Here’s Why Judge Sullivan Can’t Legally Punish Michael Flynn For ‘Perjury’
Sullivan should not embark on any contempt proceeding against Michael Flynn. Doing so would be a misuse of his contempt power.
By Leslie McAdoo Gordon
May 18, 2020
Stunning developments in the criminal case of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn exploded onto the national scene the past two weeks. First, the government moved to dismiss the case, a one-count plea for allegedly making false statements to the FBI.
Then the trial judge, Emmet Sullivan, issued an order permitting people and groups claiming to have an interest in the matter to file briefs about whether he should grant the government’s motion. Further, Sullivan appointed a retired federal judge, John Gleeson, to act as amicus curiae (friend of the court) to present opposing arguments to the government’s motion.
Much has been and will be written about these developments, but somewhat lost in the uproar they’ve caused is the second portion of the order appointing Gleeson, which directs him to advise Sullivan on whether he should issue a show-cause order to Flynn for criminal contempt for perjury.
I can save Gleeson the trouble. The controlling legal authority from the Supreme Court holds that contempt power cannot be used to punish people for making statements, even under oath, that the judge deems false.
more
https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/18/heres-why-judge-sullivan-cant-legally-punish-michael-flynn-for-perjury/
