See UPDATE below
Former federal judge John Gleeson issued a 82-page excoriation accusing Attorney General Bill Barr and the DOJ of exercising a “gross abuse of prosecutorial power” to protect an ally of President Donald Trump, distorting known facts and legal principles to shield Michael Flynn from a jail sentence. Gleeson was appointed by Judge Emmet Sullivan to provide input on the DOJ’S decision to drop charges against Michael Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to some of the allegations earlier.
“Even recognizing that the Government is entitled to deference in assessing the strength of its case, these claims are not credible,” Gleeson wrote. “Indeed, they are preposterous.” He opines that Sullivan should proceed with sentencing.
Flynn’s allies have argued that Gleeson was a poor choice to advise the court because just days before receiving the friend-of-the-court appointment he co-authored an op-ed in the Washington Post decrying Barr’s decision to seek to jettison the case, according to Breitbart.
The DOJ argued in a brief, that Sullivan’s attempt to interfere with their decision to drop the charges poses severe separation of powers problems contained in the U.S. Constitution.
We think Sullivan is wrong and the separation of powers clause requires that he back off. Moreover, the appointment of Gleeson was misguided. Whether Flynn previously pleaded guilty is irrelevant if the DOJ believes his confession was wrongfully induced. The matter is now before the DC Appellate Court.
It is a waste of taxpayer’s money to go forward with such frivolous undertakings. The expense multiplies if the appellate courts need to resolve this obvious issue, or if the President has to intervene with a pardon.