U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan appointed a retired judge Wednesday to rebut the Justice Department’s request to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn.
Attorney General William Barr called for Flynn’s case to be dismissed after new evidence suggested that the retired general had been set up by the FBI — but instead of dismissing the case outright, Sullivan announced that he would open the door to hear outside arguments against doing so. (RELATED: Biden Aide Unloads On ‘Partisan, Rightwing Hack’ Catherine Herridge For Reporting On Flynn)
Sullivan followed that announcement with an order appointing retired Judge John Gleeson, who was appointed to serve in the Eastern District of New York by former President Bill Clinton in 1994. He resigned from the bench in 2016 and returned to private practice.
BREAKING: Judge SULLIVAN has appointed retired judge to argue against the government’s motion to dismiss the charge against Flynn. pic.twitter.com/OUGyAbNcIB
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) May 13, 2020
The judge in Flynn’s case just appointed a retired judge appointed by Bill Clinton to argue *against* dismissing the corrupt case against Flynn. Note that the motion to dismiss the case is unopposed by all parties to the case.
Emmet G. Sullivan is as corrupt as Comey’s FBI. pic.twitter.com/sZ2X2FF0VP
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) May 13, 2020
Sullivan’s order also directs Gleeson to determine whether or not Flynn might have committed perjury when he said under oath that he had lied to the FBI and should be held in contempt. (RELATED: Obama Claims ‘No Precedent’ In Flynn Dismissal — There Is, And His Own AG Eric Holder Used It)
Good call by judge Sullivan. Flynn either lied to the FBI when he denied talking to Kislyak about sanctions, or he lied to the judge when he admitted he did. https://t.co/g8Km2v0KmH
— Frank Figliuzzi (@FrankFigliuzzi1) May 13, 2020
Gleeson has already argued against dismissal in Flynn’s case, saying in a Monday editorial for the Washington Post that accepting Barr’s recommendation would damage the justice system.
“Prosecutors deserve a ‘presumption of regularity’ — the benefit of the doubt that they are acting honestly and following the rules. But when the facts suggest they have abused their power, that presumption fades. If prosecutors attempt to dismiss a well-founded prosecution for impermissible or corrupt reasons, the people would be ill-served if a court blindly approved their dismissal request,” Gleeson wrote. “The independence of the court protects us all when executive-branch decisions smack of impropriety; it also protects the judiciary itself from becoming a party to corruption.”
Gleeson went on to claim that the entire record pertaining to Flynn’s case “reeks of improper political influence,” arguing that the recent release of transcripts and other documents had been allowed in pursuit of political ends rather than in the interest of justice.