Partner, John Gleeson, Solomon discussed on Eric Harley and Gary McNamara


You I just had a play that just that was exactly my other partner retired federal judge John Gleeson has openly criticized the trump administration's handling of the Michael Flynn case raising concerns that he was selected to improperly bolster Solomon separate to keep the Flynn case alive even though both the government and the defendant wanted to dismiss you and I looked and and went through cook first off this is bizarre is to break this down just as simply as we possibly can what whether it's a bit you know looking at this the judge doesn't say specifically walked the perjury is right it seems as if most legal experts are looking at the same the judge believes that beat that Michael Flynn of retracting his guilty plea basically worry said I'm guilty I'm not saying I'm not guilty amounts to perjury yeah and so he wants to bring in another judge to see if the other judge believes it rises to that level and then allow the Amigas reefs so everyone in the public can join them and every you liberal legal group out there says yes this is perjury in this particular case this is the most bizarre thing I've ever seen in the court system in the federal courts well I mean again if if you look at the order by the judge adult Solomon I came down yesterday essentially bringing in a retired judge that being judge Gleason to help judge Sullivan find if there's any perjury here that rises to you know criminal level what does that tell you well first of all a couple of things and the question I first at is why wouldn't judge judge Solomon have issued a concern at the moment that that event occurred in the process where is it that the defense team or the defended himself committed perjury and when that happened was there not a warning by the judge because if you look at a contempt is the only prosecutorial power that a judge has and Solomon is desperate because he's angry that the department of justice is dismissing this case so now he's at first he'd send up the bat signal to see if anybody else could help anybody else that has a problem with this get in line which is bizarre and then issued the order yesterday to bring a retired judge judge Gleason and to help him find quite possibly something that the court could act on and that would be content and they're not going to go in there it's not going to go anywhere because there is nothing there is they've got zero as you pointed out Gleason who wrote the piece and the opinion piece and in The Washington Post on Monday he didn't argue the merits in that opinion piece no not at all in fact I was all political limit limit let me just read it change because right and you're making the point yeah there's a there's been nothing regular about the department's efforts to dismiss the Flynn case from the record reeks of improper political influence this is from Gleason who's not gonna help judge Sullivan this is an op ed piece in The Washington Post yesterday wasn't two days ago hours after the Monday yeah hours after the career prosecutor abruptly withdrew the department moved to dismiss the indictment indicates filing signed by only an interim U. S. attorney a former aide to Attorney General William Barr Barr had installed in the position months before the department now says it cannot prove its case but Flynn has already admitted his guilt to lying to the FBI and the court accepted the plea the purported reasons for the dismissal clash not only with the department's previous arguments in Flynn's case work sure the court of an important federal interest in pushing Flynn's dishonesty and interest in how it dismisses as insubstantial but now also with argumentative routinely made for years and similar cases not involving defendants close to the president as you notice he doesn't talk about any specific in this case out he doesn't talk about that the differences here that the prosecution in essence has been overruled by a review by the top prosecutors right by the head honcho prosecutor and there've been specifics that bar has laid out no where does Gleason no where in in his op ed piece does he come out and say he says that he's basically making the accusation bars political but if you want to make that case just don't say bars political come out and say don't say bars political because this is somebody who's worked with before well well for god sakes and nobody would ever prosecute anybody because everybody the law can be like radio everybody works with you work with everybody in radio at least once in so that's a dumb argument from Gleason to begin with the argument should be when Flynn says of exculpatory evidence was kept from the judge that's false hello also peel off the the comment of being just an interim it it doesn't matter does do do they have the authority as a prosecutor in that in that case yeah the answer is yes and so let's get back to the merits quit trying to because he's not picking here at trying to take away essentially chip away at the credibility of the prosecutor in this case and also the connection to trump and it's just the good old boy network and they're just doing it to get planned out well the fact of the matter is this is that as the judge you had an opportunity on Monday in your piece in The Washington Post to make your case on the merits and you fail drastically no where did you mention the specifics not as to why legally legally right is wrong and and so that's something that would be the one point you know right there is I. as I as I just brought up is there any substance to the exculpatory evidence right is is he wrong on that was a sculpture was all the exculpatory evidence given well the judge can't make that point right can you make the point the bars wrong when Barr says look whether he lied or not and that's still up in the air based on the fact that we don't have the original three oh two right well you know I go to the the the agents right right where where right exactly where where he light were relied to the agents that you know Hey that's up in the air but it really whether he lied or not doesn't actually matter because we reviewed this case and will review what we realized that it wasn't material we now know with the evidence it does come in we know what call me did we know the department of justice was furious and call me for going around the normal protocol we know that they discussed whether they should or not whether they should make it just a casual conversation in essence get him in a perjury trap or whether we should tell a look this is part of an investigation and and so we just want you know was part of an investigation where he would know what that point okay I can't lie it was the only thing that we said before any judge understands this if a female FBI agent says door husband honey in my fat and he says no she cannot charge him with lying to an FBI agent because nothing is material there isn't enough material to get no I'm sorry I did nothing is material and that's the case here it was a friendly conversation now with the FBI agents who we thought was do we're doing an investigation right these were his peers yes yes these are people high up in the FBI he was his own national security and so does does does judge Gleason did he bring that up and say well no that's bogus because of this nope nope didn't address any of the legal points whatsoever by doing so the perception and it's a legit perception of this judge the retired judge now helping Sullivan to whether this is perjurer not based on this article he wrote two days before shows he's not acting as a judge but as a political hack anybody in law anyone tell me where I'm wrong on this well again I mean you you look at that how he writes that Howard describes the individuals involved get to the case get to the facts good and and and and it goes after the the again the personalities of people involved the only person that's involved that's relevant here in terms of of being a person is the defendant first and foremost but really that's based on the actions of the defendant in one of the claims what's the evidence what's the exculpatory evidence show and what were okay and we're also wears the precedent in terms of reversing out of a guilty plea where is the where's the evidence in terms of exculpatory evidence when you have a new change of of the in power in any department prosecutorial department this case the department of justice where they look at and say no we believe that our our colleagues who were in charge before us did not do their job properly or could not prove the case and we don't believe there is approved for the case and so we're going to dismiss that as this is not the first time this has happened it's not and and Gleason does it Sullivan knows Sullivan's reaching Solomon's desperate I'll find something that is just I mean it when you think about it and I don't think anybody ever because it was one of worst going here and almost insect skews me he's gonna try to make the case that a client who pleaded guilty because of prosecutorial misconduct that do you know that and that's why he's in changes because your proscar misconduct or not in another reasons that because he said yes I'm guilty but now say no I'm not guilty that that's going to be called treason right well good luck with that if that's such the federal president across all this land right I mean this is this is the most bizarre thing I thought we we talked about earlier Margot Cleveland of the federalist dot com said her prediction is the department justice will follow a writ of mandamus and seek reassignment on remand which is go to the higher than him in the federal courts to say look you need to stick to what your job is this isn't your job your job is to judge your job is not to you know if you believe that that that injustice being done what do you make the ruling in your court and you don't go out and you don't you get a Metis briefs from the public at large and and even Gleason has at all yes it's legit these going to the public at large no it's absolutely in no this is this is a this is a criminal case but what she's saying is they're going to go for that that rate that says look you've got to abide by this job and then look for reassignment right they're gonna try to they're going to they just that's what she predicts the department of justice will say look we of this and this isn't the lawyer this is the defense lawyer this is department of justice saying the judges and doing his job right ordered to do his job and we're seeking reassignment we want another judge right and this isn't the defense and I wonder again you when I looked I looked at city Paul's Twitter mmhm having nothing there nothing how will they respond to what is really gonna be an interesting day well because it works certainly to her clients benefit of the department of Jews justice is working to that end if it's true that that's what they're going to.

Coming up next