Retired federal judge John Gleeson was recently appointed by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to argue against dismissal of the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and to advise him on whether the court should substitute its own charge of charge for Flynn for now claiming innocence. I have been highly critical of Sullivan’s orders and particularly the importation of third parties to make arguments that neither party supports in a criminal case. Now Gleeson has filed a brief that confirms the worst fears that many of us had about his appointment. Gleeson assails what he called “a trumped-up accusation of government misconduct.” The ultimate position advocated in Gleeson’s arguments would be a nightmare for criminal defendants, criminal defense counsel and civil libertarians. Indeed, as discussed below, Gleeson was previously reversed as a judge for usurping the authority of prosecutors.
Gleeson actually makes the Red Queen in “Alice in Wonderland” look like an ACLU lawyer. After all she just called for “Sentence First–Verdict Afterward” Gleeson is dispensing with any need for verdict on perjury, just the sentence. However, since these arguments are viewed as inimical to the Trump Administration, many seem blind to the chilling implications.
In his 82-page filing Gleeson notably rejects the idea of a perjury charge, which I previously criticized as a dangerous and ridiculous suggestion despite the support from many legal analysts. He notes that such a move would be “irregular” and
“I respectfully suggest that the best response to Flynn’s perjury is not to respond in kind. Ordering a defendant to show cause why he should not be held in contempt based on a perjurious effort to withdraw a guilty plea is not what judges typically do. To help restore confidence in the integrity of the judicial process, the Court should return regularity to that process.”
This seems a carefully crafted way of saying that the many calls for a perjury charge are as out of line with prior cases as what these same critics allege was done by the Justice Department.
However, Gleeson is not striking an independent or principled position. Rather, he is suggesting that the Court simply treat Flynn as a perjurer, punish him as a perjurer, but not give him a trial as a perjurer. Thus, he is advocating that the court “should take Flynn’s perjury into account in sentencing him on the offense to which he has already admitted guilty.”
Thus, according to Gleeson, the Court should first sentence a defendant on a crime that the prosecutors no longer believe occurred in a case that prosecutors believe (and many of us have argued) was marred by the own misconduct. He would then punish the defendant further by treating his support for dismissal and claims of coercion as perjury. That according to former judge Gleeson is a return to “regularity.” I have been a criminal defense attorney for decades and I have never even heard of anything like that. It is not “regular.” It is ridiculous.
Gleeson himself came in for criticism in the filing by Flynn’s counsel who note that the former judge appointed by Sullivan not only publicly advocated against Flynn’s position but as a judge was chastised by the Second Circuit for misusing his position to grandstand in a case involving a deferred prosecution agreement. The defense cited HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125, 136 (2d Cir. 2017) where the Second Circuit reversed Gleeson for exaggerating his role in a way that “would be to turn the presumption of regularity on its head.”
The similarities to the present case are notable, including arguments that Gleeson intruded upon prosecutorial discretion. The Second Circuit held:
“By sua sponte invoking its supervisory power at the outset of this case to oversee the government’s entry into and implementation of the DPA, the district court impermissibly encroached on the Executive’s constitutional mandate to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 3. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Department of Justice is entitled to a presumption of regularity — that is, a presumption that it is lawfully discharging its duties. Though that presumption can of course be rebutted in such a way that warrants judicial intervention, it cannot be preemptively discarded based on the mere theoretical possibility of misconduct. Absent unusual circumstances not present here, a district court’s role vis-à-vis a DPA is limited to arraigning the defendant, granting a speedy trial waiver if the DPA does not represent an improper attempt to circumvent the speedy trial clock, and adjudicating motions or disputes as they arise.”
“The district court justified its concededly “novel” exercise of supervisory power in this context by observing that “it is easy to imagine circumstances in which a deferred prosecution agreement, or the implementation of such an agreement, so transgresses the bounds of lawfulness or propriety as to warrant judicial intervention to protect the integrity of the Court.” HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2013 WL 3306161, at *6. We agree that it is not difficult to imagine such circumstances. But the problem with this reasoning is that it runs headlong into the presumption of regularity that federal courts are obliged to ascribe to prosecutorial conduct and decision making. That presumption is rooted in the principles that undergird our constitutional structure. In particular, “because the United States Attorneys are charged with taking care that the laws are faithfully executed, there is a `presumption of regularity support[ing] their prosecutorial decisions and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.'” United States v. Sanchez, 517 F.3d 651, 671 (2d Cir. 2008) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996)). In resting its exercise of supervisory authority on hypothesized scenarios of egregious misconduct, the district court turned this presumption on its head. See HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2013 WL 3306161, at *6 (“[C]onsider a situation where the current monitor needs to be replaced. What if the replacement’s only qualification for the position is that he or she is an intimate acquaintance of the prosecutor proposing the appointment?” (citation omitted)). Rather than presume “in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary” that the prosecutors administering the DPA were “properly discharg[ing] their official duties,” the district court invoked its supervisory power — and encroached on the Executive’s prerogative — based on the mere theoretical possibility that the prosecutors might one day abdicate those duties. Sanchez, 517 F.3d at 671 (internal quotation mark omitted).”
Gleeson can now argue that he found the case that he did not establish as a judge. However, his brief is filled with sweeping presumptions against the motivations and analysis of the Justice Department, even though many outsiders agree with that analysis. The Flynn case is based on statements that even the FBI agents reportedly did not believe were intentional lies. Moreover, there is a clear basis to question the materiality element to the criminal charge. People can disagree reasonably on both points, but that is the point. The Justice Department has decided that it agrees that the case is flawed in line with the analysis of various experts. The court might not agree with that interpretation and many other experts may vehemently oppose it. However, it is a legitimate legal argument that cannot be substituted by the Court for its own preferences.
None of this seems to penetrate the analysis of Gleeson who shows the same aggrandizement of judicial authority that got him reversed as a judge. He argues for a court potentially sending someone to jail when the prosecutors no longer believe he is guilty of a crime and believe that he was the victim of bias and abuse.
Imagine what that would portend for future criminal defendants who want to argue coercion and abuse. Their counsel would have to warn them that they could be sent to prison for a longer period for perjury even if the prosecutors agree with them. Moreover, Gleeson believes that they should not even be afforded a trial as perjurers, just treated as perjurers.
That is being claimed in the name of “regularity.” Unfortunately, such analysis has become all too regular in this age of rage.
1. The US is under a destabilization campaign from sinister, organized forces.
2. The US population is being gaslighted and terrorized with cultural social engineering. is it even capable of fighting back?
guess what– it doesn’t matter,. you cant wait.
3. surviving is the first thing you need to do to fight back. sure go ahead and vote trump and turn out your circles to vote too, but since the Republicans have failed to create any social infrastructure to counter-act the mobs, don’t waste too much energy trying to do it yourself. this is a waste of effort. instead organize your own survival and flourishing.
4. this is not a solitary task, not an easy one, but it is a work that is timely and can set you up not only to survive but thrive.
this must be a social task where you gain understanding of not only your existing friends and family but among future potential recruits to your circles, who you can trust to be a net asset and who is a net drag. now that may not be as obvious as you have thought it was in the past. I have often found that some who i thought were my best friends turned out to be the most unreliable, and the people I would have avoided in the past are now my best friends. and as always, you need to have something to offer to others too.
5. if you are a cowboy conservative who thinks you can survive on your own, think again. it’s time to put away the foolish atomizing habits that we accepted growing up. rambo is not the icon. you don’t want rambo on your team and you aint rambo. if you want a cowboy icon to inspire you try Shane instead. he is redeemed by his social value, not his pistolero skills. without his belonging, he is just another gunman. this is the ideal, social building and belonging, not isolation.
in short, find your family, build your family, put effort into this now. this is how you can be ready for what’s coming next.
a community garden club is a swell, how’s that for an idea to “make friends and influence people.”
ironically sitting around typing on the internet is probably a waste of time now, whistling past the graveyard. things we need to do now are more tangible world focused, more social investment in those around us, more physical activity and less of this very thing here.
Mr. Kurtz, your paranoia is getting the better of you. But if you insist on believing what you’re saying I suggest heading to the nearest bunker and tweet away your concerns to the world. That seems to be the fashionable thing to do these days.
no bunkers are static containment vessels for paranoiacs paralyzed by fear and who have lost all imagination and hope for social meaning.
i am saying that in this time when the usual American right winger’s instinct is to head for the bunker, go on out and do something more constructive which can help you survive, like plant a a garden and make some friends
been saying this for decades, come to think of it.
say that reminds me, check out Kunslter’s new book. it’s awesome!
https://www.amazon.com/Living-Long-Emergency-Futurists-Adapters/dp/1948836939
“The US population is being gaslighted” by Trump more than anyone else. He is the gaslighter-in-chief.
Thankfully, many people who voted for him are turning against him. It’s well worth listening to some of the Republican Voters Against Trump (videos at the link): https://rvat.org/
This morning, Trump referred to the Secret Service as the “S.S.”
“S.S.” most often stands for Hitler’s Schutzstaffel. Is this another of Trump’s racist dog whistles?
No it is not. I am a Jew. A real practicing Jew. Trump is no anti-semite, despite you and your ilk’s many attempts to tar him with that foul brush. I know (and am related to) people who survived Auchwitz (there aren’t that many still alive, and those still alive are still very old). Since you like to play identity politics, Stop appropriating claims of anti-semitism for your political ends.
When I say practicing Jew, I mean keeping kosher, the sabbath and other Jewish laws. I don’t mean the false god that is liberal politics.
Hal – I am glad you cleared up the depth of your “Jewishness”. 😉 So, you don’t keep a Hannakah bush? 😉
I’m an atheist, but ethnically Jewish, and you don’t speak for all Jews. The majority of Jews oppose Trump. He’s periodically condemned by Jewish organizations, as when they responded to his use of anti-Semitic tropes in December:
* the American Jewish Committee: “Dear @POTUS – Much as we appreciate your unwavering support for Israel, surely there must be a better way to appeal to American Jewish voters, as you just did in Florida, than by money references that feed age-old and ugly stereotypes. Let’s stay off that mine-infested road.” and
* the Jewish Democratic Council of America: “We strongly denounce these vile and bigoted remarks in which the president—once again—used anti-Semitic stereotypes to characterize Jews as driven by money and insufficiently loyal to Israel. He even had the audacity to suggest that Jews ‘have no choice’ but to support him. American Jews do have a choice, and they’re not choosing President Trump or the Republican Party, which has been complicit in enacting his hateful agenda.”
…
However, I should have said “anti-Semitic dog whistle” in this case, not “racist dog whistle,” since Jews are not a race.
He is condemned by liberal organizations that happen to have Jews running them. I don’t know what ethnically Jewish even means. Following the flavor of the day, my relatives who were gassed and shot confers upon me special privileges regarding accusing someone of the use of dog whistles related to Nazism. What special privileges do you have?
As an aside, citing the Jewish Democratic Council of America is a joke. They are a plainly partisan organization. I consider Trump to be the most beneficial U.S. president for the Jews during my lifetime (which is slightly more than 50 years). I consider Obama, who tried to aid and abet Iran’s nuclear ambitions as an anti-semite. I am sure the Jewish Democratic Council of America was awol on that one.
Hal, your opinion is one thing but cut the s..t. Obama secured a hold on Iran’s nuclear program – inspected and reported on regularly by the IAEA and verified by both US and Israeli intelligence. Your hero trashed that and got nothing in return except Iran restarting their program.
It was a temporary reprieve that Obama secured to delay the problem until some other president had to face a Nuclear Iran. Whether Trump can put humpty dumpty back together is not at all clear. What Obama accomplished is also your opinion. Please do not frame what you say as fact and what I say as opinion.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/obama-passed-the-buck-trump-refused-to-play
Hal, a “temporary reprieve” is all that is possible. They know how to do it. The agreement never cut them loose and if they failed to comply, any party could end it and re-institute sanctions. They were in compliance.
I have stated the facts and if you have others, let’s hear them. It is a fact that the IAEA had permanent inspectors on the ground and that as per the agreement, they reported regularly on Iran’s compliance or non-compliance. They were complying. US and Israeli intelligence corroborated that FACT.
I thought the Iran deal was a good one for long term US strategic interests. I support Trump but he obviously disagreed. but it going away seems to have had little effect either. perhaps it was inconsequential in either direction?
now it’s not for me to tell my fellow americans who are jews what to think, let alone the israels who are after all, a different nation that the US, but if I may observe facts, there is a difference of opinion in Israel on whether or not the Iran deal was a good thing or not.
as a smart American jew observed, I forgot his name, maybe it was ron unz? right right I know some think he’s one of these antisemitic jews, but perhaps it was he who said,
“there is often more room for political debate and differences of opinion among Jews in Israel than there is in America”
or words to that effect. maybe it was, “easier to disagree about Israel in Jerusalem than it is in DC.” something along these lines.
“He is condemned by liberal organizations that happen to have Jews running them.”
And their opinions as Jews count as much as yours and mine.
“I don’t know what ethnically Jewish even means.”
Wow.
Here’s one discussion to get you started: https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com/culturally-jewish-proud-of-heritage-but-not-religious/
If you’re a practicing Jew, you’d consider me Jewish simply by virtue of my mom having been Jewish. My ancestry is entirely Ashkenazim.
Your opinion that your “relatives who were gassed and shot confers upon [you] special privileges regarding accusing someone of the use of dog whistles related to Nazism” is only that: your opinion. I’m not going to get into a family history with you over who has sufficient bonafides to discuss Trump’s anti-Semitic dog whistles.
Sorry, that should have been “family history debate”
oh commit has opened the lid on a deep well of conversation. “Lord Have Mercy” !
as a goy, let me point a few things out and suggest this trajectory of conversation will be super unproductive
a) Kissinger, antisemitic jew or not? I have read arguments from both points of view.
Personally, I deeply admire Kissinger’s statecraft. I dont claim to know the answer.
b) Soros, antisemitic jew or not? I loathe Soros and his globalism and decades long fight against sovereignty as such. I have read opinions about whether he is antisemitic or not too. I dont claim to know the answer.
c) Kissinger versus Soros: both Jews born in Europe who became Americans after the horrors of WWII. Both men of power and influence. both very deeply involved in the fates of nations. but are both globalists or not? you could say Soros is but is kissinger properly considered a globalist? I think not but i have heard the case made about him that he was.
Which brings me to a joke that you guys will know. And I reference it with a smile and I hope it will bring a laugh and good feeling and no hostility to jews or even myself.
“Two jews, three opinions!”
Hal. Your comments are brilliant and spot on! But be careful…The far leftist thought police is coming for all of us!
Hal, don’t miss https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/06/nazi-collaborators-fund-paying-black-people-call-daniel-greenfield
you think Trump is the gaslighter. you lack self awareness perhaps for how you are being motivated by strategists who plan things that affect your psychology as well as people who like Trump.
make no mistake we are in the midst of a period of deep social engineering, psyops, and planned and coordinated chaos. i don’t presume to know who or how it’s all acting, although I have elaborated a simple thesis before, ie, globalism versus nationalism & the remains of the westphalian order of international relations, which globalism aims to fully supplant.
i could be wrong, or that could be an oversimplification. it doesnt really matter, because the smart things to do today, is not another “protest” but humble stuff like planting the garden and making durable new friendships
Trump has headed to the bunker like the coward that he is It is a street he to believe that he will acquire gardening skills
” listening to some of the Republican Voters Against Trump ”
The left is notorious about lying but some people that may have voted for Trump may change their minds. It works both ways. What I wonder about is how the people in that new country which is a small part of Seattle will vote especially if violence breaks out and family members are killed. Will they be hot to trot to vote for the party that supports this nonsense or will they say that they learned too many Democrat leaders are spineless and stupid so it is time to vote for the other side.
The following are better analyses of where things stand with the Flynn case (though they don’t address Gleeson’s amicus), from Marty Lederman, a law professor at the Georgetown University.
* Understanding the Michael Flynn Case: Separating the Wheat from the Chaff, and the Proper from the Improper — https://www.justsecurity.org/70431/understanding-the-michael-flynn-case-separating-the-wheat-from-the-chaff-and-the-proper-from-the-improper/
* Four Remarkable Arguments in DOJ’s Latest Brief in the Michael Flynn Case [UPDATED with links to reply/response briefs] — https://www.justsecurity.org/70656/four-remarkable-arguments-in-dojs-latest-brief-in-the-michael-flynn-case/
Not only did Gleeson file his amicus yesterday with Sullivan, but as the second link above notes, Sullivan, the DOJ and Flynn all filed replies yesterday with the DC Circuit.
Re: “[Gleeson] is suggesting that the Court simply treat Flynn as a perjurer,” it’s pretty obvious if you look at all of Flynn’s statements made under penalty of perjury that he has knowingly made diametrically opposed statements, which means that some are knowingly false. Keep in mind that Flynn has also filed things like his January, 2020, personal declaration under penalty of perjury. Given Turley’s general sloppiness with relevant data, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s never even read it.
As an aside, does Turley even look at the layout of his columns? The inappropriate changes in font size for his blocktexts suggest he doesn’t.
another guy who wants to waste everyone’s time here
foregone conclusion that flynn will now walk. the case has been dropped. the failure to dismiss the case is creating secondary harms to the system by ginning up moot arguments. the court of appeals must flush this toilet and order it dismissed pronto, and get rid of the case before it stinks up the whole house.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3599674
No, the case hasn’t been “dropped.”
The DOJ filed a Motion to Dismiss, but so far, it hasn’t been accepted by the court. Have whatever opinions you want about it, but your opinions aren’t facts (nor are mine, but my posts generally include facts along with my opinions).
Learn patience, and we’ll see what happens.
This all boils down to those who want to keep this nation as created and then the side that wants to “fundamentally transform” it into a socialist, tyranny that will never, in actuality, materialize but will destroy the greatest government ever created by man.
PICK A SIDE Mr. Turley, it is them vs the constitution, you can’t keep both.
Dont waste too much energy over Flynn now. he will get sprung from these dead charges soon enough.
instead put your effort fast into organizing your life, your finances, your health and fitness, and your immediate family and social circle of durable communication and mutual aid. that extended “family” must not run up a flag in public, on the internet, etc. it has to be private and off-paper and off-digital. No goofy names. But we all should have one. circles of solidarity arising from our own organic social circumstances will endure if the state collapses.
ooo ooo oooh don’t be dramatic. no, it’s definitely on the radar screen as a possibility now.
I recommend, not insane stuff like the little red book they sell at gun shows, no, instead I recommend James Howard Kunslter’s “World made by hand” series. Gives a lot more realistic and possible vision of what could emerge. and what could endure, if things go South along the lines which appear to be forming.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/bookseries/B00YT5KDF4/ref=dp_st_0802124925
time is your most precious commodity while this moment of relative order still exists. it can go away in a flash., another “lockdown” could be right around the corner.
meanwhile, an anarchist miltia has declared war on the United States by forming a socalled “autonomous zone” inside a major city
Is this the sign of coming collapse, or, is this an invitation to government to over-react, and then crush it like Waco, thus to create some sort of sympathy for further acts of rebellion?
obviously this is all proceeding according to well known patterns of subversive activity which leads up to armed insurgency. Well, or, maybe the armed insurgency is here.
Now, if the state, both the actual state and the United States, are too weak to handle this effectively, and fast, then we have to look at the methods of counter-insurgency which over history, have been organized from leadership arising in private society.
some people think are already to that point already, or were there decades ago. and the long prepared takeover, has been green lighted. maybe it will go slow, and you will still have time to form your own durable social circle on the ground where you live?
Isoated individuals get shivved when it all jumps off. Eis aner, oudeis aner. Gotta have a crew to watch your back. Get it done.
Mr Kurtz – there seems to be a 2nd autonomous zone being carved out in Portland. Somehow, the Gov of Washington is unaware of the CHAZ in Seattle, complete with warlord and acolytes.
well, it’s up to them to figure that out, suppress and contain, whatever. they know what they are supposed to do.
i am just looking at things like what i am, a peasant in flyover. i cant help flynn but i can help me.
start a garden! & form durable local mutual aid groups, from your existing base of friends and family, but take the time to connect to neighbors, this may not be fun, it may be work. it may be unpleasant, as you face the reality of who the weak hands are in your own social circles, who can’t help row the boat. who are negative people, who are not reliable. you have to contain and distance those kinds of people and draw in new ones. keep it simple, keep it quiet, keep it humble
& remember this key concept:
IF YOU CANT BE COUNTED ON, YOU CANT BE COUNTED IN
Could someone in this blog kindly be able to describe the thought process(?) in use by people like this retired federal judge John Gleeson? Has critical thinking completely been erased from his mind? Has complete reversal by a higher court penetrate his brain to realize that his thought process is so convoluted that it is just plain wrong headed?
Has his formal thought process being soundly rejected/reversed by a Second Circuit court reach such a ‘DEAD’ point in his thought process that he poses a danger to himself and to others?
delmaracer:
“Could someone in this blog kindly be able to describe the thought process(?) in use by people like this retired federal judge John Gleeson?”
********************
It’s called a lawyer saying what he has to say to get paid. He knows it’s a Hindenburg argument but he’s gotta try to cover for Judge Emmett.
Mespo,
That was a nice piece you posted on a Robert Barnes interview last night.
Seems Judge Emmett is widely known by insiders as someone that’s a bit more then confused to say it nicely.
LOL He prolly just needs one more vaccine to fix him for good.
Thanks. Oky1!.
Any case based on falsified evidence, proprietorial misconduct, withholding of evidence, and coerced/threats to a plea bargain should be thrown out. What’s sick is that there are actually Democrats and liberals who will use the power of the government to punish political rivals, reminiscent of Mao, Stalin, Chavez and the likes. It’s a sick world the Democrats have foisted upon us. They need to pay a price.
Except none of that happened except the SOP plea bargaining.
It is true that the President – and Flynn himself at the GOP convention – called publicly for political prosecutions. The president does it regularly.
What political prosecutions has the President gotten initiated? In this respect, President’s Trump’s big mouth is what is keeping the likes of McCabe from being prosecuted for false statements that actually impeded a legitimate FBI investigation.
Any case…
In a society where the rule of law is respected and applied equally to every person under its jurisdiction, that is an absolutely true statement. No rational person within that jurisdiction would ever put forth an argument against it. Why? Because unless you achieve the elite and unconstitutional minority status of those operating above the law, then any support of injustice places you in the crosshairs of it.
Gleeson is a partisan political hack. Trump has performed a great service by exposing how much rot there is in our permanent ruing class (of which Gleeson is a member even though he is not in private practice).
See Bill Otis article linked below.
http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2014/07/john-gleeson-defense-lawyer-in.html
Hal, your link goes to:
“John Gleeson, Defense Lawyer in a Robe” from 2014.
Say what? He was an AUSA and arguing the prosecution side in the Flynn case, at least defense attorney JT thinks so.
Maybe I misread it, but I don’t think I did, Bill Otis describes John Gleeson serving as the judge to achieve an outcome in a case that he was advocating for before he became the judge in the case.
Gleeson is wrong on the law and has a political axe to grind which should assure him passover status from most Judges. But it’s Judge Emmett — who appointed Gleeson for cover — and now fancies himself a judge of the Star Chamber with power to charge, prosecute, convict and punish in one fell swoop. Witnesses? Who needs ’em, I saw it. Due process? He’s got a lawyer doesn’t he? United States v. Fokker Services B.V.? Oh that’s not on point!
Good luck, Judge. I think the appellate court might just mandamus you with that argument.
“it’s Judge Emmett…”
Do you dislike using last names? Should I call you “Attorney Mark”?
Based on what I’ve seen of your “lawyering” here, I’d never hire you as an attorney, and I bet you wouldn’t want me as a client (or maybe you would, maybe you don’t care who you work for as long as you’re paid).
If you learn patience, we’ll see how all of this actually plays out. The oral arguments before the appellate court are tomorrow, the DOJ’s reply to Gleeson in the district court is due 6/17, …
Committ, you have whiplash?
TBI probably!
Gleeson is a partisan political hack. Trump has performed a great service by demonstrating how much of government is corrupt. I don’t think he intended to perform that service, but perform it he did. He performed a similar service with the media.
For more about Gleeson, see the link to an article by Bill Otis. Hat tip, Powerline.
http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2014/07/john-gleeson-defense-lawyer-in.html
Correction JT: The “prosecutors” did not decide Flynn is no longer guilty of a crime, the AG did, and for a defendant connected as is he to the President. This is exactly the sort of case Rule 48 was written to require the “leave of the court” – a connected defendant and a possibly corrupt prosecutor – especially so since it is now in sentencing phase. That is the judges turf.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Data_Integrity_Notice.cfm?abid=3599674
Yes JT, bookie has all sorts of experience dealing with Rule 48 and prosecuting federal criminal trials. I think he even swam a 100 rivers just to climb a thousand walls, too!
Didn’t really need that last part except as the excuse to post this lovely Sarah Evans piece:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3599674
PS I think my experience with Rule 48 is about the same as mespos.
Apparently Judge Emmet is known for having some “crazy days” as some lawyers put it. Here’s a discussion worth hearing from two lawyers, US Defense lawyer Robert Barnes & Canadian lawyer, Viva Frei :
One flew over the cuckoo’s nest. If the govt won’t prosecute then the case had to be dismissed, the accused released, the charges declared gone and the defendant declared exonerated. If the govt, by it’s prosecutor or department of Justice says this then the court is out of it.
The court is now violating the law.
Three spots on the wall by Who Flung Foo.
Soooo, Sullivan found a doppelganger to back him up. Wow!!!
Irregularity? Trump has reached down into the court system to overturn a guilty plea. To put it mildly, I’d say that is irregularity squared. Give it a rest Professor. Flynn lied. He plead guilty. It’s time to let this one go.
Amen.
Amen: To threatening the Man’s family into ruins while the FBI is altering documents. So much for civil liberties! Disgusting liberal hypocrisy at its best.
And the government admits he committed no crime is irrelevant to the kindergarten set. No surprise.
Correction: The government prosecuted and won a guilty plea – twice. The AG claims his fellow Trump stooge committed no crime. A clear instacce requiring leave of court
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3599674
SChmuck! Ever heard of Ted Stevens?
Mofoknows:
Don’t feed the troll. He hasn’t heard of anything his son hasn’t told him about.
People are coerced into guilty pleas every day in the US. Charge someone with something carrying a lengthy jail term and millions in legal fees and then offer them a plea to accept a minor charge to make it all go away. I’m sure if you contact The Innocence Project they will give you a long list of people wrongly jailed by just this process. In addition I think they might be horrified if their clients who were jailed on guilty please were recharged with perjury.
If just want to punish Flynn for associating with Trump you should just take him out back and shoot him in the head. Why waste time on a trial?
I’m sure if you contact The Innocence Project
I’m sure if you contact just about any lawyer with a criminal defense practice they will tell you they do get an innocent client…every once in a while.
Do we REALLY have to rehearse the whole concept of plea bargaining, again?