John Gleeson, the retired judge whom Emmet Sullivan, judge in Michael Flynn’s case, tasked with writing a review and recommendation of Barr’s demand (he calls it a request) to dismiss the Flynn case, has completed his report. Michael Flynn committed perjury but should not face contempt hearing, court-appointed counsel finds
The main reason for this recommendation is that, while the court has the authority to start contempt proceedings, it should instead factor this perjury into Flynn’s sentence.
“I respectfully recommend, however, that the Court not exercise that authority. Rather, it should take Flynn’s perjury into account in sentencing him on the offense to which he has already admitted guilt. This approach — rather than a separate prosecution for perjury or contempt — aligns with the Court’s intent to treat this case, and this Defendant, in the same way it would any other.”
Standard stuff. What’s more interesting is what Gleeson — a highly respected former prosecutor and judge — has to say about the DOJ filing:
In his argument, Gleeson said the government’s “ostensible grounds” for seeking dismissal were “conclusively disproven” by its own earlier briefs; contradict the court’s prior orders and positions it has taken in other cases, and “are riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact.”
Gleeson also called the request “a gross abuse of prosecutorial power,” concluding that Sullivan should continue hearing the case through sentencing.
Inexplicable. Riddled with errors. ELEMENTARY errors. Gross abuse of power. In other words, typical for the Trump maladminstration.
The full amicus curiae brief is here.
This is a Creative Commons article. The original version of this article appeared here.