Sullivan says that gross prosecutorial misconduct, the fact that evidence the prosector hid shows that Flynn didn't lie, the fact that the prosecutor lied to him--Sullivan--, are all ok since the target, General Flynn, is someone that Sullivan hates.
In Sullivan's latest attempt to be a fascist he's bringing in a retired judge, Gleeson, to argue that despite the massive violation of Flynn's Constitutional rights and the fact that the prosecutor lied to the court and used unethical tactics Flynn should be found guilty of something.
Gleeson auditioned for the job by writing a WaPo editorial where he argued that despite there being no case and despite the DOJ wanting to drop the charges based on that fact that Sullivan shouldn't drop the case.
But Kim Strassel has dug up some past actions by Gleeson that show that to him truth is what he wants it to be.
1) Here's an interesting ruling from one (former) Judge John Gleeson, the guy who Sullivan just appointed to oppose the motion to withdraw Flynn's case. It's from United States v. HSBC Bank USA in 2013:— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 14, 2020
2)"The government has near-absolute power . . . to extinguish a case that it has brought." He then goes to quote U.S. v Pimentel: "A court is generally required to grant a prosecutor's Rule 48(a) motion unless dismissal is 'clearly contrary to manifest public interest.'"— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 14, 2020
3) Gleeson, by his own standards, should have turned down this job. Better yet, he should have advised Judge Sullivan as to how inappropriate these moves are.— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 14, 2020
One of the facts that the prosecutor had been concealing is that according to the FBI agents present at the infamous "interview" Flynn did not say that he didn't talk to the Russian Ambassador about sanctions.
That's the "crime" that Flynn is on trial for.
What the FBI agents heretofore concealed notes say is that Flynn said that he didn't remember talking to the Ambassador about sanctions but he could have.
Clearly there is no crime here. But according to pre-Flynn Gleeson a judge should only not dismiss a charge at the request of the prosecutor if doing so would be contrary to public interest.
There is therefore no public interest in continuing a prosecution based on lies and full of prosecutorial misconduct and contempt of court.
Yet now Gleeson is going to argue for it.
Clearly truth is what Gleeson wants it to be.
Or perhaps he's going to argue that since Trump is the bad orange man it's in the public interest to imprison an innocent man by continuing a bogus prosecution.
Just kidding. That's what he's thinking but it's not what he'll say.
This is one more example of how all that matters to the left is power not truth and certainly not what's best for we the people.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment