This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/14/michael-flynn-us-judge-ex-trump-aide-contempt-perjury

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
US judge asks if Michael Flynn should be held in contempt for perjury US judge asks if Michael Flynn should be held in contempt for perjury
(about 7 hours later)
Emmet Sullivan shows reluctance to let justice department drop prosecution of ex-Trump aideEmmet Sullivan shows reluctance to let justice department drop prosecution of ex-Trump aide
A US judge has signalled reluctance to allow the Department of Justice to drop its criminal prosecution of Michael Flynn, tasking a retired judge with advising on whether the former Trump administration official should face an additional criminal contempt charge for perjury. Michael Flynn could be charged with perjury as the fallout from Donald Trump’s attempt to exonerate his former national security adviser continues.
In a short written order, the US district judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington asked John Gleeson, a former federal judge in New York, to present arguments in the case as an amicus curiae, or friend of the court. The Department of Justice (DoJ) announced it was dropping its case against Flynn on 7 May, amid pressure from Donald Trump and his political allies. Flynn had testified under oath that he had lied to the FBI, while he also lied to the vice-president, Mike Pence, about his conversations with the Russian ambassador during the transition from the Obama to the Trump administrations, about a possible easing of sanctions for interfering in the 2016 election.
Sullivan said he was seeking Gleeson’s recommendation on whether Flynn should face a criminal contempt charge for perjury because he testified under oath that he was guilty of lying to the FBI but then reversed course and said he had never lied. The judge in Flynn’s case, however, on Wednesday asked a former federal judge to examine whether Flynn should face a criminal contempt charge for perjury, given Flynn later changed course and said he had not lied to the federal agency.
Sullivan also said he wanted Gleeson to make the case for why a motion to dismiss the Flynn case filed by the DoJ last week should be rejected. A spokeswoman for the department declined to comment. US district judge Emmet Sullivan, in Washington, said he had asked John Gleeson, a former federal judge in New York, to recommend whether Flynn should face a new criminal contempt charge for perjury. Gleeson has also been asked to make the case for why the DoJ’s motion to dismiss the Flynn case should be rejected.
The DoJ’s surprising decision on 7 May to drop its case against Flynn came after growing pressure from Donald Trump and his political allies who repeatedly accused the FBI of improprieties in how it handled the investigation. Flynn, a retired lieutenant general who served as an adviser to Trump during the 2016 campaign, pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about his interactions with Russia’s US ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, in the weeks before Trump took office.
Until then, the DoJ had defended the FBI’s actions in the case. However, later in the case Flynn switched lawyers and tactics, accusing the FBI of tricking him. In January this year Flynn sought to have his guilty plea withdrawn.
Flynn, a retired lieutenant general who served as an adviser to Trump during the 2016 campaign, pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about his interactions with Russia’s US ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the weeks before Trump took office.
However, later in the case he switched lawyers and tactics, accusing the FBI of tricking him and seeking to have his guilty plea withdrawn.
The attorney general, William Barr, revealed in February he had tapped Jeffrey Jensen, a federal prosecutor in Missouri, to work alongside career prosecutors to help review the case.The attorney general, William Barr, revealed in February he had tapped Jeffrey Jensen, a federal prosecutor in Missouri, to work alongside career prosecutors to help review the case.
Jensen ultimately recommended that Barr abandon the case, which the DoJ did in a filing on 7 May, saying that the FBI’s Flynn interview on 24 January 2017 that underpinned the charges was conducted without a “legitimate investigative basis” and that Flynn’s statements were not “material even if untrue”.Jensen ultimately recommended that Barr abandon the case, which the DoJ did in a filing on 7 May, saying that the FBI’s Flynn interview on 24 January 2017 that underpinned the charges was conducted without a “legitimate investigative basis” and that Flynn’s statements were not “material even if untrue”.
Since then, Barr has been criticised by Democrats and former career prosecutors, who said his actions amounted to improper political meddling and harm the integrity of the DoJ.Since then, Barr has been criticised by Democrats and former career prosecutors, who said his actions amounted to improper political meddling and harm the integrity of the DoJ.
Sullivan, known for his independence and willingness to go against any potential government overreach, had lambasted Flynn during his trial.
“Arguably,” Sullivan said, describing how Flynn had secretly been working for the Turkish government before he joined the White House, “that undermines everything this flag over here stands for.”
Sullivan said: “I’m not hiding my disgust, my disdain, for this criminal offense.”