Judge considers contempt charge for Flynn
WASHINGTON — The judge presiding over Michael Flynn’s criminal case appointed a retired jurist Wednesday to evaluate whether the former Trump administration national security adviser should be held in criminal contempt.
The judge’s order is the second signal in as many days registering his resistance to swiftly accepting the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss all charges against Flynn.
In his order, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan appointed former federal Judge John Gleeson as an amicus curiae — or friend-ofthe-court — and asked him to explore whether Sullivan should hold Flynn in “criminal contempt for perjury.”
Flynn pleaded guilty, as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, to lying to the FBI about conversations with the then-Russian ambassador to the United States during the presidential transition period.
As part of the plea, he had to admit in court, under oath, that he lied to the FBI and violated federal law. It’s a crime to lie under oath in court.
Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec declined to comment on Sullivan’s order.
In January, Flynn filed court papers to withdraw his guilty plea, saying federal prosecutors had acted in “bad faith” and broken their end of the bargain when they sought prison time for him.
Initially, prosecutors said Flynn was entitled to avoid prison time because he had cooperated extensively with the government, but the relationship with the retired Army lieutenant general grew increasingly contentious in the months before he withdrew his plea, particularly after he hired a new set of lawyers who raised misconduct allegations against the government.
But the Justice Department filed a motion last week to dismiss the case, saying that the FBI had insufficient basis to question Flynn in the first place and that statements he made during the interview weren’t material to the broader counterintelligence investigation into ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.
Officials have said they sought to dismiss the case in the interest of justice, upon the recommendation of a U.S. attorney who had been appointed by Attorney General William Barr to review the handling of the Flynn investigation. But Sullivan, who has to approve the motion, made clear Tuesday that he wouldn’t immediately rule on the request and would let outside individuals and groups weigh in with their opinions in court documents.
The move caused an uproar among Trump’s critics and some legal experts who claim Trump is improperly interfering in Justice Department matters to help people with whom he has ties.
“I think this is a brilliant move by Judge Sullivan that is aimed at exposing how nonsensical Flynn and the DOJ’s position is,” said Mimi Rocah, a former federal prosecutor who’s running on the Democratic ticket for Manhattan district attorney. “Did Flynn lie when he said (twice) under oath that he was guilty or is he lying now when he says (and DOJ says) that he was entrapped and not guilty? He can’t have it both ways.”
On Monday, more than 2,000 former department officials who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations called for Barr to resign, saying his conduct was an assault on the rule of law. They urged the judge “to closely examine the department’s stated rationale for dismissing the charges — including holding an evidentiary hearing with witnesses — and to deny the motion and proceed with sentencing if appropriate.”
Gleeson co-authored an editorial in the Washington Post on Monday, questioning whether the Justice Department acted honestly in seeking the dismissal.
“There has been nothing regular about the department’s effort to dismiss the Flynn case,” the authors wrote in the editorial. “The record reeks of improper political influence.”