GOP attorneys general unite to file amicus brief in support of Flynn ahead of brewing court fight
Hearings on Michael Flynn, Russia probe to start in June
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Sen. Lindsey Graham prepares hearings on the FBI’s investigation into Russian election interference and President Trump’s campaign; Griff Jenkins reports.
Over a dozen Republican state attorneys general, led by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, will file an «amicus» brief in support of former national security adviser Michael Flynn on Monday, Fox News has learned.
The filing will state that the court should immediately grant DOJ’s motion to dismiss without commentary “because such punditry disrobes the judiciary of its cloak of impartiality.” The short brief also elaborates on the problems that the court created by “inserting itself into the Justice Department’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”
The submission comes days after nearly 2,000 ex-DOJ employees condemned the DOJ’s motion to dismiss the Flynn case, in what journalist Matt Taibbi called a «melodramatic group email somberly reported as momentous news.»
D.C. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order last Tuesday indicating he’ll soon accept «amicus curiae,» or «friend of the court» submissions — drawing immediate scrutiny and a planned ethics complaint against Sullivan, who had previously refused to hear amicus briefs in the case.
PIENTKA AND PRIESTAP MAY HOLD KEY TO UNDERSTANDING FLYNN BOMBSHELLS, GOP SAYS
The GOP amici are going up against a sealed amicus brief has already been submitted by a left-wing group known as the «Watergate Prosecutors,» urging Sullivan not to toss out Flynn’s guilty plea despite the Justice Department’s request. That group included Jill Wine-Banks — who previously advanced unsubstantiated collusion theories involving the Trump campaign and Russia — as one of its members. («Mueller can prove conspiracy with Russia beyond any doubt,» Wine-Banks previously wrote. She also claimed in 2017 that Flynn would receive «immunity for kidnapping as well as his federal crimes.»)
Judge Emmet Sullivan has a reputation for punishing Department of Justice overreach, including during the case against then-Alaska Republican Sen. Ted Stevens. (AP)
President Trump last week retweeted a post by the Twitter user Techno_Fog calling Wine-Banks a «Trump/Russia collusion nutter.» The post concluded, sarcastically: «Good job Judge Sullivan!»
On the recommendation of U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen, who served as an FBI agent for more than a decade, the Justice Department last Thursday moved to drop its case against Flynn. The stunning development came after internal memos were released raising serious questions about the nature of the investigation that led to Flynn’s late 2017 guilty plea of lying to the FBI as his legal fees mounted.
One of the documents was a top official’s handwritten memo debating whether the FBI’s «goal» was «to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired.» Other materials showed efforts by anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok to pursue Flynn on increasingly flimsy legal grounds.
It would not be unprecedented for the government to successfully move to dismiss a case after securing a conviction. In fact, Sullivan himself tossed the conviction of former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens in 2009, when it emerged the government had not produced a slew of exculpatory «Brady» material.
On Monday, retired federal judge John Gleeson, who was appointed by Sulivan to submit a brief arguing against the Justice Department‘s motion to dismiss the Flynn case, asked for oral arguments to take place following the submission of written briefs.
In a Monday court filing, Gleeson suggested a deadline of June 10 for his initial brief – to be followed by the Justice Department’s response as well as Gleeson’s reply to that response – and then oral arguments from both sides.
Gleeson has openly criticized the Trump administration’s handling of Michael Flynn’s case, raising concerns that he was selected to improperly bolster Sullivan’s efforts to keep the Flynn case alive even though both the government and defendant want it dismissed.
Sullivan has previously suggested Flynn may have committed treason, in a bizarre 2018 courtroom outburst, and seemingly confused key details about Flynn’s overseas lobbying work.
Then, last December, Sullivan accused Flynn’s legal team of plagiarism in a filing, saying they had «lifted verbatim portions from a source without attribution.» Flynn attorney Sidney Powell shot back that the claim «made no sense,» and that she relied on one of her own cases as well as a brief primarily written by a friend whom she cited.
