Sidney Powell Absolutely Skewers Gleeson

Today both DoJ and the Flynn team filed their replies to the excessively lengthy brief by Sullivan's "intemperate Amicus." The reply briefs basically cover the same legal ground as was previously done, with Sidney Powell for Flynn placing considerable emphasis on the government misconduct. Here are links to the two briefs:

GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO COURT APPOINTED AMICUS CURIAE, THE HONORABLE JOHN GLEESON (RET.)

GENERAL FLYNN’S BRIEFIN OPPOSITION TO AMICUS

To my way of thinking Powell's emphasis makes sense. It's hard to imagine a judge possessed of a conscience not being moved by page after page documenting the baseless prosecution of Flynn. If any of the three judges were disposed to allow this travesty to continue the one-two of binding precedent plus overwhelming evidence of government misconduct should force those judges to reconsider.

Powell finishes her brief with a sort of coup de grace (pp. 29-30):

CONCLUSION

 A federal judge once wrote:

[A] prosecutor can do justice by the simple act of going back into court and agreeing that justice should be done. * * * 

It is easy to be a tough prosecutor. Prosecutors are almost never criticized for being aggressive, or for fighting hard to obtain the maximum sentence, or for saying "there's nothing we can do" about an excessive sentence after all avenues of judicial relief have been exhausted. Doing justice can be much harder. It takes time and involves work, including careful consideration of the circumstances of particular crimes, defendants, and victims—and often the relevant events occurred in the distant past. It requires a willingness to make hard decisions, including some that will be criticized. 

This case is a perfect example. * * * 

By contrast, the decision []he has made required considerable work. Assistant United States Attorney ... had to retrieve and examine a[n] ... old case file. ... He requested and obtained an adjournment so his office could have the time necessary to make an extremely important decision. United States Attorneys' offices work with limited resources. The effort that went into deciding whether to agree to vacate [two counts against defendant] could have been devoted to other cases. * * * 

This is a significant case, and not just for [the defendant]. It demonstrates the difference between a Department of Prosecutions and a Department of Justice. It shows how the Department of Justice, as the government's representative in every federal criminal case, has the power to walk into courtrooms and ask judges to remedy injustices.[17]

For these reasons and those stated in our other briefs, the only lawful action this court can take is to dismiss the case with prejudice on the Government’s motion and vacate the plea. There never should have been so much as an investigation—much less an assassination by political prosecution of General Flynn—a distinguished patriot of thirty-three years of exemplary service in total devotion to this country.

[17] United States v. Holloway, 68 F. Supp. 3d 310, 311, 316 (E.D. NY 2014) (Judge John Gleeson applauding U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch for moving to vacate two counts of three counts against a defendant who had stolen three cars at gunpoint and received an extreme sentence).