HEADS UP: Here's the brief by John Gleeson, the retired federal judge serving as friend-of-the-court to argue against dismissing criminal charges against @GenFlynn. courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Gleeson, to say the least, is unsparing in his criticism of @TheJusticeDept's arguments for dismissal. 
In which Gleeson states the obvious:
PLOT TWIST: Gleeson argues that Judge Sullivan should *not* find @GenFlynn in contempt of court for perjury, but should take said perjury into account when sentencing him on the § 1001 charges.
More hammer-dropping from Gleeson: "The reasons offered by the Government are so irregular, and so obviously pretextual, that they are deficient. Moreover, the facts surrounding the filing of the Government’s motion constitute clear evidence of gross prosecutorial abuse."
In which he all but calls ex-Acting US Attorney (now @DEAHQ Administrator) Timothy Shea a lying liar-liar-pants-on-fire.
Shorter Gleeson: "Department of Justice, meet the Department of Justice."
"The Government also asserts, as though it matters..."
I believe this is what the kids call "shade"
I believe this is what the kids call "shade"
"...even if the agents anticipated that Flynn might lie in the interview... he could easily have sidestepped that “trap” by telling the truth. One doesn’t need to be a senior national security official entrusted with the Nation’s secrets to know not to lie to the FBI."
Gleeson includes a shout-out to @DSafavianEsq (congratulations on the recent pardon, btw): "More fundamentally, it is never a defense to a false statement charge that 'the government was not actually deceived.'"
"There is no rational view of the law of materiality pursuant to which Flynn’s false statements regarding his post-election calls with Kislyak can be described as immaterial."
Gleeson as Homer Simpson to Bart as DOJ: "A+? You don't think much of me, do you boy?"
Shorter Gleeson on DOJ claim that they doubt they can prove Flynn's guilt: "Come on, man!"
"Pled?" Somewhere @BryanAGarner's head is exploding...
This is how you say "bullshit" in lawyer-speak.
The kids call this "bringing receipts"
We've reached the outright ridicule part of Gleeson's brief: "No competent lawyer thinks this way—yet the Government’s lawyers, who know exactly what they are doing, nonetheless resort to putting these 'reasons' before the Court in hopes that it will rubber stamp their motion."
"Gross prosecutorial abuse"
A legal analysis of @realDonaldTrump's tweets by a @Debevoise partner would probably cost several thousand dollars under normal circumstances...
Shorter Gleeson: "Let me make this easy for you..."
