Gen. Flynn was with the Obama administration before being ‘let go’. Obama allegedly “warned” Pres. Trump about Gen. Flynn. However, seing the well-over eight year record of corruption with the O-admin and those doing his dirty work, I am inclined to believe Flynn knows where a Hell of a lot of bodies are buried… if you will. However, of late, with the handful of former military generals and one general who is part of Pres. Trump’s Chiefs of Staff backpedaling on his part in POTUS’s walk to the nearby church that had been set on fire the day before during the riots near the White House in Washington DC, I am gradually coming to the conclusion(s) that Gen. Flynn has been put through this because, perhaps, the military brass that replace the 200+ Obama had purged were to be part of whatever phase of the coup that was planned for Pres. Trump. And now this democrat U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan who will not drop the Flynn case, and has hired a former Clinton judge, Gleeson, to help with the task of finishing-off the general in order to finally silence the general, especially with the 2020 election months away.
In the Flynn case, Gleeson just declared Flynn now guilty of perjury but “I respectfully recommend … 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 guilty…
…so let’s unpack this. A criminal defendant alleges that he was coerced into a plea and claims innocence. Gleeson recommends not trying him on perjury but effectively punishing him for perjury under the plea that he said was coerced…
The Flynn Court Drifts Dangerously Outside Judicial Navigational Beacons
…so the court would first send a defendant to jail on a crime that prosecutors now say he did not commit and punish him for the audacity of claiming innocence by joining the prosecutors in seeking a dismissal. It would be a nightmare for criminal defendants and counsel …
…any criminal defendant could face punishment for perjury is raising coercion in seeking dismissal, even when the prosecutors agreed with him. Yet, Gleeson states this
“aligns with the Court’s intent to treat this case and this Defendant, in the same way it would any other.”I have to note one other chilling statement from Gleeson: “A false eleventh-hour disavowal of a plea and a trumped-up accusation of government misconduct constitute obstruction of the administration of justice.” I admit to viewing such matters as a criminal defense lawyer but…
…this is breathtaking. Imagine if this standard were applied generally. Judges could refuse to let defendants out of cases even when prosecutors admitted fault and supported the accused. Judges could just declare it all “trump-up” and demand that a person be sent to jail…
…on charges that the prosecution no longer supports. Gleeson believes that that is a “return to regularity.” I have been a criminal defense attorney for 30 years and I do not know where that is a regular practice. It would allow courts to become a self-contained…
…and self-mandating system — merging the roles of the prosecutor and the court. The court even went outside of the case to bring in third parties to argue positions neither party supports. That is about as “regular” as a drum-head field trial in the federal courtyard.
Basically, once again, as with everything these last 3+ years that we’ve witnessed from the Obama FBI/DOJ/FISA to democrats like Schiff and Nadler in congress to the Muller “investigation” and obviously with this unending Gen. Flynn’s case, and his ruined life (very worth mentioning all with the aid of a corrupt politically biased MSM), Turley is trying his best damnedest to warn that these same people can and would do it even more easily to any of us. And at the very center of Turley’s contempt of this entire bullshit show against Flynn right now, is the fact that people who were coerced, one way or another, to “plead guilty” even though they are not guilty (in Flynn’s case they threatened his son) and then withdraw that guilty plea, only to then be charged with “perjury” and convicted and forced to serve time for that by a politically-charged activist judge doesn’t even rise to the level of a shamed kangaroo court, but an abomination of all that is justice in our judicial system. It is right down there with a Sharia court (my words).
Turley continues…
At today's hearing, Judge Henderson referred to Greeson and said "[Judge Sullivan] may have chosen an intemperate amicus, but that doesn't mean that he is going to deny this motion." Judge Rao questioned why Sullivan needed to bring Greeson into the case…https://t.co/uMPNBSTzGv
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 12, 2020
“Trumped-Up”: Former Judge’s Filing Is An Example Of “Irregularity” In The Age Of Rage
…Nevertheless, as noted earlier, it is unlikely that the DC Circuit will order the dismissal before a ruling from Sullivan -even with two of three judges questioning his wisdom in appointing Greeson. In the end, Sullivan is likely to grant the dismissal after a lively hearing.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 12, 2020
…Henderson's point is the most probative. Even if Gleeson is intemperate, it would not alter the fact that the trial court is allowed to hold a hearing. It would be irregular for the appellate court to order a dismissal based on these concerns before a trial court rules.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 12, 2020
MORE:
Tyler Olson: Judge says court may have picked ‘intemperate’ lawyer to argue against DOJ dropping Flynn case
KT McFarland: ‘If justice is served, General Flynn will be a free man’
Judge Pirro: The Michael Flynn case has become an ‘absurdity’
What’s also at-stake here in all of this, and why it is so rabid, is that just about every FBI case, FISA ruling, and now this Judge Emmet Sullivan’s past rulings can, and will, come into question.
UPDATE:
WTAF?!? One has absolutely nothing to do with the other…
Steven Nelson: Judge asks if Michael Flynn dismissal is good for racist police
A federal appeals court judge repeatedly asked Friday whether dropping the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn would mean police can escape accountability for brutalizing black people.
DC Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins raised the possibility as Flynn’s attorneys and the Justice Department pleaded with a skeptical three-judge panel to order US District Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss Flynn’s case and his 2017 guilty plea for lying to the FBI.
Wilkins, an African American Harvard Law School graduate, asked whether dismissing Flynn’s case would mean that judges must also dismiss cases against police if prosecutors offer racist reasons.
“Even if the prosecutor was dismissing the case because it did not believe that a white police officer should have to answer for using excessive force on a black defendant, and they say that in their pleading, under Rule 48(a) the district court still has to grant the motion?” Wilkins asked Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall.
Wall agreed, “I don’t think that the court can force the executive to keep that case alive in the absence of a case or controversy.” He added, however, that the “unconstitutional motive” distinguishes the scenarios.
The judge, nominated by President Barack Obama, presented the hypothetical in the wake of national unrest this week over the killing of George Floyd by Minnesota policeman Derek Chauvin, who kneeled on his neck for nearly nine minutes. Chauvin, since fired, faces second-degree murder charges and three colleagues, also fired, are charged with aiding and abetting murder….
