Less Than $498 To Go!!
Just A Reminder
Please Don't Forget
To Donate To FR
This Quarter
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 06/10/2020 4:47:21 PM PDT by Rummyfan
John Gleeson is the former judge tasked by Emmet Sullivan, the judge in the Michael Flynn case, with talking him into sentencing Flynn in a case that the prosecution has moved to dismiss. One wonders whether any such “talking” is required, other than for the sake of appearances.
In any event, Gleeson today filed his brief. He argues that Judge Sullivan should reject the government’s motion and continue the prosecution to sentencing, notwithstanding the prosecutor’s desire to stand down.
Gleeson had sketched out this argument in a Washington Post op-ed before Sullivan appointed him to brief the matter. Thus, the course of action Gleeson calls for in the brief comes as no surprise. Judge Sullivan got exactly what he wanted.
Even without the op-ed, Gleeson’s argument was 100 percent foreseeable. He was a left-wing judge whose attitude towards crime depends on the identity of the alleged criminal. He favored leniency for street criminals but, it now seems, favors toughness for political enemies.
Also, as Bill Otis says, Gleeson has no appreciation of the distinction between judge and advocate. Thus, op-ed or not, he was always the perfect candidate to advise Judge Sullivan, who clearly wants to assume the role of advocate in the Flynn case.
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
Someone needs to come down on Judge Sullivan. Hard.
*****************************************
Hopefully the Appeals Court Panel will do that and come back saying “DO YOUR JOB, DISMISS THE CASE!”.
Yeah. Any news on what the Appeals Court is doing?
Crickets
It should be crickets. Judges say their piece in court when it matters.
Deep State. That is what he is.
He retired from the bench to go to Debevoise & Plimpton, a Washington DC law firm, where he is said to make 2-3 million dollars a year.
What can a lawyer do to be so richly compensated?
Gleeson produces the results that this particular high-profile crime ring (er, law office in Washington) wants!
That he (Gleeson) wrote the public op-ed BEFORE he (Sullivan) “hired him” to advise Sullivan in front of Sullivan’s own court is reason enough to remove BOTH from the case.
Gleeson should swing.
Gleeson needs a long beating and a quick hanging.
Somebody needs to let Gleeson know that there is no longer a case for Sullivan to adjudicate. The charges have been dropped by the prosecution. The judge isn’t a prosecutor. Hes a referee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.