20

T

here is an old adage among lawyers: “If the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if the law is on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table.”

John Gleeson, the attorney and retired federal judge who was appointed by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to argue that federal prosecutors should not be permitted to dismiss their case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, is using a sledgehammer to pound paper.

On Wednesday, Gleeson filed a 72-page brief (an oxymoron, to be sure) that was stunningly feeble on both facts and law. To compensate for his anemic arguments, he tortures the reader with overwrought blather that bears little relevance to the main issue at hand.

Perhaps Gleeson was hoping the court would simply weigh his submission on a scale and award him the prize for mindless verbosity.

I don’t recommend reading the document. A root canal sans Novocain would be less painful.

I don’t recommend reading the document. A root canal sans Novocain would be less painful. But the core of Gleeson’s argument can be found on Page 26, where he asserts – without a shred of credible evidence – that “prosecutors have offered pretextual reasons for dismissal,” and “there is clear evidence of gross prosecutorial abuse.”

Gleeson’s inane reasoning is that President Trump has tweeted about the Flynn case, so there must be corruption afoot. Gleeson offers no real proof, of course. But he offers enough innuendo and supposition to fill a dumpster.

Gleeson contends that the “decision to dismiss is based solely on the fact that Flynn is a political ally of Trump” (Page 38). In other words, guilt by association should be good enough to send Flynn to the hoosegow.

Conveniently, Gleeson glosses over the real reasons the Justice Department decided to end the Flynn case: that special counsel prosecutors engaged in egregious misconduct by hiding exculpatory evidence of Flynn’s innocence and that the government “no longer believes it could secure a conviction at trial.”

Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying during an FBI interview about his contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. However, he recently sought to withdraw the plea and said he is innocent.

The Justice Department asked Judge Sullivan to drop the case against Flynn after the department conducted a comprehensive review and determined that the charges against the retired Army lieutenant general were without legal merit and should never have been brought in the first place.

Gleeson couldn’t care less. Never mind that the FBI had no legitimate basis to even interview Flynn, but snookered him into a conversation under false pretenses. Forget the fact that the two FBI agents who met with him determined that he was not lying at all and was not an agent of Russia. Those reasons more than justified a dismissal of the case.

There was no basis to believe Flynn committed a crime. Yet, Gleeson repudiates all these facts by cavalierly labeling them “preposterous.”

Much of Gleeson’s 72-page screed is an unconscionable smear of Flynn over his decision to capitulate to a coerced guilty plea. Naturally, the ex-judge ignores how unscrupulous members of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team of hyper-partisans threatened to prosecute Flynn’s son under an inflated interpretation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Gleeson calls these “scattershot allegations,” even though the threats that animated the forced plea were deliberately concealed from the trial court.

But Gleeson doesn’t stop there. In addition to declaring that “Flynn’s guilt is plain” (who needs a jury trial?), he argues that the retired three-star general clearly committed perjury by attempting to withdraw his original guilty plea. Gleeson seems oblivious to the established doctrine that a coerced confession is no confession at all. And neither is an involuntary plea.

To Gleeson, following the rule of law is “empty formalism and bureaucratese” (Page 43). The FBI’s nefarious design to get Flynn to lie so he could be prosecuted or fired is not a “cognizable defense,” Gleeson claims.

Really?

Since when is evidence that a defendant was set-up and framed by the government not a defense? It is truly frightening that Gleeson once served as a federal prosecutor and, later a judge.

Gleeson is nothing if not a hypocrite. When he was on the bench he issued a memo and order stating that “the government has near-absolute power to extinguish a case that it has brought.” Citing well-established case law, the then-judge maintained that “it is entirely clear that the refusal to prosecute cannot be the subject of judicial review.”

Now Gleeson is arguing against himself. No surprise there.

Neither the facts nor the law are on Gleeson’s side – and he surely knows it. So, like a lawyer with a losing case, he has resorted to pounding the table. No one should pay attention to his contrived noise.

Why Dems are using ‘inane reasoning’ on maintaining case against Michael Flynn

Previous article

Former FBI Agent Peter Strzok Part of Durham Inquiry Into Russia Probe

Next article

20 Comments

  1. Well, here’s hoping that the DC Circuit Panel who ORDERED Judge Sullivan to justify his decision/authority see it that way.

    They should dismiss this pile of paper as nothing more than a waste of trees.

    I didn’t read the filing, but how does he justify Sullivan’s “amicus brief” decision given the recent SCOTUS decision? (U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith, May 13, 2020)

    If Sullivan’s filing (Gleeson) is completely without law/merit, I certainly hope that this panel slaps Sullivan very hard, along with granting Flynn’s dismissal.

    I don’t want the Circuit to remand this back to Sullivan since he’s proven he’s incapable of rendering impartial, sane judgement.

  2. Can you believe this POS should even be in the court Room obviously there is a big pay off.
    Again the Radical left is working hard or just NOT working in a CONSTITUTIONAL WAY

  3. THANK YOU

  4. Being that John Gleeson is a retired federal judge, this document throws into question his judgement, and raises the question of his judgement at the trials he presided over…

  5. i don’r really think it is any of that. i believe that sullivan got marching orders from either the dnc or obama himself and would rather risk his credibility as a judge than show disloyalty to the treasonous globalists of the nwo.

  6. 100% AGREE!! Perfect analogous example is Susan Rice hitting the Sunday morning talk shows to promote the video angle in Bengazi. Presumably, in addition to contributing to getting rid of Trump, there will be some reward once Trump is gone, i.e. Rice now being considered for Biden VP. Sullivan following the same playbook, risking his credibility and career to play along with dnc for reward sure to take place after the election.

  7. Time to end the Obama era corrupted conspiracy against Trump and all that supported him. Time to charge all that were part of the Obama era conspiracy, and time to bring in Obama himself and ask the questions of who asked for Flynn to be investigated, who started it. And if he names someone other tan himself, bring them in under oath and ask them the same questions. Someone would be lying if they said Obama didn’t want Flynn taken down, or used as a tool to try and remove Trump.

  8. Someone said (and I agree) that Sullivan has humiliated himself so often in the Flynn case, he seems to be flailing trying NOT to dismiss.Sullivan seemed to have a personal sense of umbrage against Flynn, but had to repeatedly walk back his misplaced anger/inappropriate comments. (Treason, sold your country out, etc)Keep in mind, there were numerous opportunities for Sullivan to dismiss this case.And remember: Sullivan even went so far as to deny a motion re: “Brady” material, claiming Flynn could not PROVE that this material would have made a difference. Ooops!Now comes the DoJ wanting to dismiss, leaving Sullivan with a sense of “retribution” – a need for “personal” revenge – feeling like Flynn is going to get away with humiliating HIM. (It’s his fault he made so many bad comments/decisions in this case.)So Sullivan has become a vigilante judge against Flynn, inviting a “mob” to submit reasons why he shouldn’t dismiss.And, as was mentioned in an earlier article, this may be Sullivan’s attempt to thwart a “disciplinary” process against him for his behavior in this case.No matter the reason, Sullivan has tarnished his judicial career with his behavior. If he had only handled himself with a sense of fairness and impartiality, instead of going into this case with some personal animus against Flynn, he would not now find himself in this Catch-22 position.If Sullivan was smart (no indication that he’s thinking clearly though), he’d go ahead with the dismissal, end this Panel review, and consider retirement. Pull the plug, and it all goes away, even if there’s a judicial review of his behavior in the offing.But, like most overtly self-righteous people who think they have a cause-de-jour, his “judicial vigilante” behavior is perpetuating his humiliation/problems.

  9. Another Anti-American OBAMA LOVER

  10. Investigate how Sullivan’s kids got off their criminal charges.

  11. Gen Flynn is a patriot and I hope he takes his revenge when all this OBAMA Corruption is finished with, this is sick what these filthy Leftist-Dems did to him.

  12. Barry in his “leaked” phone call instructed Sullivan to find some charges against Flynn…

  13. The longer the brief, the greater the obfuscation. If the facts & the law are on your side, you can afford to be brief.

    The Court of Appeal should not only rule against Judge Sullivan, but it should also suggest that he retire from the bench. Judge Sullivan has become a mockery of justice. He wouldn’t recognize justice if it slapped him in the face.

  14. I read Gleeson’s brief; it is fascinating reading and lays bare the overwhelming case against Flynn and the court’s responsibility to complete sentencing. Dismissal of a case the government has already won is unprecedented, also argued in the Tribe brief. Separation of powers and the integrity of the courts demands a resolution by the court. If Trump wants to pardon Flynn, that’s his choice but there is no denying he is twice guilty as charged.

  15. a statue of Gregg Jarrett should be erected on the Washington mall.

  16. The appeals court will reprimand the judge and dismiss the case. Sullivan will be lucky to keep his law license.

  17. Where is the conservative outrage to democrats’ obfuscation and patent judicial manipulation? Sullivan is a dirty judge (pity his mother didn’t have a miscarriage!), another Obama indigestible left-over that populate the DoJ like a pasture by trifoiled clover. US “justice” has become farcical in the hands of leftist radicals. Trump is too soft, he should start DoJ’s cleansing with a sterilizing mop…

  18. We shall see how justice — exposed as a fraud for all to see — is carried out. Can the DC court uphold Sullivan’s claims and get away with it?

    My bet is on the state.

  19. Sullivan and Gleeson are a disgrace to our legal system. Useful idiots for the DemocRAT’s anti-America agenda.

  20. ANd you are a lawyer who has really researched this whole fiasco from start to now????? I wish it was you that is in this fiasco. You evidently have no idea what truth and actual facts mean and of course, you are not researching what the left has done to try to get rid of our president. Present the facts that the left has done nothing to get rid of our president and then you might make a case against Flynn.

Comments are closed.