Court-appointed advisory blasts ‘corrupt’ DOJ move to drop Flynn case


Gleeson’s brief is the latest development in a complex legal saga that spans almost three years. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak in the weeks before the election in December 2017. Later, after collaborating with Special Counsel Robert Mueller for nearly two years, Flynn moved to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging that he had been set up by the FBI and to be convicted by rogue prosecutors was forced.

In May, the Justice Department adopted some of Flynn’s pleas and moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the FBI had no valid reason to interrogate Flynn, when director James Comey in January 2017 Two agents were sent to the White House for their talks with Kislyak.

Sullivan’s decision cannot easily dismiss the government’s proposal, instead appointing Gleason to argue against it and scheduling a hearing on the issue, with Flynn’s lawyers ordering Sullivan to close Prompted an unusual petition to be filed in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. On behalf of the prosecution.

The initial three judges appealed a 2-1 court panel split in favor of accepting Flynn’s request, but a Sullivan lawyer challenged that decision, and a full bench of the DC Circuit later called it an 8-2 ruling. I turned.

While many judges of the appeal clearly suspected Sullivan had no other option but to approve the government’s proposal to drop the case, those skeptics did not excuse Gleeson. If anything, it burns with much more fervor in the government and Flynn than in his former filings.

In his new brief, Gleeson asserts that the DOJ has never accepted one of Flynn’s central points: that his guilty plea was the product of prosecution misconduct. And that discrepancy, he says, tore up the cover on the pretext of dismissing the case.

Gleeson also argued that Flynn should be punished for additional “derogatory” statements during earlier proceedings in the case, such as claiming in court under oath that he was not guilty. She has claimed that the prosecution threatened to prosecute her son Michael Flynn Jr. if he pleaded not guilty – a dispute the DOJ dismissed.

“[I]Describing Ann Florne’s prosecution malpractice claims as ‘baseless’, the government clarifies that no prosecution misconduct, coercion or clandestine dealings occurred, “Gleason argues.” Thus, its Rule 48 (a) proposal In defense of, the government confirms that Flynn not only lies to this Court, but continues to submit false allegations of prosecutorial misconduct to excuse his false denial of the crime. “

The Department of Justice has argued that once the case was decided to be dismissed, Sullivan had no way to consider alternative options. Prosecution without prosecution, he said, would be a violation of segregation of powers. And despite accusations of corrupt motives behind the motion to dismiss, the DOJ has emphasized that the lawsuit does not circumvent specific estimates of legality to provide Sullivan with legitimacy.

Under the rules governing federal courts, prosecutors can proceed to dismiss a criminal case “with leave of court.” Such intent is regularly given, but the circumstances under which a judge may reject such a request are the subject of heated debate.

But Gleeson said the DOJ’s argument is “a parade of false formalities that would reduce this Court to a rubber stamp,” a position she said would be untenable and should be rejected.

Leave a Reply