter, and can’t force the government to continue a prosecution. But in this “shocking” case, be prepared to be shocked not shocked.

Argument is September 29, 2020, at 11 a.m.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

The Friendly Grizzly | September 14, 2020 at 9:06 pm

Banana republic justice system.

Now Judge Sullivan will require at least eight weeks to consider this new information, no doubt, before he can rule on the motion to dismiss. Right?

    healthguyfsu in reply to clintack. | September 14, 2020 at 9:15 pm

    Of course

    Joe-dallas in reply to clintack. | September 15, 2020 at 10:40 am

    Gleason is making very solid legal arguments in support of the continued prosecution.

    The problem is those solid legal arguments are based on facts that dont exist.

    The problem further continues is that Sullivan and Gleason are fully aware of the corruption and malfeasence on the part of the FBI in the prosecution, yet they are proceeding based on facts that dont exist.

Sullivan would not like the results of crossing the “establishment” in a real banana republic…ask those in China, Venezuela, North Korea…..

” can’t force the government to continue a prosecution.”
*****
This situation get more and more strange. Flynn made a guilty plea twice so there is no prosecution or trial…Can’t Sullivan just sentence Flynn to whatever draconian punishment allow by law and then it’s on to appeals?

    Aggie in reply to SHV. | September 14, 2020 at 9:40 pm

    Isn’t it a prosecution until a verdict is rendered? And a verdict hasn’t been rendered yet, right? The judge got all excited, pressed his gown and oiled up his gavel, and WHAMMO. The Prosecution, in light of all the withheld exculpatory evidence being methodically revealed by the Defense, decided that they had made a mistake. That’s accurate – right?

      JimWoo in reply to Aggie. | September 14, 2020 at 10:36 pm

      You might have a point there. Got all excited about doing a solid favor for Saint Benito Milhouse Obama and had it stolen by a Trump team DOJ.

      Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Aggie. | September 15, 2020 at 8:39 am

      And a verdict hasn’t been rendered yet, right?

      Wrong. A verdict was rendered when Flynn accepted the plea deal negotiated by his original counsel and plead guilty to the crimes he was accused of and the court accepted that guilty plea. The trial is over, a verdict has been rendered (guilty) and the court is at the sentencing stage once all issues are resolved.

Sullivan is carrying Obama’s water here. It makes me wonder how much and how extensive the ex-parte contact has been between them about Flynn.

    Ex-parte contact? Even I know what that means.. I am sure there was none… because that would be wrong.

    (do I need to add that /s thing?)

Your missing some stuff here:

Technfog via Gateway:

Techno Fog
@Techno_Fog
Replying to @Techno_Fog
Gleeson was assisted in this Brief by David O’Neil (same firm)

O’Neil is the lawyer for Sally Yates.

Yates is a material witness to FBI/DOJ misconduct as to Flynn (and the Carter Page FISAs).

These briefs thus serve the interests of the firm’s client.

Breaking: Anti-Trump Judge and Weissmann Ally John Gleeson Files Reply Brief in Judge Sullivan’s Outlandish Persecution of General Michael Flynn

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/breaking-anti-trump-judge-weissmann-ally-john-gleeson-files-reply-brief-judge-sullivans-outlandish-persecution-general-michael-flynn/

southern commenter | September 14, 2020 at 9:57 pm

Worthless racist basturd.

I once saw a brand new Judge go this far off the rail. A friend of mine actually, but well outside her judicial experience in a very large complex case. Fortunately the case lasted for a couple years and the judge sought good judicial counsel and was able to reverse every poor decision she made prior to the case going to the jury.
Judge Sullivan and his friend are incapable of such judicial honor and wisdom.

“In the United States, Presidents do not orchestrate pressure campaigns … Yet that is exactly what has unfolded here.”

Have any facts supporting this been put in evidence? (The question is rhetorical. The judge is clearly insane.).

This affirmative action judge has done more with this case to undermine and foster distrust in our legal system than Soros himself. They can do anything to you. Bankrupt you, imprison you, ruin you for life on a whim. This judge needs to be dealt with, move his chambers to the shithouse.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to JimWoo. | September 15, 2020 at 8:53 am

    I guess the good judge’s thinking mirrors Thurgood Marshall. “Now, it’s our turn!” How much of this is just racial?

    DaveGinOly in reply to JimWoo. | September 15, 2020 at 2:06 pm

    Just think, a Joe Biden (or Kamala Harris) presidency and control of the Senate will give us more judges just like these two beauts.

I wonder what the Court of Appeals en bloc thinks now?

    Zumkopf in reply to alaskabob. | September 14, 2020 at 10:42 pm

    The DC Court of Appeals has a majority of its judges appointed by Obama. This is exactly the result they desired. They just want to get by the election and hope Biden wins. Then they can torture Flynn until he pleads guilty again and can ensure the evidence indicting the Obama Administration will never see the light of day.

How will this in kind contribution to Slow Joe’s Campaign be accounted for?

This fool/tool of a judge is using the new criteria for trial in the court of public opinion; preponderance of innuendo.

Get the popcorn this is going to be interesting from a legal arcana perspective and the relationship between Judge Sullivan and the DC Circuit. How will Sullivan try and pull off a way to ‘get’ Flynn when the Appellate Court basically just said ‘we won’t further embarrass you but take this ball back to the District Court, your Court and do the right thing’?

Unfortunately for Flynn and his family, they are certainly paying the price for other’s folly. I hate it for Flynn and his family but the end of this is near.

    clintack in reply to CommoChief. | September 15, 2020 at 3:49 pm

    If Trump isn’t reelected, all Sullivan has to do is drag his feet until January, when the DoJ will suddenly change its mind again and be in favor of prosecuting Flynn. (Or President Trump will pardon him — in which case there’s always an asterisk next to Flynn’s exoneration.)

Is this an opportunity to consider actions against a judge? Impeachment is a crude tool but federal judges that are so clearly biased should be penalized. How should this be done?

General Flynn and Sydney Powell should take up the offer made by Judge Sullivan and Mr. Gleeson.

What offer? Why, the offer to compel the government to make public more of its misconduct in this case. Ms. Powell can continue to file motions and compel the release of documents.

The government didn’t offer to drop the charges out of the goodness of its heart or because someone at DoJ thought that General Flynn was being wrongly prosecuted. No, they dropped the charges because Ms. Powell was getting traction on the misconduct. It was becoming an embarrassment.

So, let’s see some more. How about the first law firm that General Flynn engaged and the ‘deal’ it engineered? How about the prosecutor who just was forced to withdraw and then quit? And so on.

If Judge Sullivan hasn’t seen enough, show him some more. Turn the screws, Ms. Powell.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to stevewhitemd. | September 15, 2020 at 12:54 am

    The problem is that Flynn is drained of money and precious time. He is not a stool sitting in the corner while a distant and arcane spectacle unfolds. This is about him, and good legal representation does not come cheap. The legal abuse needs to stop. Having said that, it seems Sullivan, I shall not honor him with the title “judge,” intends to claim that since Flynn has already plead guilty before him, he may sentence Flynn no matter what the DoJ desires. Sullivan could opt for draconian punishment and remand Flynn immediately into custody. I assume this is Sullivan’s preferred and contemplated path.

The DOJ needs to step in here and present ALL of the evidence, including the evidence that the government lawyers were in collusion with the prosecution to force Flynn to plead guilty. Yes, people will be prosecuted as a result, including government employees. But that is the right thing for Barr to do. If he doesn’t, then we will know for sure which side he is on.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Angel. | September 15, 2020 at 8:29 am

    What in the world are you thinking. RINO AG Barr will sit on his fat butt and do nothing. Likes he’s done ever since being appointed Attorney General of the United States. He’ll allow Flynn to be railroaded into prison without a word. Guaranteed.

Let’s bring things up to date in this “trial.”

Defense: Withdraw plea, now plea not guilty based on DoJ/fbi corruption.

DoJ: Yeah, we agree with the defense, sorry, we had some bad actors.

(((insert mandamus farce here)))

Court (sullivan): Let me check with my buddy gleeson.

gleeson: Orqnge man bad!!!

Court: Orange man bad!?! Ima try this bish from the bench!!!

If the DoJ won’t press the case then who does??

    amwick in reply to mailman. | September 15, 2020 at 8:53 am

    What we are seeing is a farce, a legal ghost.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mailman. | September 15, 2020 at 11:24 am

    Sullivan argues the case is over. He only needs to sentence the person who confessed guilt. He is basically arguing that once a person pleads guilty, that person may not withdraw that motion. In addition, he argues that the judiciary has a right to decide if a case before it continues to move, once entered, regardless of the desire of either or both parties.

    Think of the civil court ramifications. Once parties file a dispute in the court, a judge could deny settlement and force both parties to resolution in court before a jury or even the judge himself, presumably at the judge’s sole discretion.

    Sullivan will sentence Flynn despite his protestations of innocence and refusal of DoJ to proceed. Sullivan has admission of guilt from Flynn and will not allow Flynn to change it. He does not need the DoJ.

    Next, the appeals court will reject Mandamus and state the proper route for relief by Flynn is appeal. The basis of appeal is that Sullivan rejected a motion by Flynn to vacate his plea of guilt and assert his innocence prior to sentencing.

    Meanwhile, Flynn goes to jail awaiting all this appellate action to resolve. Unless the bailiff refuses to carry out Sullivan’s order, I see Flynn going to jail. A true travesty that will harden hearts and minds that there are two tracks of justice, a kangaroo court for Republicans, and a free pass to Democrats.

So now Sullivan still must dismiss and look like a fool too. If Sullivan holds a hearing the DOJ simply fails to show up. End of story, except for Sullivan’s an impeachment hearing

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to kjon. | September 15, 2020 at 11:48 am

    Sullivan is arguing he does not need to dismiss since he has a plea of guilty from Flynn. All that is left is sentencing. He is saying a judge has discretion on acceptance of plea, or reversal. He would argue that what if a Defendant initially entered a plea of NOT GUILTY, but later, due to improper coercion from the prosecution or some external entity, changed his plea to guilty. Does he not then have the obligation to preserve the interests of Justice and not accept an innocent man’s coerced confession of guilt?

    This argument is fallacious when turned the other way, but he will assert the judge has a role in the preservation of the interest of Justice, and the court need not accept what it deems a corrupt bargain in any direction. At issue is the when and how a court may claim the presence of such a corrupt bargain, and what powers does the court have to investigate and explore that corruption.

    The argument from Sullivan is fallacious in the event of a man changing a plea from guilt to innocence because the interest of justice demands the innocent are not persecuted by the state. I have never heard of an instance when a Court rejected a change of plea when the prosecution did not object.

    By the way, people change their pleas even from prison, and are often released from prison due to that change and the introduction of new and compelling evidence. So the argument that a person cannot change a plea to innocence after making a plea of guilt is garbage.

    In the end, Flynn is going to jail, while rioters and looters do not. Such is the state of America today. It makes you wonder.

      So all sides are arguing that “corruption” is responsible for the situation. DOJ admits corruption in the prosecution. Flynn’s lawyers say there’s corruption on the bench. (The appellate court appears to have agreed, at least, that Sullivan is in error.) Gleeson says there’s corruption of the process by the White House.

      So everyone’s agreed that there’s corruption, they just don’t agree about where. Probably too late to declare a mistrial.

Kangaroos are even embarrassed by Sullivan

“If prosecutors attempt to dismiss a well-founded prosecution for impermissible or corrupt reasons,”
________________

A “well-founded prosecution”? This prosecution was founded on an attempt by FBI agents to frame Flynn, or get him fired, by the FBI agents’ own admissions in their own case notes. And how can the prosecution — for a LIE — be characterized as “well-founded” when the FBI agents themselves admitted that they concluded that Flynn had NOT lied to them?

And the so-called “corrupt reasons” for dismissing the case are pure bullshit. The DOJ didn’t decide to dismiss the case because Flynn is a friend of Trump, they decided to dismiss after an investigation turned up a mountain of evidence (wrongfully withheld from Flynn and his lawyers before Flynn made the decision about the plea) that showed that the prosecution was a frame-up from the start, that key pieces of evidence had been altered by the Obama DOJ to make Flynn look guilty, that the Obama prosecutors and Flynn’s first lawyers had perjured themselves to the court about the circumstances of the plea deal (wrongfully withholding the fact that the Obama DOJ had used a threat against Flynn’s son to pressure Flynn to accept the plea deal), and so much more.

    Joe-dallas in reply to Observer. | September 15, 2020 at 10:48 am

    “A “well-founded prosecution”? This prosecution was founded on an attempt by FBI agents to frame Flynn, or get him fired, by the FBI agents’ own admissions in their own case notes. And how can the prosecution — for a LIE — be characterized as “well-founded” when the FBI agents themselves admitted that they concluded that Flynn had NOT lied to them?”

    Both Sullivan & Gleason are fully aware that those facts supporting “well founded prosecution” are false – yet the want to continue the prosecution.

Didn’t SCOTUS rule recently that a judge cannot bring in witnesses or consultants to assist in a trial?

Looks like a big part of the amicus judge’s argument is that the DoJ must have submitted to pressure from Trump in deciding to drop the charges. Umm, isn’t the DoJ UNDER the president? It’s not an independent (unelected, fully autonomous) branch of government. How does this argument even begin to make sense?

Another thing, let’s say the actual judge refuses to drop the charges. What’s to stop the parties from saying, “fine, schedule a trial date”? Then, when the day arrives, they pick a jury, and in opening statements, the govt lawyer says, “we actually don’t have a case against the defendant. As far as we’re concerned, he’s innocent.” Then they rest without presenting any witnesses. What’s the judge going to do then?

    amwick in reply to Scrape. | September 15, 2020 at 8:55 am

    I was thinking, what if no one showed up at court? Your idea is much better..

    I’m not a lawyer, but even I can see the future in your hypothetical. He’d hold the prosecution in contempt, jail them, declare a mistrial, and drag the innocent defendant through more months of legal Hell.

    stevewhitemd in reply to Scrape. | September 15, 2020 at 11:02 am

    In this case Judge Sullivan can say that since General Flynn has pled guilty, there will be no trial. He simply refuses to let the general withdraw his plea and proceeds with sentencing.

    That he hasn’t done so yet is as clear an indication as you’ll ever need that the judge KNOWS how badly this stinks. He’s looking for cover. When the DOJ pulled out of the case it put him square on the spot, and he knows it. It’s simply not going to look good to ignore a withdrawn plea and a prosecution that (for its own nefarious internal reasons) no longer wants to prosecute.

    So what’s a judge to do? The whole point of getting an amicus brief, or ten, is to provide that cover. He can then sentence Flynn and perhaps even mandate incarceration while the appeals drag out over the next umpteen years. That will dare Trump to pardon or commute the sentence.

    And THAT, kids, is what the Left wants — it wants to force Trump into a pardon. It believes that Trump’s doing so will be bad for Trump, and might even be grounds for yet another impeachment.

    That’s wh we’re going through this farce. It’s all about 1) getting Trump and 2) making sure that anyone who works for Trump knows what can happen to them.

Such a contemptible farce, enabled and perpetuated by the D.C. Circuit dopes (save Judge Rao and one other ethical judge) who were too arrogant and elitist to criticize one of their own, and, to ever ponder such quaint notions as upholding basic procedural standards and judicial ethics, as well as protecting a defendant’s rights, from manifest judicial animus and psychotic rejection of a judge’s role as neutral and dispassionate arbiter.

Soviet show trials afforded a defendant more rights than what the vile zealot, Sullivan, is willing to grant Flynn.

No resolution for Flynn until Sullivan finds out if Pres. Biden gets to appoint a new AG.

As Andrew McCarthy sagely observed, over at National Review, the most troubling aspect of all this, from a broad legal standpoint, is the D.C. Circuit’s legitimizing the exceptionally rare practice of allowing amici to become involved in criminal cases. Especially amici holding obvious animus against the defendant. And, we can see why. Sullivan has cast off his robes, haughtily and arrogantly rejected his proper role as a dispassionate and neutral arbiter of the case, and, essentially appointed a de facto prosecutor, when the only Constitutionally-empowered prosecutor in the case, the federal government (via the Executive), wants to withdraw the charges. This is totalitarian, third-world show trial stuff.

Bad faith x 2
review of federal RPC’s and judicial conduct need to be reviewed, then Nifong both.

The problem here is one of timing (or at least Sullivan has made it so). The reveal of prosecutorial misconduct has voided sentences in the past. Maybe Flynn and DOJ should just allow Sullivan to issue a sentence. Then the DOJ restates the known misconduct and team Flynn files to chuck the case. That would be out of Sullivan’s hands and with the admission of DOJ (the defense not having to extract or prove anything) should make the process a cakewalk compared to what Flynn is going through now.

Question for the legal eagles (and falcons and the few vultures):
If the entire case was predicated upon an interview with Flynn that itself had no predicate, isn’t everything proceeding from that lack of predicate likewise null? Isn’t this whole process tainted ab initio? Everyone is talking about what should be done now. What about what shouldn’t be done because none of it should have happened?

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to DaveGinOly. | September 16, 2020 at 11:50 am

    There a “doctrine” called “cat out of the bag.” If I am interviewing you on one matter with sound predicate and you volunteer something that implicates you in a crime in another mater, that can be used against you to investigate and prosecute you on that matter even if not under oath or advised of your rights.

    However, in this case, Flynn did not admit or allude to any criminal activity during the interview which was set up as predicate to get him to say something at variance with a known record, recording of the Russian Ambassador’s call, so Flynn could be charged with lying to the FBI agents. This is an interview without predicate as it was constructed to attempt to create a crime. The salient fact is that there is no original record of the interview with Flynn. The only existing record was completed long after the interview and was heavily edited by people not present at the interview. Therefore, there is no way the state can possibly claim Flynn is guilty of lying. When the interviewing agents asserted Flynn was not showing signs of deception and assessed he was being truthful, seniors to those agents simply altered the evidence. This is the crime in this case.

Gleeson is claiming to be something other than a prosecutor: he is acting as an “expert,” but one who shows not only a clear animus to the defendant but to the whole Administration, the leadership of the Justice Department, and the President of the United States. By using such intemperate language, he has just disqualified his legal ‘opinion’ as anything other than editorializing by a naked partisan. This just reveals how correct the two judges on the panel were and how disingenuous the majority of the DC Circuit was in the en banc hearing. These Democrats are all possessed by some sort of highly contagious hysteria.

It appears that the political bias this “judge” exhibits has made him brain dead to obvious law affecting innocent people. Obviously, his bias has destroyed his integrity….if he ever had any….he apparently continues to live on the “democrat plantation” where he is “safe” from making difficult decisions………

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend