Some takeaways from the brief filed by John Gleeson, the former judge tapped to argue why DOJ shouldn't be allowed to drop Michael Flynn's case. He writes that DOJ's explanations "are so irregular, and so obviously pretextual, that they are deficient"
assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6940…
assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6940…
This is the latest case where Trump's tweets show up to potentially cause problems for DOJ. Gleeson writes the tweets make clear Trump "is personally invested in ensuring that Flynn’s prosecution ends, and has deep animosity toward those who investigated and prosecuted Flynn"
Gleeson notes that there were other ways the Trump admin could have helped Flynn that no court would have authority to interfere with (for ex: a decision *not* to bring charges, or a presidential pardon). But once charges were filed, the court became a player, he argues
Gleeson writes that there's evidence Flynn committed perjury in the case (that Flynn's arguments now contrad what he said when he pleaded guilty), but he doesn't recommend the judge initiate a criminal proceeding. Instead, Gleeson reccs taking that into account at sentencing
Gleeson slams DOJ in his conclusion, writing that officials had "abdicated" their responsibility "through a gross abuse of prosecutorial power, attempting to provide special treatment to a favored friend and political ally of the President of the United States"
