Democrat Law Professor Turley Speaks Out Against Judge Sullivan’s Decision to Bring in Retired Judge, Float Perjury Charge Against Flynn

Judge Emmet Sullivan

Judge Emmet Sullivan appointed a retired Clinton Judge to fight back against Trump’s DOJ, US Attorney General William Barr and General Flynn.

The Justice Department dropped its case against General Mike Flynn last Thursday after bombshell documents released proved he was framed by Comey’s FBI.

But Judge Sullivan on Tuesday extended the case by soliciting amicus briefs to allow for public comment on Flynn’s criminal case.

On Wednesday, Judge Sullivan took his unethical behavior to a whole other level.

Judge Sullivan today appointed retired Clinton judge John Gleeson to argue against the government’s motion to dismiss the charge against Flynn and to look at whether Flynn could be held in criminal contempt for perjury.

Recall, Democrat law professor Jonathan Turley on Friday schooled Barack Obama on his ‘leaked’ complaints against the DOJ’s decision to drop the charges against Flynn and legal precedent.

In the “call” which appears totally set up, Obama is concerned about the rule of law and claimed Flynn was hit with a perjury charge (he wasn’t) — Flynn previously plead guilty to making a false statement to the feds.

Curiously, Judge Sullivan all of a sudden wants to hit Flynn with a perjury charge.

Is this just a coincidence?

Jonathan Turley came out against Judge Sullivan’s dirty political move on Wednesday evening.

“Consider the implications for many cases where defendants seek to withdraw pleas due to prosecutorial abuse. It would create a threat of a judicial charge even when prosecutors agree with defendants,” Turley said.

…but considering a new charge based on Flynn’s effort to withdraw his plea. Consider the implications for many cases where defendants seek to withdraw pleas due to prosecutorial abuse. It would create a threat of a judicial charge even when prosecutors agree with defendants.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 14, 2020

“These extraordinary moves by the court are increasingly discomforting. This is a single charge where significant jail time was neither warranted nor expected,” he said.

…These extraordinary moves by the court are increasingly discomforting. This is a single charge where significant jail time was neither warranted nor expected. The Court’s effort to import arguments and explore new charges could be raised on appeal given the prior record…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 14, 2020

The Court appears too invested in the punishment of the defendant.

…there comes a point where Source: The Gateway Pundit