The name James Gleeson may be familiar to readers for reasons other than those Bill presents. He was appointed by Judge Sullivan in the Michael Flynn case to argue against the Department of Justice’s effort to end the prosecution and to consider whether Flynn should face a perjury charge for contradictory statements he gave to the court.
How did Gleeson get this assignment? He co-wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post attacking the DOJ’s motion to dismiss.
The "audition" went well and Sullivan gave Gleeson the gig.
The resulting amicus brief was one of the most hyperbolic and partisan I ever saw, and I was at the business for 25 years. It could conceivably be excused as advocacy on steroids (although I sure wouldn't), but Gleeson's handling of the Holloway case has to be a textbook on how an officer of the judicial branch should NOT behave. (The Sentencing Commission is, by statute, a component of the judicial branch).
"At that point, there is simply nothing left of the notion that Gleeson cares about judicial ethics."
Also leaves nothing left of the notion that 'legal ethics' of whatever kind mean anything. Let the ethics be incorporated into the statute book, complete with outside-the-DOJ prosecutors slavering for the blood of legals. Then, when the price of hamburger starts falling from all the product this particular legal meatgrinder is extruding, we can talk about 'ethics' e.g. should Stephen Breyer have leaked Alito's draft opinion to save ROE.
If this sounds like hard boiled cynicism it's only because it's hard boiled cynicism. Gleeson and Sullivan are swell examples of why such cynicism is needed.
The name James Gleeson may be familiar to readers for reasons other than those Bill presents. He was appointed by Judge Sullivan in the Michael Flynn case to argue against the Department of Justice’s effort to end the prosecution and to consider whether Flynn should face a perjury charge for contradictory statements he gave to the court.
How did Gleeson get this assignment? He co-wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post attacking the DOJ’s motion to dismiss.
The "audition" went well and Sullivan gave Gleeson the gig.
The resulting amicus brief was one of the most hyperbolic and partisan I ever saw, and I was at the business for 25 years. It could conceivably be excused as advocacy on steroids (although I sure wouldn't), but Gleeson's handling of the Holloway case has to be a textbook on how an officer of the judicial branch should NOT behave. (The Sentencing Commission is, by statute, a component of the judicial branch).
"At that point, there is simply nothing left of the notion that Gleeson cares about judicial ethics."
Also leaves nothing left of the notion that 'legal ethics' of whatever kind mean anything. Let the ethics be incorporated into the statute book, complete with outside-the-DOJ prosecutors slavering for the blood of legals. Then, when the price of hamburger starts falling from all the product this particular legal meatgrinder is extruding, we can talk about 'ethics' e.g. should Stephen Breyer have leaked Alito's draft opinion to save ROE.
If this sounds like hard boiled cynicism it's only because it's hard boiled cynicism. Gleeson and Sullivan are swell examples of why such cynicism is needed.
Gleeson will make mincemeat of what is left of the guidelines if approved.